U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2008, 03:54 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,193 posts, read 16,617,917 times
Reputation: 8850

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbob View Post
It may not happen in the next 10 years - and may not happen until things play out in Iraq - which may take a long, long time....

But how long do you think it will take before historians put Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney in the same category as Robert McNamara for the tens of thousands of Americans he wasted in Vietnam???

I feel that Iraq will only be stable so long as we have a very large troop presence there - but I also feel strongly that we never should have invaded, that Iraq was never a threat to us, and that we should leave as soon as possible.

To me, the eventual outcome will be that Iraq will either descend into Civil War and be split into 3 countries - one Shia, one Sunni and one Kurd.... , or we will have to stay there - forever...

These sects of Islam hate each other, and their hatred goes back 1,000 years... and we could stay there another 1,000 years and then leave and it would be the same result...

I think that the invasion of Iraq, and the real truth about how intelligence contrary to Bush's (the DECIDER'S) desires was actively suppressed by Bush, Cheney and others, will eventually see the light of day, and he will go down as possibly our worse President ever...

I think he will go down as the person who actively enabled Iran to gain a prominent role in the region and who let them develop into a nuclear power...
I don't know where you're getting your information, but you are way off the beam. Bush's intelligence came largely from the former administration, as when a new president takes office, he gets all the secret briefings, etc. and what he had would have been what Clinton had (and of course we know what that was in terms of WMD's).

Bush did not have some "intelligence" arrived at on his own, or by some special people in his administration. Many of his sources (Richard Clarke, for example) were Clinton administration "holdovers".

Bush had barely begun to put together a plan for dealing with terrorism when 9/11 happened. He had in the Spring of 2001 made a comment about not wanting to continue the policy of simply "swatting flies", as had been done in the past, but wished to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the problem. After all, nothing had been done after the USS Cole had been attacked (except the usual words about what a cowardly act it was, etc.).

Bush's response to terrorism, including taking out Saddam (a very smart strategic move) and the Bush Doctrine, have largely been brilliant. Has everything been perfect? Is everything in any war perfectly executed?

Much of what we have heard on the negative side (reports of atrocities, torture, etc.) has been false (thank you John Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (almost the entire Democrat Party), and a willing press; also thanks to MoveOn.org and others for their unending and insufferable supply of anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda for the sole purpose of discrediting Bush, discrediting America and demoralizing our troops.

The positives, such as the progress we were making in building support for our mission among the Iraqi people, the support we had from most of our allies (the ones that joined us initially), as well as the simple fact that we were beginning to see the light of day, we were winning, went largely unreported.

After the initial invasion of Iraq had been completed, when the first aircraft carrier returned with a crew of men proud of the mission they had carried out successfully for their Commander in Chief, and they had placed a banner on the superstructure proclaiming "Mission Accomplished [Sir]" (added because that is what was meant; they were speaking of their mission), Bush, the ship, and the crew of proud sailors and airmen were forever after ridiculed and shamed.

How dare these damn Democrats and liberals treat our proud and brave men with such a lack of respect for what they have done! They spit in their faces.

Liberals have no appreciation for what they have, and less for what it takes to maintain our liberty. Thank God we still have people willing to defend it, else we would be no different than any other nation in the world, and perhaps worse off than any, because we had once known what it meant to be free, and were not willing to do the hard job of defending it. Like Ishmael, who sold his birthright for a bowl of stew.

Perhaps you should stop "feeling" and start thinking. You might just come to some different conclusions. "Iraq was never a threat"? Like Iran isn't a threat, according to Obama. "Just small countries", he said. Yes, small countries with big and evil ideas, and the means to carry out their evil schemes, if we let them.

And just how do you arrive at your "pearls of wisdom" about the eventual outcome in Iraq? Once people get a taste of liberty, they aren't likely to return to what they had before (it's a human nature thing).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,381 posts, read 27,564,862 times
Reputation: 6540
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Media Matters links to everything it states, and if you dont like those links or want more, the information is there to search for elsewhere. Go give it a look, you'll be surprised.
Media Matters is also a far leftist website; hardly "non-biased" or anywhere near it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,381 posts, read 27,564,862 times
Reputation: 6540
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Why would I say she didnt have access if she did? Perhaps they all voted for the war because they access to those intelligence reports, which were cooked.

This is all over the place and no doubt more direct and earlier, but Ive got to get some lunch.

CNN.com - Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence - Feb 10, 2006

Annals of National Security: The Stovepipe: The New Yorker

Democrats to press for Iraq intelligence - The Boston Globe

Oh look, more Robb-Silberman info in that boston.com article -
The Robb-Silberman Commission -- appointed by the president -- is the only outside panel that has seen some of Bush's daily briefs. The panel reported in March that the briefs' ''daily drumbeat of reports" on Iraq's purported efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction left an ''impression of confirming evidence, even when the reports all come from the same source."

Though the intelligence in the briefs was not ''markedly different" than that in the intelligence summary provided to Congress, the language was ''more alarmist and less nuanced" than it was in the National Intelligence Estimate, the commission found.

''With their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, [the daily briefs] left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources," the report stated.
Great "sources" there! CNN, The New Yorker, The Boston Globe!

To repeat: Bush went by info supplied to him. Several investigations showed that the info was not distorted by his administration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,580,907 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
I don't know where you're getting your information, but you are way off the beam. Bush's intelligence came largely from the former administration, as when a new president takes office, he gets all the secret briefings, etc. and what he had would have been what Clinton had (and of course we know what that was in terms of WMD's).

Bush did not have some "intelligence" arrived at on his own, or by some special people in his administration. Many of his sources (Richard Clarke, for example) were Clinton administration "holdovers".

Bush had barely begun to put together a plan for dealing with terrorism when 9/11 happened. He had in the Spring of 2001 made a comment about not wanting to continue the policy of simply "swatting flies", as had been done in the past, but wished to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the problem. After all, nothing had been done after the USS Cole had been attacked (except the usual words about what a cowardly act it was, etc.).

Bush's response to terrorism, including taking out Saddam (a very smart strategic move) and the Bush Doctrine, have largely been brilliant. Has everything been perfect? Is everything in any war perfectly executed?

Much of what we have heard on the negative side (reports of atrocities, torture, etc.) has been false (thank you John Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (almost the entire Democrat Party), and a willing press; also thanks to MoveOn.org and others for their unending and insufferable supply of anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda for the sole purpose of discrediting Bush, discrediting America and demoralizing our troops.

The positives, such as the progress we were making in building support for our mission among the Iraqi people, the support we had from most of our allies (the ones that joined us initially), as well as the simple fact that we were beginning to see the light of day, we were winning, went largely unreported.

After the initial invasion of Iraq had been completed, when the first aircraft carrier returned with a crew of men proud of the mission they had carried out successfully for their Commander in Chief, and they had placed a banner on the superstructure proclaiming "Mission Accomplished [Sir]" (added because that is what was meant; they were speaking of their mission), Bush, the ship, and the crew of proud sailors and airmen were forever after ridiculed and shamed.

How dare these damn Democrats and liberals treat our proud and brave men with such a lack of respect for what they have done! They spit in their faces.

Liberals have no appreciation for what they have, and less for what it takes to maintain our liberty. Thank God we still have people willing to defend it, else we would be no different than any other nation in the world, and perhaps worse off than any, because we had once known what it meant to be free, and were not willing to do the hard job of defending it. Like Ishmael, who sold his birthright for a bowl of stew.

Perhaps you should stop "feeling" and start thinking. You might just come to some different conclusions. "Iraq was never a threat"? Like Iran isn't a threat, according to Obama. "Just small countries", he said. Yes, small countries with big and evil ideas, and the means to carry out their evil schemes, if we let them.

And just how do you arrive at your "pearls of wisdom" about the eventual outcome in Iraq? Once people get a taste of liberty, they aren't likely to return to what they had before (it's a human nature thing).
Beautiful post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,580,907 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
No matter how much spin you put on it... Bush misled the entire nation and got us into a war without reason
I think the spin is on your side. There is no evidence of what you claim. The world had the same intelligence and came to the very same conclusions. Even the UN, with their own inspectors and intelligence thought he had WMD.

How do you spin that?

btw, lest we forget; Over 70% of the American people supported going into Iraq based on all the intelligence, domestic and foreign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
22,381 posts, read 27,564,862 times
Reputation: 6540
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Beautiful post.
I agree. And with plenty of facts... something Liberals hate!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:36 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,734,702 times
Reputation: 6163
Well, I just recommend all of you go put this in your chimneys and smoke it: Merry Christmas Everyone !!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 05:14 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,081,824 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Many of his sources (Richard Clarke, for example) were Clinton administration "holdovers".
Nice Try, Clarke was a career DoD employee and if you want to play the hold over game, you might want to start with Clarke's role in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations.

Quote:
Bush had barely begun to put together a plan for dealing with terrorism when 9/11 happened.
That will come as news to everyone, unless of course you are referring to Ascroft's cutting of the counter-terrorism budget?

Quote:
He had in the Spring of 2001 made a comment about not wanting to continue the policy of simply "swatting flies",
As we have seen over the year, Bushian cavalier comments can never be assumed to be indications of deeper thinking, as we have seen, the depth of surface comments are as deep as the paper they are written on.


Quote:
as had been done in the past, but wished to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the problem. After all, nothing had been done after the USS Cole had been attacked (except the usual words about what a cowardly act it was, etc.).
You mean nothing was done by the Bush administration...

Quote:
Bush's response to terrorism, including taking out Saddam (a very smart strategic move) and the Bush Doctrine, have largely been brilliant.
It was the dumbest geo-political move of the century, unless of course you think that helping to install an Iranian back government and raising the strategic and political position of Iran in the region, or that establishing a "doctrine" that violates all precepts of international law, moral understanding of what constitutes a just war was brilliant.

I would address he rest of this piece of rehabilitative history (it doesn't even reach the standard of revisionist) but I have better things to do, like comment on Track Palin's drug use or something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 05:50 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,734,702 times
Reputation: 6163
Quote:
Bush had barely begun to put together a plan for dealing with terrorism when 9/11 happened. He had in the Spring of 2001 made a comment about not wanting to continue the policy of simply "swatting flies", as had been done in the past, but wished to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the problem. After all, nothing had been done after the USS Cole had been attacked (except the usual words about what a cowardly act it was, etc.).
******** testified the Bush Admin didnt do a thing for dealing with terrorism until 9/11. In the last months of his presidency the Republicans lambasted Clinton for being "obsessed with bin Laden." I didnt read the rest of that post but the above quoted thing caught my eye.

The note about CNN, boston.com, The New Yorker - ?! Why give yourself away as narrow-minded and incurious? Did someone tell you not to read news from these sources, that it's not really news, it's dangerous? (Ever wonder why someone might tell you NOT to read something?) They're not lying. Don't be afraid... CNN and the boston.com thing is just plain wire news, The New Yorker is Seymour Hirsch. In any case, the same information is available everywhere - look at the articles, select the information you want to know more about, Google it and pick the source that's most reputable according to your lights.

Oh well.

Last edited by delusianne; 12-20-2008 at 06:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 05:56 PM
 
Location: The Planet Mars
2,150 posts, read 2,308,599 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
I don't know where you're getting your information, but you are way off the beam. Bush's intelligence came largely from the former administration, as when a new president takes office, he gets all the secret briefings, etc. and what he had would have been what Clinton had (and of course we know what that was in terms of WMD's).

Bush did not have some "intelligence" arrived at on his own, or by some special people in his administration. Many of his sources (Richard Clarke, for example) were Clinton administration "holdovers".

Bush had barely begun to put together a plan for dealing with terrorism when 9/11 happened. He had in the Spring of 2001 made a comment about not wanting to continue the policy of simply "swatting flies", as had been done in the past, but wished to take a more proactive approach to dealing with the problem. After all, nothing had been done after the USS Cole had been attacked (except the usual words about what a cowardly act it was, etc.).

Bush's response to terrorism, including taking out Saddam (a very smart strategic move) and the Bush Doctrine, have largely been brilliant. Has everything been perfect? Is everything in any war perfectly executed?

Much of what we have heard on the negative side (reports of atrocities, torture, etc.) has been false (thank you John Murtha, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi (almost the entire Democrat Party), and a willing press; also thanks to MoveOn.org and others for their unending and insufferable supply of anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda for the sole purpose of discrediting Bush, discrediting America and demoralizing our troops.

The positives, such as the progress we were making in building support for our mission among the Iraqi people, the support we had from most of our allies (the ones that joined us initially), as well as the simple fact that we were beginning to see the light of day, we were winning, went largely unreported.

After the initial invasion of Iraq had been completed, when the first aircraft carrier returned with a crew of men proud of the mission they had carried out successfully for their Commander in Chief, and they had placed a banner on the superstructure proclaiming "Mission Accomplished [Sir]" (added because that is what was meant; they were speaking of their mission), Bush, the ship, and the crew of proud sailors and airmen were forever after ridiculed and shamed.

How dare these damn Democrats and liberals treat our proud and brave men with such a lack of respect for what they have done! They spit in their faces.

Liberals have no appreciation for what they have, and less for what it takes to maintain our liberty. Thank God we still have people willing to defend it, else we would be no different than any other nation in the world, and perhaps worse off than any, because we had once known what it meant to be free, and were not willing to do the hard job of defending it. Like Ishmael, who sold his birthright for a bowl of stew.

Perhaps you should stop "feeling" and start thinking. You might just come to some different conclusions. "Iraq was never a threat"? Like Iran isn't a threat, according to Obama. "Just small countries", he said. Yes, small countries with big and evil ideas, and the means to carry out their evil schemes, if we let them.

And just how do you arrive at your "pearls of wisdom" about the eventual outcome in Iraq? Once people get a taste of liberty, they aren't likely to return to what they had before (it's a human nature thing).
Continue to delude yourself as much as you want...

There are plenty of links posted above that Bush misled the Congress and the nation in getting us into a needless war - which took our eye off Al Qeuda in Afghanistan...

So you're one of those who believed Cheney when he said we would be welcomed as 'liberators'???

I'm sorry - you have a much greater ability to deceive yourself than I do...

Iraq is never going to be a democracy - the only thing that kept the lid on the cauldron was either a brutal dictator - or our troops... Once they are both gone - all h_e_l_l will break loose. The Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds will live peacefully together only when H_E_L_L freezes over.

Tell me about the 'Coalition of the Willing'???

Where are all our allies in this glorious war??? Care to face facts - we are in this becasue of a very deceptive PR job by Bush/Cheney... No one other than Bush (and his minions) consider this war worth fighting.

I'm POSITIVE that is the way historians will tell the story...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top