Bush states that he didn't know of the new information on Iran until last week.

Why not?

Check out this exchange in the presser to find that he just didn't ask, and preferred to go on his merry way prattling on about WWIII instead.

This begs an important question.

Not the one about why, how, What The Fuck, about Bush and his meandering relationship with the truth.

The question is this: why did this come out now? Why did the true knowledge about the Iranian weapon program emerge at this point?

We've had the last of the neo-cons beating the drum for war for a third front for nearly a year. A lot was riding on this and it wasn't seeming to get any relief upto and including Russia and China's declarations that Iran was within their sphere of interst.

Or, was that it? The means to go "oh - ah yes... that bit about they're trying to go thermonuclear on world peace...well just pretent along with us that we didn't really know....".

Who was about to say "enough is enough" and not let America get dragged into a third conflict (and likely the last before someone with the moxy brought down the killing blow on an overstretched military)?

How did this get out, now?

Regards,
etc.

My guess is, he was waiting to see if things in Iraq would finally turn in his favor. If they had, we'd be headed to Iran as we speak...and this information would still be buried.

Yep. According to our President, the leader of the free world, Commander-in-Chief, the deciderer, he was told last August that there was new intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. But they didn't tell him what it was, he didn't ask, and he only found out last week.

"Hey Mr. Presideident... we know something you don't know and we're not gonna tell you."

(even though a high ranking intelligence official has stated that the NIE has existed in something close to the final form just released for several months)

Riiiiight. So again we have nearly irrefutable evidence that he is either lying, or an idiot.

But it doesn't matter, because new information doesn't change the mind of "Whatever I believed on Monday I will still believe on Wednesday, no matter what happens on Tuesday" Bush.

Where is 'here'?

The only work that the Coward In Chief does is 'cut brush'

He must have been referring to his estate in Texas.

TPS-
re: "Who was about to say "enough is enough" and not let America get dragged into a third conflict (and likely the last before someone with the moxy brought down the killing blow on an overstretched military)?"

It had to be someone, or rather a host of 'someones' who couldn't be stopped from releasing (leaking?) this information.

By tomorrow there will be an all out attack to discredit the report.

"It had to be someone, or rather a host of 'someones' who couldn't be stopped from releasing (leaking?) this information."

A guest (a former ambassador) on Olberman tonight basically said that with most of the neocons out of the (mis)administration, Cheney doesn't have any allies strong enough to have shut this report down.

Hey, thanks for commenting. I hope RCADE has a headline up tomorrow to replace my lame attempt.

Gotta turn in...peace and love, and all that.

"I hope RCADE has a headline up tomorrow to replace my lame attempt."

I kinda like the headline. It actually says so much in just 4 little words! LOL.

G'nite.

What was once the most powerful and wonderful country in the world is led for eight years by a complete idiot. Afterwhich it lost its power and stature in the world.

It's like deja vu... I swear I remember something like this. Next thing you know Bush will be telling us that Iran has a connection with al qaeda. Oh... Wait a second... They already sort of did when they referred to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

The fact that Bush had a Press Conference this morning with minimal notice is the response to news uncomfortable to the administration. They always do this. It's part of their denial of reality. Iran stopped nuclear weapons research 4 years ago, so you accuse them of being ready to resume it.

Transparent, desperate, bullshitting diversion.

Welcome to the world of preemptive war. We no longer need a real reason to go to war. We just need to say that there could feasibly be a possibility of a chance for there to be a reason to go to war at some point in the future. Hopefully we've learned something and we're a little smarter than this. Somehow, though, I can't help but feel that Giuliani will somehow find a way to become president and we'll have to deal with at least 4 more years of this same bullshit.

With Bush crying Wolf so often regarding War, he's simply making the American public hesitant to go to war when the circumstances may deem it to be more of necessity.

Way to go man-boy!

The man-Boy who cried War (TM).

I hope RCADE has a headline up tomorrow to replace my lame attempt.


Brevity is the soul of wit. It deserves a place in the pantheon.

Regards,
etc

Bush was elated to hear that he was only 4 years behind reality this time. He's getting better!

FF for Alex!

Regards,
etc.

The question is this: why did this come out now? Why did the true knowledge about the Iranian weapon program emerge at this point?

Excellent post, PS. Reading this administration is becoming an art akin to Cold War "Kremlin Watching". The day Bush leaves office, a lot of stories are going to come to light about the inner workings of this adminstration, and I doubt any of them are going to improve Bush's image.

I think the most likely scenario is that the intelligence agencies have watched this run up to attacking Iran and felt they had to do something to stop it. Cherry-picking info to justify your policy goes against everything the intelligence services stand for, and they've had a front row classified seat to watch the results. There's no way they were going to let it happen again if they could avoid it by just releasing unclassified information. It kind of makes you wonder what else they may know.

Disloyal? Well, disloyal to Bush, but then, they didn't take an oath to protect and defend Bush. Memo to future Presidents: be careful who you scapegoat for your own mistakes.

Bush finally figured out "Don't ask, Don't tell" was supposed to be about?

Words that start with (i):
idiot
imbecile
incompetent
impeachment

Feel free to add you own. Believe me, there's room for more and I didn't want to be a hog.

Disloyal to Bush?

Well could be. But then, who is the patriot? The one that subsumes his love of country to a petty tyrant and king?

Or, the one that says "give me liberty or give me death"?

There were (and still are) patriots who know what America is, and means to the greater good of this little democracy experiment we all have going around the globe.

I think they're the ones, down deep, in the environs of the Pentagon, State, a hundred other offices.

I think you are absolutely right Argh. You called it well.

Regards,
etc.

You guys are better than Comedy Central. Admittedly, not too hard these days. But for all I hear about "the neocons drumbeat to go to war" and "the administration of preemptive war" and "run up to attacking Iran" blah blah blah blah blah. I remember countless posts predicting war with Iran just before the 2006 elections. The just after. Then by Christmas. Then by Spring. You guys have cried wolf so manyt times about the "imminent" US attack on Iran that Ahmadinejad might stay up at night, wondering if you guys know something. Obviously not.
For all the BS you guys throw around, you have less credibility than anyone. ANYONE. If the neocons really ran the administration, wouldn't the bombs have already fallen? Or maybe that's not really what the so-called neocons want? Or maybe neocons only exist in your lunatic little minds?

That's what I think. There are no neocons. There is no neocon agenda. The intelligence community is made up of the same collection of ass-covering misfits that have misunderstood the Middle East since Dulles' day. The same intelligence community that has presented reports documenting Iraqi WMD's, and who has all along been saying the same of the Iranian kind, now reverses themselves and says, OOPS! We were wrong (again). We think this might be right.

So . . . it must be Bush's fault. Right? Or, better still--the intelligence community issued this report because they were concerned about the drumbeat of war over Iraq, or some dumbass thing Argh says. So do they have a program, or not? Sounds like you don't really know, or care, but that the intel community issued a SNIE based on . . . political considerations? Is that what you're really saying?

What a bunch of dumbasses.

I wonder if he fired the guy who fucked up and broke this news to him.

Don't know why you would think that. Nobody in the so-called intelligence business got fired over 9/11, which was the most comprehensive intelligence failure in American history, with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor. Nobody got fired for saying that Iraq had an active WMD program. Why should someone be fired for saying Iran doesn't have one? I always believed that one benefit of having a Republican CEO-type president was that if you didn't perform, you would lose your job. Reagan didn't waste any time in letting go thousands of air traffic controllers. Since then, government employees have honed their survival skills, and now it's impossible to fire them for anything. Intelligence failures that result in terrorist groups crashing planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon? Ah, let's promote the guy in charge of the whole thing. Intelligence reports that said that Saddam has an active, verifiable WMD program which was one of the reasons the country went into war? No problem.

RIR, so what exactly is your solution? Do we give up intelligence gathering altogether, and just go with Dubya's gut feelings? The 24hr circle-jerk fantasies of the American Enterprise Institute (you know, where the keep the NeoCons)? Are we supposed to just pray, and hope God sends us some GPS coordinates?

We're never going to be 100% on intelligence. That much is a given. But there's a distinct difference between not having enough information or reading it incorrectly, as in 911, and just trimming and editing the info to fit your preconceived conclusions, as in Iraq. We need to trust that the people in charge are actually TRYING to get it right. We simply can't trust Bush.

Bush knowingly lied to the American people in a State of the Union Address about the Nigerian uranium. He hides it behind claims of incompetence and bureaucratic SNAFUs, but he lied. Anybody who's ever caught a five year old with his hand in the cookie jar can recognize it.

Most of the other rationales they used were tissue thin and would have fallen apart if anybody had seriously questioned them. The Aluminum tubes? Nothing special, not centerfuge parts, according to the National Science Foundation. Besides, Saddam would have needed hundreds of thousands. Bush wasn't interested in the truth, though, and he certainly wasn't interested in telling it.

He lied then, he's lying now, and he will certainly lie in the future. The big difference between his lies and a regular politician's lies though, are that Bush is getting people killed and hurting our national security with his lies. He has to lie, though, since his deluded version of reality doesn't match up with the facts, so the facts have to be bent, hidden, and distorted, and their messengers shot.

Ask not for whom Poppy weeps.

He weeps for Jr.

(My apologies to Ernie H.)

Rice said that the latest U.S. intelligence estimate did not mean that Washington no longer considered Tehran a threat and urged the international community not to back down at the U.N. Security Council on pressuring Iran to halt its activities that could produce the ingredients for an atomic weapon.

"If the neocons really ran the administration, wouldn't the bombs have already fallen?"

Interesting point RiR -

And one that has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion in the media lately. It seems to be fairly common knowledge that there has been a conflict between Rice and Cheney over how tough to be with Iran.

Cheney had been the leader of the push for military action, backed by the neocon members of the administration. But most of the most prominent neocons are gone now and Cheney doesn't have the base of support. Rice's point of view has been prevailing more and more.

"Rice said that the latest U.S. intelligence estimate did not mean that Washington no longer considered Tehran a threat "

Folks in Washington who know how to build nuclear weapons: "no threat"

Folks in Washington who can't even pronounce nuclear: "threat"

I always believed that one benefit of having a Republican CEO-type president was that if you didn't perform, you would lose your job.

Posted by rightisright

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!


You got that backwards RiR. Bush fired the ones that insisted on telling him the truth, and rewarding those who just told him what he wants to hear.

That is, of course, how this happened....

Intelligence failures that result in terrorist groups crashing planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon? Ah, let's promote the guy in charge of the whole thing.

Posted by rightisright

Watching Bush yesterday and now watching the pile-on by everybody not carrying his water, the conclusion is inevitable: Either this guy really is stoopid, or he should be handed a special award at next year's Oscar ceremonies. Preferably by Dustin Hoffman, who could say, "George, I thought I'd done it in 'Rain Man,' but you've got me beat all to hell."

"George, I thought I'd done it in 'Rain Man,'"

I'm an excellent President. Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner."

"If you take at face value what the president is saying, his spy chief, Mike McConnell, comes in to the president and says, "Mr. President, we've got some important new information on the Iran nuclear front." And the president apparently says, okay. And then he doesn't ask him what the information was."

You read this and listen to his press briefing and you think you must have misunderstood something. So you read it again and you watch the video again and both are saying exactly what you thought they were.

So either Bush knows that a five-year old could figure out he is lying and doesn't care. Or that it really did happen something like that but saying so would make him look even worse than lying about it. Or he's just a useless, incompetent idiot. Whichever way you look at it allowing the presidency to fall into such hands was a really bad idea and there's still 13 months of it to survive.

Cheney had been the leader of the push for military action, backed by the neocon members of the administration. But most of the most prominent neocons are gone now and Cheney doesn't have the base of support. Rice's point of view has been prevailing more and more.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

So you're saying that Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran. Do you have any speeches, any links whatsoever, that illustrate this point? And who are his allies who are "the most prominent neocons" who are gone from the administration now? And by the way--I thought Cheney was really running the White House. Isn't that what you libs tell me on here, ad nauseam? That Bush is just a stooge for Cheney and the Haliburton boys?

It's just hard for me to keep up with all the conspiracy theories and the intrigue. Good thing I have clever guys like you to help me out.

RIR, so what exactly is your solution? Do we give up intelligence gathering altogether, and just go with Dubya's gut feelings? The 24hr circle-jerk fantasies of the American Enterprise Institute (you know, where the keep the NeoCons)? Are we supposed to just pray, and hope God sends us some GPS coordinates?

We're never going to be 100% on intelligence. That much is a given. But there's a distinct difference between not having enough information or reading it incorrectly, as in 911, and just trimming and editing the info to fit your preconceived conclusions, as in Iraq. We need to trust that the people in charge are actually TRYING to get it right. We simply can't trust Bush.
* * * *

Here's your problem when you go off with stuff like this: George Bush was just the most recent politician to claim that Hussein had an active WMD program. Bill Clinton, his Secretary of Defense and State, his Vice President, and his First Lady were all giving speeches as recently as 2003, saying the same thing. They, too, relied on the same intelligence estimates. Were they LYING? Were Bill Clinton and Al Gore lying to Congress when they announced Saddam was a threat, had used WMD's, and was building more? How about when Madeline Albright said it? Or Hillary?
You guys keep chasing your tails over what Bush knew and what he didn't, what his aides told him was the best intelligence available and what he made up, whole cloth. But if you're going to play that game, dial it back a few months: Was Bill Clinton lying in his address to the UN?

Or do you suppose it's possible that the Intelligence agencies screwed up? That they didn't really know, they couched their language in typical, bureaucrateeze CYA mode, but decided that as far as Saddam was concerned, better safe than sorry? Do you REALLY BELIEVE that Bush would LIE about the WMD's, knowing that, upon arrival in Iraq, they wouldn't find any?

In fact, why didn't we find any? If he's the congenital liar you claim he is, why weren't they able to "find" a couple out in the desert? Why didn't the American Enterprise Institute boys get together, buy a couple of nukes on the black market, and "hide" them in a place they knew would be found?

See, if Bush is everything you say he is, that's just what would have happened.

Believe what you want, though. Apparently the AEI managed to dupe Bill and Al and Madeline and Bill and Hillary too! Uh oh--are they "neocons" too? OMG!!!!!! You're hysterical. Too funny. "Bush Lied!! People Died!! Neocons Suck!!" And so on. Still, I'll admit it's a better bumper sticker than "Clinton Must Have Lied If Bush Did But We Went Into Iraq Anyway For Weapons That Weren't There And It's A Shame Because Saddam Was Really An Okay Guy After All And The Neocons Are Running The White House Through Dick Cheney And The Neocons Were Responsible For 9/11 Anyway And If You Don't Believe Us You Can Go To WhatReallyHappenedDotOrg to Find Out For Yourself But Dick Doesn't Have The Power Anymore And Iran's Next In 2005 Or Summer of 2006 Or The Fall Of 2006 Or First Thing Before The Elections of 2006 Or Right After The Elections of 2006 But Then This Report Came Out Which Means The Administration Has Been Wrong About Iran All Along But Also Means The Administration Was Right About Not Attacking Iran All Along Even Though The Israelis And Swiss Say The Report Is Wrong And the Iranians Are Still Building A Bomb And So Bush Is Going To Try to Foment A Constitutional Crisis And Not Step Down In 2008 Because The "Neocon" Agenda Of Privatizing The National Government And Invading Iran Couldn't Have Been Completed Yet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah is right up Your alley RIR.

Larry Mohr

Wow! RiR is one sad, angry man. I guess this latest news on the duplicity of his hero/god was just too much.

And, of course, being unable to actually defend the hero/god with any thing resembling facts, its much easier to resort to a rant. Irrelevancy welcomes you with open arms RiR.

RisR seems to be melting down, look out cuz if he blows it is going to be messy!

Its been being discussed publicly for months that there has been a conflict between Rice & Cheney how to deal with Iraq. Where have you been RiR?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

I've been right here, waiting for an attack on Iran. Because Dick Cheney really runs the White House, right? Isn't that what I hear on Air America every day? Or is Air America not an informed source?
Whether the Iranians are enriching uranium or not, they ARE supplying the insurgency in Iraq with weapons. If the Administration were as hawkish as you claim, shouldn't they have done something about that? If Dick Cheney really has as much power as you claim, the question stands.

Here's something maybe you haven't considered: there were no plans whatsoever to invade Iran. Even if they knew Iran was enriching uranium to build a weapons-grade bomb--they knew it wouldn't be completed for years, and it would by then be another President's problem. But it was important to step up the rhetoric, in the hope that Iran changed its behavior without having to resort to war. So they leak "discussions" from "insiders familiar with the discussion" to the media, knowing they'll be printed, and knowing they'll be read in Teheran. Now, assuming you believe this SNIE is true, a quick question: why DID the Iranians stop their program? They never admitted to having one in the first place, although we know they did. So why stop? Could it be the report is WRONG? Or is it also possible that Iran decided to wait out the Bush presidency, and NOT do anything that might provoke him, given what had happened to Afghanistan and Iraq?
That's a simpler explanation, wouldn't you say? Than that a bunch of guys from the American Enterprise Institute were long a bunch of crude oil calls and wanted to perpetuate a Middle East war, installed Dick Cheney as de-facto-Commander-in-Chief, and are moving troops around on a map? LOL. Whatever, though.

Haven't You been noticing the Bushites are flailing their arms and gnashing their teeth?? That Poisonous Bush Lemming Juice is on it's Midway point. The truth is getting to them and they don't know how to act nor react so they are wailing and flailing about cause the TRUTH done set in.

Larry Mohr

"the TRUTH done set in."

Normally it follows that "the truth shall set you free".

However, lately its been more like, "I'm melting...meltinggggggg. Oh what a world, what a world..."

Well I am reminded of Jonestown when His followers finally realized that He poisoned them and their guts started churning and they knowing they were screwed so they wailed and gnashed their teeth because they knew then that they were had. It has to be quite simular that it is today with Bushites and their consumption of the Bush Lemming Juice.

Larry Mohr

RisR forgets that the intelligence was leaded by someone who obviously wanted Bush and his administration look like liars. There was a reason they wanted to do that, and the most likely reason is that they did not want Bush to be able to "sell" another war while at the same time, once again, concealing intelligence which would have prevented that "sale."
Probably the CIA or the Joint Chiefs has had enough of the war monger in chief and figured it was time to kick the chair out from under him.
I am grateful to whoever did the kicking and you should be too.

"Because Dick Cheney really runs the White House, right? Isn't that what I hear on Air America every day? Or is Air America not an informed source?" -RIR


Not necessarily. Bush has little to no idea of what he is doing in the white house, just as Reagan and LBJ had no idea what they were doing. They all rely on advisors. Cheney is the #2 guy, he's smart enough to know what he's doing and has as much sway over Bush as some of the other advisors. It seemed that in the early days Cheney had more control because everytime the big 3 said something (Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) the president listened. Those 3 together can be pretty persuasive to a C student decider. Now Cheney is the only one left to push those arguments. Bush has more viewpoints to consider, and although they are usually still bad, it's not always going to be Cheney's way anymore.

I find it always best to listen to Bush's press conferences on the radio.

The words are the important thing, the visual dulls the effect somehow.

Yesterday's was classic. I did not know whether to laugh or cry or crash the car.

Oh Ted - you should have watched it on TV this time. The facial expressions and the body language were exquisite.

The only thing that might compare to the visual impact of this one is, maybe, Britney Spears at the VMA awards.

Probably the CIA or the Joint Chiefs has had enough of the war monger in chief and figured it was time to kick the chair out from under him.
I am grateful to whoever did the kicking and you should be too.

Posted by danni
* * * *

Oh. So the report is false?

You guys don't really think through anything, do you? If Bush lied about the WMD's--really LIED, not relied on faulty intelligence, but LIED--why didn't he make "arrangements" to find WMD's? And how do you draw the distinctions between Bush's statements vis a vis the Iraqi WMD program, and Clinton's? Were ALL THE CLINTON PEOPLE LYING TOO?

Government is incompetent. They publish reports all the time that contradict each other, are wrong, make wrong predictions. Look at the dumbasses in the Congressional Budget Office, who can't even get the next quarter's revenue projections right. Or the National Weather Service, who can't even tell me if it'll rain here on Friday? Or FEMA, whose mandate seems to be to force people to sit around and fill out a whole lot of forms? And BTW--all these things happen no matter who lives at 1600 PA Avenue.

But you hate Bush, so everything he does is a lie, and an agenda by the so-called "neocons". I heard you the first million times. And you don't look any smarter this time.

........******Bush: I Just Work Here ******.......

......status change from LIAR....to CONFIRMED LIAR ........

The only thing that might compare to the visual impact of this one is, maybe, Britney Spears at the VMA awards.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

You watch the VMA? What are you, like 18?

"You watch the VMA? What are you, like 18?

Posted by rightisright"

No, 17 1/2 you moron.

Ever heard of things being replayed on news and talk shows? Ever heard of Youtube?

Your posts reveal you don't really keep up with current events in government and politics, but I thought maybe pop culture would be your category. Guess not. Get out more, huh?

Ut Oh it's critical RIR invoked Clinton. Prepare sickbay. We have a critical one here.

Larry Mohr

"And how do you draw the distinctions between Bush's statements vis a vis the Iraqi WMD program, and Clinton's? Were ALL THE CLINTON PEOPLE LYING TOO?"

One slight distinction between them is that Clinton did not advocate invading Iraq.
I know it is a tiny difference but I just thought I'd mention it.

Bush is not only a lame duck, but daffy as well.

Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution? As one poster suggests, there was comflicting intel. However, Bush and Co. choose to err on the side of war.

Of course, as most of us will acknowledge, the Iraq War was planned well before 9/11 - first item on the new Bush administration's first cabinet meeting.

I'd just like to know what other wars were planned during Cheney's secret energy meetings.
Unfortunately that isn't a joke.

Psychology 101 - he didn't tell us if he passed it, did he?

In all fairness to Chimpy, he may have added "Tell Uncle Dick and stop bothering me" to his "ok."

The question is this: why did this come out now? Why did the true knowledge about the Iranian weapon program emerge at this point?

This report was requested by the Congress in 2006. If not for the DEMOCRATS pushing for it, it'd still be as top secret as the saudi royals' ties to alqueda.

Seymour Hersch had basically published the same info but was crapped on by the WH for it.

How did this get out, now?
Maybe someone should ask the French. They were pushing the hard line as much if not more than US.

If not for the DEMOCRATS pushing for it, it'd still be as top secret as the saudi royals' ties to alqueda.
The words of a partisan fool playing the role of a partisan idiot.

Of course, as most of us will acknowledge, the Iraq War was planned well before 9/11 - first item on the new Bush administration's first cabinet meeting.
Is that why in Bill Clinton said he supported the attack on Iraq in order to remove the threat of WMD's?
On May 19, 2003, Clinton declared, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Or was he in the cabinet meeting as well? And all the demoratic senators on the intel commtte must have been in the meeting.

AmericanUnity why do you make such an idiot of yourself?

SLICKSTER

Someone who deflects to Clinton 7 years after he left office is the real idiot.

Senators are shown the intel the WH wants them to see in case you missed the last few years.

Bye. Enjoy your day in La La Land

One more thing LICKSTER

After the U.N. Inspectors had unfettered access, Bush was the idiot for not letting them finish the job they begged TWO more months to finish. Bush didn't like their preliminary findings and couldn't risk them blowing his war plans now could he?

I for one am pissed I have to repay China the money Bush borrowed to fight the Iraq War.

OK Don't forget to have some cereal with your koolaid. Best not to pour it on top though.

Your posts reveal you don't really keep up with current events in government and politics, but I thought maybe pop culture would be your category. Guess not. Get out more, huh?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue
* * * *

You're right about the pop culture, which lately is a contradiction in terms. And I don't watch a lot of E or talk shows, so I missed the Britney Spears thing. I'll leave that to people like you, to keep me informed as to the goings-on in the lives of Britney and Snoop, and the latest conspiracy-du-jour from the Air America and 911Truth squads.
As to the rest, it's likely there's not a poster on here who is better apprised of governmental policy, international affairs, and especially economics and markets.
So, you do your thing, and I'll do mine.

""On May 19, 2003, Clinton declared, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.""

Er.....where is the sentence where he says he supports invading/occupying Iraq????

You make leaps of logic not supported by the very statements you post.

Someone who deflects to Clinton 7 years after he left office is the real idiot.
No deflection, you claim all this was planned in the first cabinet meeting? If that is the case, why would Clinton support it. He saw all of the same info Bush saw.

Senators are shown the intel the WH wants them to see in case you missed the last few years.
Then why did the Clinton WH lie?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

I'd just like to know what other wars were planned during Cheney's secret energy meetings.
Unfortunately that isn't a joke.

Posted by danni
* * * *

I know. That's what makes it funny.

Er.....where is the sentence where he says he supports invading/occupying Iraq????

Are you really that stupid or just in denial?

No deflection, you claim all this was planned in the first cabinet meeting? If that is the case, why would Clinton support it. He saw all of the same info Bush saw.

That didn't include 'on the ground' reports from the U.N. Inspectors did it?

Even Cheney said Saddam was boxed in on Meet the Press on September 16, 2001. Even though they said Saddam wasn't behind 9/11 they included him in the War Resolution as supporting Al Qaeda even though it was pretty well concluded that Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as a threat to his power.

Ah, well. This is America. We're all allowed our opinions - even though some hold opinions not supported by the facts.

LICKSTER

Where IS the sentence he supported invasion? The War Resolution was touted as a hammer to hold over Saddam's head to enable the WMD inspections to continue.

I'd quit inferring other posters are stupid or in denial. You're making yourself look like the fool.

Er.....where is the sentence where he says he supports invading/occupying Iraq????

At the onset of the war, Clinton repeatedly alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and needed to be taken out. A March 27, 2003 Iowa City Press-Citizen article reported that speaking before the University of Iowa, "Clinton, who voiced his support for the troops fighting in Iraq, said it made sense after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to become more concerned about Saddam Hussein's potential for producing and distributing weapons of mass destruction."

"It is...illogical to believe that [Iraq's weapons] stocks would not get into the wrong hands," Clinton said just days after the war began. "It's easier to deal with the production and spread of this stuff than deal with the aftermath."

On September 3, 2002, he told CNN: "I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it."

""On May 19, 2003, Clinton declared, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.""

Er.....where is the sentence where he says he supports invading/occupying Iraq????

You make leaps of logic not supported by the very statements you post.

Posted by danni

* * * *

Ah. I see. So it's okay to pass resolutions, but not okay to put your money where your mouth is. Kinda like in 1992, when Clinton said he would've voted with the majority to invade Kuwait in the event of a close vote, but that he agreed with the arguments of the minority. Or lately, when he says he was always opposed to the war, but apparently shared that with nobody else, and apparently had no problem with no-fly zones and economic embargoes--also acts of war, by the way.
Bill Clinton has been a more or less constant feature in American life for 16 years, and I still have no idea what he really believes about anything. I'm no fan of his wife, but at least she has the courage--sometimes--to back up the things she believes.
Your kool-aid, though.

LICKSTER

By the time we invaded the evidence was murky about the WMD programs. Clinton didn't get briefed as a former president, did he? Even the Senate got cherry picked summaries of intel reports.

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

Get over it. Find someone else to hate.

RiR

The inspectors DID get in the country didn't they?

Let's see.....WHO kicked them out....Hmmm Starts with B ends in H

Good link Slick.

By the time we invaded the evidence was murky about the WMD programs. Clinton didn't get briefed as a former president, did he? Even the Senate got cherry picked summaries of intel reports.

Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

Get over it. Find someone else to hate.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

No, I prefer to believe that Bill Clinton is a neocon puppet of the American Enterprise Institute. Those neocons--they're just everywhere, aren't they?

Clinton didn't get briefed as a former president, did he?
If you don't know the answer to this question, why are you debating the issue?

Even the Senate got cherry picked summaries of intel reports.
You know this is total BS. If you want to argue this, what about the statements made by Dem senators and NSA and Berger before Bush took office. They were consistent with the statements made by the same Dem senators after Bush took office.

LICKSTER

OK. Let's say I'm a detective investigating a murder. I'm SURE I have the right suspect until new information points at Suspect #1's innocence. If I'm a total schmuck, I still go after Suspect #1. If I'm principled, I wait until I know all the facts and then arrest the right suspect when I know who's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Bush is the schmuck who insisted Suspect #1 was guilty even when evidence started falling apart that Saddam possessed WMD's and the investigators were not reaching the conclusion Bush wanted.

Hey, read about the Taliban's resurgence in a country we invaded over FIVE years ago? You know, the country that actually DID harbor the Saudi terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks.

I just got back from NYC. I'll tell ya, all those from there who witnessed the attacks are pissed that Bush went after the wrong guy, and that Osama and Zawahir are still at large FIVE years later thumbing their noses at us.

Da Shrub is the HNIC and as such is the one at fault if something isn't right.

That being said, it is possible that his parents bare the blame for him being the broken wheel in this administration.

If just once they slapped his hand and said "Bad Shrubby, bad Shrubby".

"As to the rest, it's likely there's not a poster on here who is better apprised of governmental policy, international affairs, and especially economics and markets.

Posted by rightisright"

Almost forgot to give you your FF. Sorry.

OK. Let's say I'm a detective investigating a murder. I'm SURE I have the right suspect until new information points at Suspect #1's innocence. If I'm a total schmuck, I still go after Suspect #1. If I'm principled, I wait until I know all the facts and then arrest the right suspect when I know who's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Bush is the schmuck who insisted Suspect #1 was guilty even when evidence started falling apart that Saddam possessed WMD's and the investigators were not reaching the conclusion Bush wanted.

* * * *

So in your example, what am I to make of the previous lead detective on the case, who continues to make public speeches which blame Suspect #1?

Here's the dilemma the libs have found themselves in. To believe that Bush is the centerpiece of this giant conspiracy to invade Iraq for no good reason, you have to also believe that the liberal Senators, Congressmen, and former administration had to have been in on it as well. Either that, or they were unwitting dupes of the so-called neocons before anyone even postulated their existence.

Too, you've got another problem. If Bush is as evil as you pretend, why didn't they "find" WMD's? After all, if they can orchestrate the invasion of an innocent regime, how hard would it have been to grab a couple of nukes on the black market, and put them somewhere out in the desert?

"To believe that Bush is the centerpiece of this giant conspiracy to invade Iraq for no good reason, you have to also believe that the liberal Senators, Congressmen, and former administration had to have been in on it as well."

That is pure bull shit. Except for right wingers who deny the truth everyone knows that Bush had been given the authority to invade Iraq with the understanding that he would return to Congress before doing so and that it was intended as a tool with which to make Saddam understand the US was serious about insisting on the weapons inspectors being allowed to re-enter Iraq....which they were....and after which Bush did not return to Congress who would not have then supported his invasion...but you go ahead and make up your version of history though it doesn't fool anyone any more.

"Too, you've got another problem. If Bush is as evil as you pretend, why didn't they "find" WMD's?"

I think I will resurrect one of the arguments used by the anti-conspiracy theorists....you wouldn't have been able to keep the secret with the number of people required to "find" WMDs.
Also....Bush and the neocons already had their war, why did they even care if WMDs were found or not...for crying out loud...Bush made a big joke of the whole thing that year at the WH Press Corps dinner. He obviously didn't give a crap if they were found or not or how that made his justification for the war look. Hell, they outed a covert CIA operative with impunity and laughed about it.

from above...

"You got that backwards RiR. Bush fired the ones that insisted on telling him the truth, and rewarding those who just told him what he wants to hear."

This is the Hallmark of the Fundamentalist/Zealot Mind...the insistence of being right, the insistence on believing his version of history even when all of the data and knowledge on the matter would argue otherwise...

There is absolutely nothing rational about the
President's Decision making other than the fact
that it is,

"ultimately predictable, and decidedly
flawed"

Can't wait for him and his Corrupto Friends to
pack and get out of town...

P.S. I don't Heart Huckabee either, mark my words,
if he gets elected, it will be just as bad--another
state has lost it's IDIOT...

postulate and defend and pontificate all yo want. the fact is that the president of the u s looks like a total fool at the current time. He appears to be 2 faced, a liar and a manipulator of truth. he also looks as if he doesnt know what he is doing. it is as if he h=just found out that johnny didnt take the cookies. but he is going to punish johnny anyway because you know, at one time he thought about taking the cookies. sad sad sad

Too, you've got another problem. If Bush is as evil as you pretend, why didn't they "find" WMD's? After all, if they can orchestrate the invasion of an innocent regime, how hard would it have been to grab a couple of nukes on the black market, and put them somewhere out in the desert?

U.N Inspectors were not U.S. covert agents. Pretty hard to see your scenario as plausable.

Explain please why Bush kicked out the very inspectors who were begging for 2 more months. Sure woulda beat the heck outta the last 5 years and trillions of dollars and loss of life wouldn't it have?

I don't think the 'libs' have a problem at all. Next November will put the NeoCons in the grave once and for all.

Bush is too stupid to be the centerpiece of this giant conspiracy - he's a dupe. A guy who didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shiite when we invaded. Duh.

As to Cheney, why did he think we could accomplish invasion without a 'quagmire' with 150,000 forces when he said we'd have been mired in one with the 600,000 who were massed on Iraq's border in 1991?

Sorry man, but all your arguments are falling on deaf ears who have eyes who've read way too much the last 5 years to fall for any of the old arguments for invading Iraq when we did. Finish off Al Qaeda - sure. The world was for that. A job we never finished. And now a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Nice job by your neocon buddies for sure.

U.N Inspectors were not U.S. covert agents. Pretty hard to see your scenario as plausable.

* * * * *
I'm not talking about UN inspectors. I'm saying that if the whole thing is a neocon conspiracy, they could have bought a couple of nukes on the black market, planted them, and voila--see? The Iraqis had nukes all along. There were plenty of reasons to go to war in Iraq, irrespective of their pursuit of nukes. Why make that the key point of your argument, if you know that you'll be found out in the end?

I'm a proponent of Ocham's Razor. Which means that this is what I believe: Saddam's top government officials thought they had WMD's. Saddam acted as if he did, selectively allowing this site to be searched, but not that one, etc. The world's top intelligence agencies believed that he had them. The Clinton Administration believed he had them. Bush, too, believed he had them. And the idea of a nuclear weapon given off to Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the Taliban or any of the other groups that were supported by the Hussein regime was more terrifying a prospect than going in and finding they weren't quite as far along as we had thought. Simple. But now the 9/11 Truthers and the WatchingTheWatchers and the hysterical Air America crowd and the Dem politicians who always seem to manage to forget the things they said just a few short months prior all got together and said, Bush Lied People Died. And the lefties eat it up.

But it just doesn't survive scrutiny. Too many statements by the Clinton people, too many reports from too many intelligence officials, too many occasions of Saddam tossing out the inspectors, too many instances of Saddam using WMD's in the past. Free country--you can believe whatever you want. But your conclusions are unintelligent and irrational.

That is pure bull shit. Except for right wingers who deny the truth everyone knows that Bush had been given the authority to invade Iraq with the understanding that he would return to Congress before doing so and that it was intended as a tool with which to make Saddam understand the US was serious about insisting on the weapons inspectors being allowed to re-enter Iraq....which they were....and after which Bush did not return to Congress who would not have then supported his invasion...but you go ahead and make up your version of history though it doesn't fool anyone any more.

Posted by danni
* * * *

You're confusing two issues. My point is that the Senators and Congressmen and the Clinton Administration had access to the same reports and came to the same conclusions about the WMD program that the Bush people did. Unfortunately for you, they are on the record, repeatedly, saying that Iraq had a WMD program, and that WMD's must be denied them. Then you pretend these speeches never took place.
It's you with your head in the sand.

And by the way, how many non-binding UN and Congressional resolutions was Saddam supposed to be given? "We'll vote for Bush to have authorization to use force, but he needs to come back before . . . um . . . using force." Is that what you're saying?

If they were duped, why didn't they just cancel the war funding?

You're like watching a dog chase his own tail.

Bush stood up and lied. Again. All this other stuff is garbage.

The evidence was too strong and too many are pissed off about being used in the run up to the Iraq war.

Bush melted down in front of the cameras.

It was a horrible day for the United States. He is the President after all.

It was a horrible day for the United States. He is the President after all.

Posted by YAV at 2007-12-05 12:13 PM | Reply

Incorrect. Dubya may be President He does NOT make the United States of America. American CItrizens make up the United States of America.

Larry Mohr

But Larry, he is, embarrassingly enough, the public face of the United States to the rest of the world.

So it was indeed a horrible day for us. Again.

Bush plays the safe card again. It's better for him to appear stupid over and over than be caught in a lie. His "supporters" have never cared about the former and the latter could get him into real trouble. That's politics.

Bush plays the safe card again. It's better for him to appear stupid over and over than be caught in a lie. His "supporters" have never cared about the former and the latter could get him into real trouble. That's politics.

Posted by bellaspapa at 2007-12-05 12:29 PM | Reply

The Bushites never cared about the truth nor the facts so why should we start expecting it now.

Larry Mohr

*****Incorrect. Dubya may be President He does NOT make the United States of America. **Larry*****

...........he makes it lesser..........

Government is incompetent. They publish reports all the time that contradict each other, are wrong, make wrong predictions.





hahahahaha, so start a war!

god you are dumb

Al Baradei-NO EVIDENCE

Blix-NO EVIDENCE

Iraqi Nukes-PROVEN FORGERIES 1 month prior to invasion.

Bush KNEW Iraq was not a continuing threat.

PERIOD

"Then you pretend these speeches never took place."

I don't deny anything, Bush however denied that the weapons inspectors had indeed found the WMDs and destroyed them even though the weapons inspectors told him exactly that. You choose to pretend that the weapons inspectors never issued a report, that there was strong intelligence that there was still a major threat, that there was a nuclear program, etc.
You conveniently forget the Plame affair and other events that prove Bush knew there was no threat and instead used the pretend "threat" to justify an invasion planned before he was even elected to office. You seem to think that PNAC doesn't exist, that it wasn't signed by the planners of the invasion, that the Downing Street memos are imaginary.
It must be frustrating to see Bush attempt to repeat the same gambit to justify bombing Iran only to be "outed" by the very intelligence community that he used as the skape goat last time.

"My point is that the Senators and Congressmen and the Clinton Administration had access to the same reports and came to the same conclusions about the WMD program that the Bush people did."

I hear that quite a bit.

Unfortunately, it wasn't the Senators and Congressmen and the Clinton Administration which actually ordered the invasion of Iraq (and subsequentely screwed-the-pooch with the post-invasion aftermath).

Nope. That was what the Bush people did.

Hans

bush is the chief executive officer. In japan, he would have taken a sword by now. In the u s business world he would have been toast. he is an embarassment and an arrogant ass.

4 1 1 days to go.... I live for the world reaction the day after his "presidency" ends.

You guys have cried wolf so manyt times about the "imminent" US attack on Iran that Ahmadinejad might stay up at night, wondering if you guys know something. - RiR from somewhere up there...

Maybe, just maybe, all the public outrage is precisely what's kept us from going to war in Iran in the first place. The government does, after all , have to sell the war to the public first.

"As to the rest, it's likely there's not a poster on here who is better apprised of governmental policy, international affairs, and especially economics and markets.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-12-05 10:48 AM"

Wow. RightIs is a little full of herself today, isn't she? Do you pull your own teeth and set your own fractures too?

bella, i happen to gree with you and these idiots no longer could sell a $5 bill for fifty cents

"As to the rest, it's likely there's not a poster on here who is better apprised of governmental policy, international affairs, and especially economics and markets."

But I thought you voted for Bush. Sort of makes your claim seem pretty ridiculous.
It is very possible for a person to know many facts and still be unable to use them to figure anything out.

Another exciting edition of "is Bush a liar or just a moron" has reached it's conclusion.

PS- "Both"

RiR- there's not a poster on here who is better apprised of governmental policy, international affairs, and especially economics and markets.

What a nice thing for you to say about Moneywar.

Oh, you meant you? Excuse me, I'll be right back...

(laughter in the background)

PERIOD
TruthHurting this probably explains you irrational thinking.

To believe that Bush is the centerpiece of this giant conspiracy to invade Iraq for no good reason,

Bush was just the convenient sock puppet and mouthpiece for the plan. Clinton was too smart to get suckered into Iraq, but Bush was eminently useable-just had to play on his macho ego and tell him he could prove to Poppy he was a real man. Remember, Candidate Bush was talking about fighting Iraq before he was elected, which was also before 9-11.

The plan to invade Iraq and install Chalabi as leader was hatched in the mid 90s by guys named:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz


Any of them sound familiar? Any of them in the Administration?

"July 7, 1996: A Clean Break' Outlines New Middle East Strategy for Israel
Richard Perle. [Source: Public domain] The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/2003] Lead author Richard Perle will later become chairman of President Bush's influential Defense Policy Board. Several other co-authors will hold key positions in Washington after Bush's election. In the paper, Perle and his co-authors advise the new, right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism. ..." The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them," the paper concludes

Bush was just the convenient sock puppet and mouthpiece for the plan. Clinton was too smart...
oh yeah, I forgot about this talking point. Does this argument depend on what you mean by "too" to?

Does that also mean you are smart because you support someone you think is smart?

"Does this argument depend on what you mean by "too" to?"

No...it depends on people understanding the difference between rhetoric and invasion.

"No...it depends on people understanding the difference between rhetoric and invasion."

Typically, righties think in two extremes. Example...if you didn't support the invasion/occupation of Iraq then you loved Saddam.
Their minds can't comprehend that there are an almost infinite number of other possible thoughts.

Danni,

righties think in two extremes. Example...if you didn't support the invasion/occupation of Iraq then you loved Saddam.
Their minds can't comprehend that there are an almost infinite number of other possible thoughts.


Righties hardly have a monopoly on the black/white thing.

Typically, righties think in two extremes.
Typically, lefties don't think. They don't have to because someone else tells them what to think and do.

"Righties hardly have a monopoly on the black/white thing."

No, thats very true. But would you agree that the "righties" of this administration have perfected using it as a hammer?

Rogue,


I would say they wield it like a sword.

I prefer medieval metaphors for a medieval administration.

"Typically, lefties don't think. They don't have to because someone else tells them what to think and do.

Posted by slicksterWilly"

Check that. I've just been informed I was supposed to say "...because they get their talking points from someone else."

--SlicksterWilly

Rogue,


Just before administering torture our CIA operatives are instructed to say:

"I am gonna call up a couple of hard, pipe-hitting operatives, to go to work on Achmed here with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch. YOU HEAR ME TALKING, BROWN-SKIN BOY??!!?? I ain't through with you by damn site, I'm gonna get medeival on your ass!"

"I would say they wield it like a sword.

I prefer medieval metaphors for a medieval administration."

LOL. It conjures up images from Monty Python, but I don't want to risk setting Tadowe off again.

Does that also mean you are smart because you support someone you think is smart?

Posted by slicksterWilly

maybe, but supporting someone everybody in the world recognizes as stupid sure doesn't make you smart. Like Forrest Gump said "Stupid is as stupid votes".

someone everybody in the world recognizes as stupid
So the guy thats president is stupid. But you are claiming to be smart as you sit on your ass blogging on a hatefilled site telling others how dumb the president is and how dumb they are for voting for him. Sounds like you are a librul genious. Too bad no one listens to you. What a waste.

"So the guy thats president is stupid. But you are claiming to be smart as you sit on your ass blogging on a hatefilled site"

And you are doing what Slickster????

Free country--you can believe whatever you want. But your conclusions are unintelligent and irrational.

RiR

Waiting 2 months to launch a preemptive war when we're not exactly sure what's what is rational. Going to war with 'the army you have, not the army you want' is irrational, and cost the lives of thousands of U.S. underarmored forces. Launching an invasion with 150,000 troops when Cheney said 600,000 in '91 would lead to a quatmire is irrational. Sending in U.S. Forces withoug a clear exit strategy is irrational and runs contrary to what Bush himself said in 2000.

Conclusions cannot be unintelligent. The people that reach them can be unintelligent and irrational.

To me, irrationality is launching a war before the very folks who are gathering actual on-the-ground intelligence is the height of irrationality and stupidity. The results of that decision are obvious. '....I can't imagine more than 6 months' (in Iraq) and not planning for post invasion is the height of irrationality.

Oh, and the 'I just work here' is the height of implausibility. Some decider HE is. LMAO

And you are doing what Slickster????
Educating the ignorant.

AmericanUranitor, earlier you dismissed statements made in the late nineties and early 2000's regarding intelligence assesments on Iraq's WMD programs as being 'outdated'. But you quote Cheney from '91, only 15 years ago.

You sound like a demorat who will say anything to make a point.

PS LICKSTER

Those are CHENEY'S own words. Take it up with HIM. Guess the 4000 dead and 50,000 wounded don't mean shit to you. They are the result of no 'post invasion' planning and going in with insufficient force.

I didn't make that policy. Your heros did.

The people that reach them can be unintelligent and irrational.

On September 3, 2002, a month before the vote to authorized the war, he told CNN: "I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it."

Did a intelligent or unintelligent person say this?

Don't know why you would think that. Nobody in the so-called intelligence business got fired over 9/11, which was the most comprehensive intelligence failure in American history, with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor. Nobody got fired for saying that Iraq had an active WMD program. Why should someone be fired for saying Iran doesn't have one? I always believed that one benefit of having a Republican CEO-type president was that if you didn't perform, you would lose your job. Reagan didn't waste any time in letting go thousands of air traffic controllers. Since then, government employees have honed their survival skills, and now it's impossible to fire them for anything. Intelligence failures that result in terrorist groups crashing planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon? Ah, let's promote the guy in charge of the whole thing. Intelligence reports that said that Saddam has an active, verifiable WMD program which was one of the reasons the country went into war? No problem.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-12-05 01:57 AM | Reply | Flag:


"Nobody in the so-called intelligence business got fired over 9/11, which was the most comprehensive intelligence failure in American history, with the possible exception of Pearl Harbor.

Richard Clarke was 'let go' when he said the truth about Saddam and his connection to 911 but that was inconvenient for you and BushCo, so you FOX loving goons went on to try and smear him. It couldn't be done so you just ignored the man.

4000 Soldiers and their families wish you hadn't.


"I always believed that one benefit of having a Republican CEO-type president was that if you didn't perform, you would lose your job."

CEO President? Like Bush? He calls himself a CEO president (even during his 2000 campaign) and bankrupt all three companies he was in charge of, but still, people didn't bother to look at the obvious and they voted for him. Yup, great idea that is!

Isn't this also the same man who call himself a 'War President'? I guess the cheerleading, faux-cowboy (yup, afraid of horses) needed a way to look 'tough' after being too much of a coward to fight when he was called.

I love this spin on the AUMF vote:

The War Resolution was touted as a hammer to hold over Saddam's head to enable the WMD inspections to continue. -AU

[e]veryone knows that Bush had been given the authority to invade Iraq with the understanding that he would return to Congress before doing so and that it was intended as a tool with which to make Saddam understand the US was serious about insisting on the weapons inspectors being allowed to re-enter Iraq....which they were....and after which Bush did not return to Congress who would not have then supported his invasion...but you go ahead and make up your version of history though it doesn't fool anyone any more. -Danni

C'mon people, it was the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force on Iraq" not the "Authorization to Pretend to Use Force on Iraq" or the "Authorization to Threaten Iraq with Use of Force" or the "Authorization to Allow you to Request Authorization to Use Force" or my favorite, "Authorization to Use Force only if the UN Approves It."

To say that Bush had intel that the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't or hid it betrays a singular misunderstanding on how things work inside the Beltway. Which is why senior Democratic Leadership are emphatic when they say that "impeachment is not an option": its not because they don't want to drag the country through it again, but because they know that they were duped by the same faulty intel that Tenet's CIA was providing to the Bush (and Clinton) Administration as well.

More irrational thoughts...

As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?


Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE's publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):


Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.



This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar's 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar's colleagues yesterday.)

So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?
Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don't hold your breath.)

It's just hard for me to keep up with all the conspiracy theories and the intrigue. Good thing I have clever guys like you to help me out.

Posted by rightisright at 2007-12-05 08:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's just plain hard for you to keep up with anything as evidenced by your own words.

You're either playing dumb because your embarrassed that you voted for Bush or you only watch FUX Noise.

Do try to keep up though, we'd hate to lose one of the righty-loons that make us laugh.

bankrupt all three companies he was in charge of

Texas went bankrupt? Wow, the illegals must have done them in...

"Tenet's CIA was providing to the Bush (and Clinton) Administration as well.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-12-05 05:26 PM"

Tenet? The guy your President awarded the Medal of Freedom?

ONE more thing LICKSTER

Assessments are NOT hard on-the-ground intelligence which YOUR heros refused to come to a conclusion. Well, not if you don't include the preliminary conclusions by the U.N. inspectors that they doubted Saddam still had WMD's.

You're friggin' pitiful you're so blinded by partisanship. If this were a Democrat president you'd be screaming to high heaven as you're so fond of STILL doing 7 years after Clinton left office - and the U.S. in pretty good shape.

By the way, here's Cheney on Meet the Press September 16, 2001:

"MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

Fromt the White House's OWN website LICKSTER boy.

Tenet? The guy your President awarded the Medal of Freedom?

Posted by mOntecOre at 2007-12-05 05:34 PM

Yep, the same one that your President made the head of the CIA in the first place.

:^0

If this were a Democrat president you'd be screaming to high heaven as you're so fond of STILL doing 7 years after Clinton left office - and the U.S. in pretty good shape.
What does this have to do with the topic? What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq.

Here are several reasons we are in Iraq:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"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."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"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."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

LICKSTER

They were not only cherry picking WHICH intel they passed onto the Senate, but were counting on fools like yourself to climb aboard the war train. Fools who continue to spew their idiotic arguments in light of a massive amount of info to the contrary.

I sure hope our next President has at least a little bit of curiosity. Who knows, maybe it could stop a terrorist attack or a war someday.

Video and all LICKSTER
Wow, the senators, Albright, Berger and the original slickster must have been in on that meeting as well.

Man O'neill is a great source. I wonder why Bush fired him?

I don't care HOW many Congressional statements you post. FACTS are once the U.N. was on the ground all bets were off until they determined the ACTUAL threat - which they were not allowed to do as your idiot hero kicked them out of the country so he could start his war.

Ah, those pesky quotes again. Thank heavens for Google, you know? Otherwise they might be conveniently forgotten, and we would just wander around, forgetful that the Dems, too, were pounding the drums.

They were not only cherry picking WHICH intel they passed onto the Senate
Oh, so Bush and the conspiracy had control over the intel while he was gov of Texas. I see your point. Thats why all of the intell assessments from the previous admin were the same as the Bush admin's assessments. Thanks for the clarification.

So Bush, the unintelligent president, pulled this off?

I don't care HOW many Congressional statements you post. FACTS are once the U.N. was on the ground all bets were off until they determined the ACTUAL threat -
* * * *

So . . . all those Dems were lying? What, were they just making stuff up?

So . . . all those Dems were lying? What, were they just making stuff up?

Posted by rightisright

I thought you were more intelligent than that.

Congress received summaries of intel prepared, vetted, and distrubuted BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

I'm done here. You two are so ultrapartisan you'll argue in the face of massive arguments to the contrary that invading Iraq was proper and we didn't rush to war.

Bye Bye

I don't care HOW many Congressional statements you post.
Of course you don't. They were forced to say these things by the vast rightwing neocon conspiracy. That same group that controls the media.

FACTS are
being reenventing every day by apologist like yourself.


once the U.N. was on the ground all bets were off until they determined the ACTUAL threat - which they were not allowed to do as your idiot hero kicked them out of the country so he could start his war.
So the dummy Bush was conspiring with Saddam to prevent the UN teams from visiting certain sites, that Saddam said were off limits?

Wow Bush pulled that off? I thought it was Saddam who told the inspectors where they could inspect. Thanks for that informatino.

You are full of facts.

LICKSTER

I SAID you dense idiot that until the U.N. inspectors were ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ all bets were off didn't I?

You don't even bother to read anything except scan for possible retorting points. You're a fool.

Happy night to you

So Bush, the unintelligent president, pulled this off?

Posted by slicksterWilly

Nobody ever said Cheney and the PNAC cabal he brought to the WH was unintelligent, Slick. Bush, on the other hand, was a great meat puppet.

face it guy, you were played big time by the Bushies. They literally sold you the Yugo of wars.

* August, 2002: White House Iraq Group formed.

* September 5, 2002: In a WHIG meeting, chief Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson proposes the use of a "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" metaphor to sell the American public on the supposed nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein. According to Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, "The original plan had been to place it in an upcoming presidential speech, but WHIG members fancied it so much that when the Times reporters contacted the White House to talk about their upcoming piece [about aluminum tubes], one of them leaked Gerson's phrase -- and the administration would soon make maximum use of it."


September 6, 2002: In an interview with the New York Times, Andrew Card did not mention the WHIG specifically but hinted at its mission: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." On September 17, 2002, Matt Miller stated on NPR that the above quote from Andrew Card was in response to the question: "... why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq"

You don't bother reading a fucking thing I post LICKSTER.

READ you hillbilly asshole. You might learn something

READ you hillbilly asshole
You forget that I'm a Nazi.

face it guy, you were played big time by the Bushies. They literally sold you the Yugo of wars.


Damnit I wanted to go to DC and vote with the Senators on the authorization for war. I didn't know they were paid for their vote. Did they all get Yugo's?

Ah, those pesky quotes again. Thank heavens for Google, you know? Otherwise they might be conveniently forgotten, and we would just wander around, forgetful that the Dems, too, were pounding the drums.

I have to laugh at this too. This statement from an individual who thinks all government is a failure and privatization will solve all the world problems is now partisan hacking. Now that's a real hoot.

It really matters who is pounding the drums? I thought we elect our leaders for such correcting directions to stop such things. I guess Bush is not the great leader but yet you sit here and defend his sorry ass. Oh, it is the economy before the people thing again with you so Bush must be good.

The funny thing here is over the years I have really understood RIR and his small world and limited thoughts. Society is not a high priority, but gaining money is a priority, and the funny part about that whole thing is RIR only wants those who have money already to have the upper hand in getting and gaining more of it.

I thought we elect our leaders for such correcting directions to stop such things
All of the democrats senators quoted are in governmnet leadship positions today. Why did they vote the way they did? Why were they reelected?

All of the democrats senators quoted are in governmnet leadship positions today. Why did they vote the way they did? Why were they reelected?

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-12-05 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Apparently slicksterwilly isn't educated an intelligent enough to understand the point. Oops, that head of his really does peak out.

"All of the democrats senators quoted are in governmnet leadship positions today."

slick"one note"willy: You keep posting those cherry-picked quotes, as if you're making some kind of point.

But guess what: None of those "democrats (sic) senators" ordered the invasion of Iraq.

Nope. Not a single one. That would be the George W. Bush administration, not "democrats (sic) senators".

Hans

All of the democrats senators quoted are in governmnet leadship positions today.

Uh, ok.

Why did they vote the way they did?

(A) There was an election coming up and Rove would've had their guts for garters if they hadn't voted the way they did. (Admittedly an act potentially composed of equal parts expeidence and cowardice.)
(B) They may've actually believed the Bushies cherry-picked dis- and mis-information.

(C) A and B

Why were they reelected?

See above

Of course, nowhere do you actually touch on the heart of the matter. But that would require actually thinking things through. No, no, really, don't bother.

But guess what: None of those "democrats (sic) senators" ordered the invasion of Iraq.

Nope. Not a single one. That would be the George W. Bush administration, not "democrats (sic) senators".

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-12-05 06:34 PM

You are correct. However, no matter how badly the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq, they couldn't do it until Congress authorized him to do so---not to come back and ask again, not to get UN authorization, not to bluff, but to authorize the use of military force against iraq.

I know you don't like to admit it, but that is exactly what the AUMF did.

Right0-
re: "I know you don't like to admit it, but that is exactly what the AUMF did."

Posted by Rightocenter at 2007-12-05 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course it did. Any candidate who pretends otherwise is full of shit. The difference is that many people have learned from the mistake of trusting this administration, whereas you have not and were most likely ready to bomb Iran - based on the rhetoric of Bush and the loyal neocons in the press - until yesterday.

"no matter how badly the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq, they couldn't do it until Congress authorized him to do so---"

So? You loan you car to someone who you think is competent to drive said car. They take the keys and promptly go out and get raging drunk, drive the car and wreck it.

Are you complict because you "authorized" the person to drive your car?

Or are they the one responsible for the "authority" they've been given?

Hans

Hans-
re: "So? You loan you car to someone who you think is competent to drive said car."

That's the key.

Any idiot who thought that Bush (or really any president) should be given a blank check with near infinite latitude involving the entire might of the military should never be president.

On a further point: Anyone who fell for Bush's rhetoric the second time is not fit to tie their own shoes, and should really farm it out.

ROC

Every single Democrat Senator who voted to authorize war did so with a myriad of caveats i.e. 'Only as a last resort', 'Only after all other options have been exausted'. None of them voted to rush to war.

I'm sure you know that already so I won't bother posting all the links.

Americanunity-
Their "caveats" meant nothing.

What I find stranger still is that a thread about how Bush has been beating the drums for war again - with the knowledge that Iran had abandoned its program - has been turned into a partisan debate about the last debacle Bush and the ROC's of the country got us into.

COOPER

History is often the best teacher

This thread is actually about Bush's stating 'I Just Work Here'. Next time let's elect someone who's competent enough to be president so that the VP doesn't drive policy and run the country as de facto president.

So, Bush pushes for war when he knows no war is needed. Seems like something a crazy man would do. What a coincidence.

But guess what: None of those "democrats (sic) senators" ordered the invasion of Iraq.

Nope. Not a single one. That would be the George W. Bush administration, not "democrats (sic) senators".

Hans

Thats correct, he has the ultimate decision. But the purpose of the authorization act is to give him the authority to make the decision and to give him the required financial resources. The act was overwhelmingly approved by the senate and house. The effort continues to be funded, a full year after the election of '06.

Every single Democrat Senator who voted to authorize war did so with a myriad of caveats...
So they wanted to have it both ways. I give you the authority but I don't want you to use it unless it polls ok...

As demostrated by the "cherry picked" quotes, for 5 years leading up to the war, it was the belief of the US intel that Sadam was aggressively persuing WMD's. The decision to invade Iraq was made by the president who was given overwhelming approval from congress.

BTW, Congress can stop the funding at any point.

Americanunity-
Bush didn't state "I just work here". That was the clever and appropriate title to Josh Marshall's post that is linked to at the head of this thread.

Also,

If Cheney's known about Iran not having a nuclear weapons program as Seymour Hersh has reported why didn't Bush?

I want a president who doesn't need his VP to run things.

with the knowledge that Iran had abandoned its program
Here is what he was told in July...

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE's publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):


Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

So 4 months later, its a completely different story. Why the sudden shift and what revelation occured over the last 4 months that was not available the past 4 years?

Slickster is correct about the Democrats in 2002 , though I find it troubling that his glee is not tempered by the abysmal failure that is the Bush administration and its decision to invade Iraq, and its frothing at the bit to bomb Iran.

He seems content that because many Democrats were spineless tools hell-bent on their own political survival, Bush "won". Which is all that matters, as the long term or even short term good of the nation doesn't count, but only the relative bitch-slapping short term success of whatever faction Slick supports at the time.

But, I suspect that is because Slick is to petty to ponder thoughts beyond the petty and partisan.

On a further point: Anyone who fell for Bush's rhetoric the second time is not fit to tie their own shoes, and should really farm it out...

Was the NIE from July 2007 rhetoric. Or is it only rhetoric when you disagree with it?

So they wanted to have it both ways. I give you the authority but I don't want you to use it unless it polls ok...

LOL! So are you saying listening to the peoples wishes is a bad thing? It sure sounds like you are saying just that.

Apparently you don't seem to understand that when an adult gives a child open responsibility it is expected that the child will act responsible.

Giving your 17 year old kid a gun to hunt down the coyote killing your live stock does not OK your 17 year old to go kill your hated neighbor.

Slick-
re: So 4 months later, its a completely different story. Why the sudden shift and what revelation occured over the last 4 months that was not available the past 4 years?

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-12-05 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

HELLO!?!?!?!

Are you even paying attention?

Bush and his appointees and the reliable neocon pundits who sold us the Iraq war have been pushing for confrontation with Iran DESPITE the internal knowledge that they had abandoned their "nukyoolar" weapons program years ago.

shit, you are dense.

Here is what he was told in July...

No, this is what you were told.

though I find it troubling that his glee is not tempered by the abysmal failure that is the Bush administration and its decision to invade Iraq
No glee. I was against the invasion. Once they invaded, I was against dismantling the Iraqi army. Once they dismantled the Iraqi Army I was against debathification. The first was brilliant execution. The last two were huge blunders. What I cannot stand is the "get out of jail" card many idiots on this blog give to the democratic senators whose convictions blow in the wind with the polls. They are seeking to rewrite history. I provided quotes of the members of the senate intel cmte both during the Clinton admin and Bush admin. No difference in the assesments of Iraq's WMD threat. I provided quotes from the NSA and SOS from the Clinton admin discussing the "imminent threat" of Iraq's pursuit of WMD's. The Clinton admin is discussed not as a deflection, but because many of the events that lead to the decision for war, happened during that admin. The threat was not new to the Bush admin and was not invented by the Bush admin. Only naive and partisan hacks would argue it was.

The entire point of this thread, however, is that Bush was speaking of WWIII when he had known, or should have known, that Iran had shut down its program four years ago.

We are left with two choices:

1: Bush is so far out of the loop as to be recklessly incompetent.

2: Bush knew what the consensus NIE was ruminating and carried on his merry war-happy way.

Here is what he was told in July...

No, this is what you were told.

He did not tell me anthing you shit for brains idiot. You stupid son of a bitch. What part of this can you not understand?

Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE's publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee...Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure.

Slick-
You may bring up your other points with other posters to whom they may be pertinent. I must say, however, that I find your claim that "I was against the invasion." highly suspect.

In what ways did you demonstrate your opposition to the Iraq war?

That is not my testimony or opinion. That is the testimony from the guy who writes the NIE.

The entire point of this thread, however, is that Bush was speaking of WWIII when he had known, or should have known, that Iran had shut down its program four years ago.
Then why did the NIE say otherwise?

Slickster-
But I'd like to get back on point. What proof, exactly, do you wish to further by pointing to an approved administration flack for confirming and stressing what we now reasonably know to be untrue?

In what ways did you demonstrate your opposition to the Iraq war?
Cooper I don't have to prove shit to you. Nor do I give a damn what you think.

Tell us why Bush should have known about the recent claims that Iraq stopped their "bomb" program when the NIE author testified only 4 months ago that they were still activley pursuing it?

Me: The entire point of this thread, however, is that Bush was speaking of WWIII when he had known, or should have known, that Iran had shut down its program four years ago.


You: Then why did the NIE say otherwise?

Um....it doesn't.

Iran, not Iraq.

You stupid son of a bitch. What part of this can you not understand?

Wow! And they were all told Iraq had WMD too! Yet the administration believed the intelligence, right!

You: Then why did the NIE say otherwise?

Um....it doesn't.

Um...it did 4 months ago. scroll back and read the testimony from one of the authors of the NIE to the senate armed services cmte in July of this year.

Wow! And they were all told Iraq had WMD too! Yet the administration believed the intelligence, right!
So moneywanter, first intel before and during Bush said iraq had WMD, then we go in, none found. Now intel says Iran building bomb. Even in July, this is the assesment. Suddenly, the assesment changes...why the quick change? What was revealed that made the assesment change. Its good if its true, does it not seem strange. If your claiming they were wrong before, what makes you think they are correct this time?

=Any idiot who thought that Bush (or really any president) should be given a blank check with near infinite latitude involving the entire might of the military should never be president.


Any idiot who thought that Bush (or really any president) didn't already have a blank check with near infinite latitude involving the entire might of the military should never use 20/20 hindsight, considering the evidence that most everyone knew, and knows, that both those "I" countries could be dangerous, but that the Dems (including one particular Sen named Clinton) delayed the inevitable NeoGOP Rush To War by promoting inspections, the same kind of inspections that are the source of the big news in the new NIE.... that inspections actually work.

Neocons have said for ages that they don't, but they did in this instance, and as has been said, could have worked again given another couple of months, and without the duplicity of the Pres, who was willing to preemitively invade a country whether anyone in gov't or out liked it are not, and unfortunately, always had the power to do so and did.

Just a little of this kind of revisionist, 20/20, holier than thou, they should have known, should have been further labeled traitors and unpatriotic for understanding that though there was, and is, indeed some serious danger in these countries, that they were all that stood between us and the warmongering profiteers in the Executive and the Pentagon, bullshit goes a real long way.

On a further point: Anyone who thinks there is no substance to the real danger of a particular part of Iran's military that does indeed kill our troops, on which Bush's rhetoric was based, when we now know that he was lying to us all the second time is not fit to tie their own shoes, and should really farm it out.

All this guilt by association, all this pinning NeoGOP treachery on Clinton when most Dem Sens voted the same way and speechified on the subject in the Sen putting their full positions on the record in an admiral way, is really just disappointing political primary rhetoric.

The people who elected GW, twice, even after most of us knew what he had done in Iraq, are the same people that you expect to elect a first-term Dem Sen who is rated and will be made famous as the same politically as Dennis K, Left of that well-known Socialist, Hillary Clinton?

You are dreaming, imnsho.

(Please consider imitation, flattery in that post. But not too hard.)

Wow! And they were all told Iraq had WMD too! Yet the administration believed the intelligence, right!
Yes and Iraq had used those weapons before.

when we now know that he was lying to us all
Dorky have you read the testimony given by the author of the NIE to the senate armed services cmte in July of this year?

After doing so, tell us the lie that was told.

Until then shut the fuck up.

Slick-
No. There wasn't an official NIE until recently. If your point is that the Bush administration and everyone allowed to speak by the Bush administration was hyping the Iran threat until the report they couldn't quash finally came out, then OK.

Yes and Iraq had used those weapons before.

Apparently the dim are unable to understand the points!

LOL!

It is fun lashing words with the lack of sense from slicksterwilly but gets boring fast. We all know he either doesn't understand or he is purposely being obtuse to sustain the position.

Either way, it is just ignorance.

Slick-
The "author" of the NIE?

Slick -
It's clear that you'll fall for anything twice. What about three times? Four?

-If your point is that the Bush administration and everyone allowed to speak by the Bush administration was hyping the Iran threat until the report they couldn't quash finally came out, then OK.

Absolutely, and now the Neos are going nuts, out of the Pentagon and no longer able to control what Gates releases.

They are going into denial faster than Bubba at a disco.

There wasn't an official NIE until recently
If you believe this, you really are uninformed.

Are you claiming the testimony from the Deputy Director of Analysis(secret agent stuff) to the senate armed services cmte was just made up? His testimony was consistent with the assesments produced in the NIE. Until this recent change, The assesments haven't changed in 4 years.

Absolutely, and now the Neos are going nuts, out of the Pentagon and no longer able to control what Gates releases.
Only a fucked up brain would believe this.

"What was revealed that made the assesment change."

What changed?

The administration discovered that even just bombing Iran (that's Iran) would cause, by Summer 2008, $7.00/gallon gasoline here in the US, with a recession either started or underway.

Translate that to electoral politics in November 2008 and it is easy to see why the assessment changed.

Hans

Slick-
re: "There wasn't an official NIE until recently
If you believe this, you really are uninformed. "

Then our president is quite uninformed, as he was not aware of it until a week ago (follow the link of the thread, for goodness sake!)

We all know he either doesn't understand or he is purposely being obtuse to sustain the position.

So MoneyWanter, explain the testimony in July verses the recent change? And how this results in a lie from Bush?

Only a fucked up brain would believe this.

Posted by slicksterWilly at


Ad hominem does so become you.

To which do you object?

That they are currently freaking out about this report? They are.

Or that they have lost control of the Pentagon?

Pssssst! They have!

slick-
Follow the damned thread and click on the video clip!

Then comment.

Then our president is quite uninformed, as he was not aware of it until a week ago (follow the link of the thread, for goodness sake!)
For the last 4 years, the NIE said Iran was pursuing a bomb. In july of this year, the man in charge of intel analysis testified to the senate armed services cmte, that Iran was pursuing a bomb. A couple of weeks ago the assesment changed within the recent NIE.

Now the author of this article claims Bush was telling a lie regarding the threat from Iran, even though he was consistent with the NIE...

Can you comprehend this question? What was the lie?

That they are currently freaking out about this report? They are.

Maybe the two questions to be answered are
1)"what was the recent discovery or revelation that changed the assessment of Iran's pursuit of a bomb"?
2)Do the French have the same opinion. Remember, they were pushing for hard sanctions...Eventhough we have terrible relations with them and they hate us...

So MoneyWanter, explain the testimony in July verses the recent change? And how this results in a lie from Bush?

You just don't understand, and it is quite clear that explaining anything to you would not be understood what so ever.

You have clearly shown that you are not interested in thoughtful crossing but just want political hacking of party ideas.

Slick-
It was a plot by commies. They tapped in to the NIE report and stunned Bush with this "new" information, which he only heard about last week.

Good night, slick. I think BBob may be up for a conversation on another thread.

16 agencies, 9 of which report to the Pentagon, agreed on the substance of the report, and Bush has known the substance of the report for all the months he has been talking about WWIII and holocaust.

But hey, that helped keep oil prices high, so his retirement at Carlysle is in fine shape.

What was once the most powerful and wonderful country in the world is led for eight years by a complete idiot. Afterwhich it lost its power and stature in the world.
Then why does Iran give a damn what the US says or does? Why don't they burn the flag of Mexico?

No retort?

Sweet dreams, "Cooper".

"1)"what was the recent discovery or revelation that changed the assessment of Iran's pursuit of a bomb"?"

Once again:

The administration discovered that even just bombing Iran would cause, by Summer 2008, $7.00/gallon gasoline here in the US, with a recession either started or underway.

Translate that to electoral politics in November 2008 and it is easy to see why the assessment changed.

Hans

You just don't understand, and it is quite clear that explaining anything to you would not be understood what so ever.
Yes, its hard for you to keep your story straight when presented with the facts.

Please explain the contridiction between the testimony in July and the NIE just released? The assessment changed. But you claim that somehow, Bush already knew this, but ignored it...

16 agencies, 9 of which report to the Pentagon, agreed on the substance of the report, and Bush has known the substance of the report for all the months he has been talking about WWIII and holocaust.
Corky, when was the report released?

Then why does Iran give a damn what the US says or does? Why don't they burn the flag of Mexico?

Now here slickster shows his brilliance. Mexico is always threatening Iran!

Translate that to electoral politics in November 2008 and it is easy to see why the assessment changed.
But what does that have to do with the French pushing for hard sanctions?

Slick, don't challenge Corky on facts. He/she still thinks Hillary is winng in Iowa.

U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran is years away from building nukes
Posted 4/14/2006 1:00 AM ET

Slickster just can't seem to grasp any facts at any time if it doesn't follow his ignorant political hacking mantra.

Slickster just can't seem to grasp any facts at any time if it doesn't follow his ignorant political hacking mantra.
MoneyWar, just explain the testimony given by the top intel analyst in July of this year. Until then your a babbling bag of shit.

"It was a year ago this month that Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker that the White House (ie: Cheney) was pushing back against the release of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that had failed to find any evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program. Once again I guess you could say Sy is the polar opposite of the boy who cried wolf'.'


Hersh: Look, it's a lose-lose for them. Either he did know what was going on at the highest levels - the fight I'm talking about began last year. I was writing about something in November and also you mentioned earlier. They were aware of a big dispute inside the community that is between the White House and the community about this.

Now, maybe he didn't know what was going on at the Vice Presidential level about something that serious. If so, I mean, we pay him to know these things and not to make statements based on information that turns out not to be accurate, or else he is misrepresenting what he knows. I don't think there is any question this is going to pose a serious credibility problem. I assume people are going to be asking more and more questions about what did he know, when. ... "

www.crooksandliars.com




Posted by Corky at 2007-12-05 10:30 AM

Sy Hersh knew and GW didn't?

That couldn't be good either way, now could it?

Corkey, explain the testimony given by the top intel analyst in July of this year. Until then your a babbling bag of shit.

LICKSTER

The last 6 NIE's have said Bush's actions have made us LESS safe and increased the growth of Islamic terrorism.

What do you have to say about that (something concrete pretty please)

Slickster,

MoneyWar, just explain the testimony given by the top intel analyst in July of this year. Until then your a babbling bag of shit.

I have no need to explain it, it is all bull shit and the fact that you don't know it explains quite a bit.

The fact that you think any of our intelligence doesn't go through our C&C first before any presentation going to congress is laughable. The fact that you seem to give our leader CC an excuse for not knowing the actual intelligence is clearly showing your political hacking in the best sense and light.

You are SO convincing, Wet Willie!

You should go into used car sales.

A step up, I'm sure.

But what does that have to do with the French pushing for hard sanctions?

POSTED BY SLICKSTERWILLY


LOL The who?

ZAP

The dreaded 'French now Freedom Fries' folks. LMAO

The last 6 NIE's have said Bush's actions have made us LESS safe and increased the growth of Islamic terrorism.
I'm not disagreeing with any assessment made in the NIE. None of us know enough to argue against anything said in this report.

Why do you want to change the subject? The man responsible for putting together the report gave testimony in July of this year that Iran was pursuing a bomb. I don't give a damn what syman hearsh claims, he is accountable to no one. I would like to know why the testimony in July and what caused the change recently announced. And how does that jive with the assessment from the French who sold them the equipment to begin with...

Now we must listen to French Cries for Sanctions!

LICKSTER

The last SIX NIE's have stated that Bush's actions have increased Islamic radicalism and have made us LESS safe.

You NOW want to give our intel community (and the formerly hated French) credibility because they're somehow saying what you want them to say?

What do you say about the last 6 NIE reports? The ones that concluded Bush has fucked up and made us LESS safe while Islamic radicalism has increased - both directly attributable to Bush's actions.

Fighting terrorism? Let's hear your comments big guy.

The fact that you think any of our intelligence doesn't go through our C&C first before any presentation going to congress is laughable. The fact that you seem to give our leader CC an excuse for not knowing the actual intelligence is clearly showing your political hacking in the best sense and light.
But the same didn't apply 8 years ago did it?

LICKSTER

I'm bringing up the previous 6 NIE's because you brought up July et al.

Look, Bush just doesn't tell the truth and has screwed up the 'War on Terror'. Can you admit that?

The dreaded 'French now Freedom Fries' folks. LMAO
Whats funnier is AmericanUnrinator did not know the NIE was produced annually, but was arguing about it.

8 years ago no one launched a preemptive war sold as a walk in the park, unplanned for post invasion, and resulting in the largest blunder in U.S. history - especially after the lessons learned from Vietnam by everyone but Bush and Co. Cheney, who really runs the country, is reported to have known Iran ended its nuclear weapons program almost 5 years ago. So,

A. Bush knew and yet continued to rattle sabres
B. Bush didn't know and is such an idiot puppet that he doesn't run things.

Which is it? A or B? Those are the only two possible choices.

2006 Iran is good from intelligence.
2007 Iran is making bomb.
2007 Iran is not making bomb.
2007 Iran is making bomb.

And notice how the political arena is swaying for such intelligence.

It certainly appears intelligence isn't all that factual but greatly political but afraid you are unable to understand the hacking you are doing.

2006 Iran is good from intelligence
Not sure where you got this lie. NIE never said this.

If I understand Bush correctly, and I fear I do, the more he is perceived by others as being out-of-his-depth, the more he'll wish to correct that by personal action.

Don't focus on NIEs. Focus on that bubbling stew in Bush's psyche. I still say 50-50 there's war with Iran before he leaves office.

LICKSTERSILLY

Uh, WHERE did I indicate I did not know the NIE is produced annualy? Making up shit as usual you are.

You think your 'Urinator' comment upsets me? You're wrong rocks for brains. It makes me laugh at you more because you're a ultrapartisan idiot who doesn't give a fuck Bush has screwed the pooch and somehow convinced idiots like you he hung the moon.

And notice how the political arena is swaying for such intelligence.
So you think our intelligence agencies are worthless, political tools?

"I would like to know why the testimony in July and what caused the change recently announced."

Once again:

The administration discovered that even just bombing Iran would cause, by Summer 2008, $7.00/gallon gasoline here in the US, with a recession either started or underway.

Translate that to electoral politics in November 2008 and it is easy to see why the assessment changed.

Hans

Hans what you say is most likely the truth. But MoneyWanter and AmericanUrinator think its one huge conspiracy. Fun to toy with them.

You think your 'Urinator' comment upsets me?
ha, then why mention it. My girlfriend likes the name LICKSTERSILLY...

Iran ended their nuclear weapons program (if it ever existed as they had no fissile materials or equipment to implement one anyway.

Period. End of story. Cheney knew. Bush SHOULD have known. They wanted to drop more bombs and further inflame the ME and lose the 'War on Terror' even worse than they've BEEN doing.

LICKERSTER is the slick one (insert slick material here) trying to blame Bill Clinton for whatever FUBAR situations Bush has gotten us in.

You ain't so slick LICKSTER. I'd move to another thread. Maybe the Apollo thread. You'll make more sense. There's just way too much evidence the rest of the world acknowledges as true that you continue to deny. So, move along and comment on a topic that doesn't matter to the well being of the U.S.

You're a joke LICKSTER. I wouldn't pull your chain, but you've always been an asshole to me, and I don't suffer fools gladly.

Slick-
Before I turn in, I'd like to get your opinion on why the 2007 NIE is diametrically opposed to the shit you've been sold by Bush/Cheney for the last few years.

LICKSTER

I'd try 'LicksHERsilly' if you want one your girlfriend would REALLY love LOL

By the way, I read about your dad and Johnny Cash. Mentioned in another thread a week ago that I was aquainted with him and I was sorry to hear about your dad. Mine passed away when he was much too young.

OK man. Have a good one. Try to be nice. People won't think you're such an idiot if you can at least present YOUR version of history with some modicum of decency. In English - you don't have to be such a big asshole.

I'm gonna go urinate now. Had a little too much Diet Pepsi an hour ago.

Slick-
Look, I've got maybe ten minutes before I turn in, but I'm curious as to your unvarnished answer.

And notice how the political arena is swaying for such intelligence.
So you think our intelligence agencies are worthless, political tools?

Depends, are they giving intelligence for political sway or for factual sway.

It is apparently clear that in this administration the sway cannot be seen as to which venue is being used, so use none of it.

Only a foolish individual will follow an administration that has clearly falsified intelligence to gain the public approval for political gain. Country interest is clearly not in play here and the fact you are not seeing this explains your total political hacking ignorance.

Slick-
Next time I want your opinion I'll just go to one of those sites and bypass you altogether.

Next time I want your opinion I'll just go to one of those sites and bypass you altogether.
Cooper, its apparent you form an opinion without reading anything. Does stuff just come to you or do you get it from the 30 sec sound bites on tv?

Only a foolish individual will follow an administration that has clearly falsified intelligence to gain the public approval for political gain.
Maybe it should be said that only a foolish individual would put any credibility into the findings of an intel agency that has been wrong on most of the important issues for the past 25 years.

Slick-
Unfortunately, I read the links you posted and they stated what you had not the courage to state:

The NIE is bullshit compiled by intransigent Bush-haters and liberals, which I must assume is your position as you provided the links without comprehension.

Former CIA Officials: Bush Iran Claims "Preposterous"
blah, blah, blah...
We were right, he lied....
If they support your arguments they are heros. If they argue against your they are traitors...
Enough of the "former" experts.

-Maybe it should be said that only a foolish individual would put any credibility into the findings of an intel agency that has been wrong on most of the important issues for the past 25 years.

Which is the kind of attitude that allowed a VP to form his own intelligence cherry-picking, er, gathering, and creative writing department.

Hey, ya think they are on strike?

LICKSTER

The NIE is a summary of ALL our intelligence services - military and civilian (I think it's 16 of them(, not just the CIA.

As I said, Slick - next time I want your opinion I'll just check the WSJ editorial page.

There's really no reason to trouble myself or waste my time with you.

LICKSTER

There has been a MASS exodus of our top intellligence agents who are fed up with the push to reach conclusions that agree with what this WH wants..

The military has also been losing general staff at a rate never seen before for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, I read the links you posted and they stated what you had not the courage to state:

The NIE is bullshit compiled by intransigent Bush-haters and liberals, which I must assume is your position as you provided the links without comprehension.
I don't think they say that at all. They simply ask legitimate questions: 1) why the sudden change? How is that not a fair question? 2) When has the intel community been right on a serious issue in the last 25 years?

Are you afraid to read viewpoints that are different than your own?

You seem to want to package all of this up as another Bush lie, which is a convient talking point of the left. But the authors ask valid questions that should go beyound politics.

LICKSTER

In case you missed my above post, I read about your dad and Johnny Cash, mentioned that I knew Johnny, that my dad died much too young too, and that I was sorry to hear about yours.

You have a good night.

Rupert Murdoch = FoxNews and WSJ opinion page. Ya, we'll trust the unbiased nature of both of them LOL

"Valid questions that go beyond politics...."

If such were truly asked and answered, the entire Bush family would be chased down in the streets by an enraged American public and hanged, as Poppy Bush himself once stated.

The NIE is a summary of ALL our intelligence services - military and civilian (I think it's 16 of them(, not just the CIA.
That is true. But all of the assesments are put into summaries by a committee of 3. The guy who testified in July in on the committee.

Again, I just posted links to conservative viewpoints. There are anti-Bush viewpoints as well. Best to read varying viewpoints and sort through the partisan stuff.

There has been a MASS exodus of our top intellligence agents who are fed up with the push to reach conclusions that agree with what this WH wants..
Or is it a MASS exodus of our so called top intelligence agents who are fed up with accountability? When was the last time the agency got anything right in the ME, China or Asia?

"Fed up with accountability...."

Now THAT's funny.

Rupert Murdoch = FoxNews and WSJ opinion page. Ya, we'll trust the unbiased nature of both of them LOL
So you must read the non biased NYTimes or maybe just listen to the unbiased CNN. Have they planted any "members of the public" in the recent debats?

Dude everything has a bias, why are you afraid to read differing opinions? Rarely are any of these sites completely wrong. They just give you a differing viewpoint on a topic. Which is a good thing.

"Fed up with accountability...."

Now THAT's funny.


It is. Lets hold all of the government national security functions to the same accountability that you hold the admin.

Or is it all the admins fault?

"The same accountability you hold the administration...."

You mean, they all resign their positions, are placed on appropriate psychoactive medications, and rusticated in Vermont?

I guess I haven't made my position clear. I think there is nothing that reliably makes Bush accountable at all.

I think he listens and obeys internal voices. I think other persons have noticed this and exploited it for their own purposes from time to time. They have often as not been burned with the rest of us.

Slick-
I'm sorry you didn't get your new war (which you wouldn't have fought in, or paid any immediate price for).

Get over it.

I'll see you around.

Oh, I get it. Boyd.

How impressive.

Maybe it should be said that only a foolish individual would put any credibility into the findings of an intel agency that has been wrong on most of the important issues for the past 25 years.

Slickster,

You state this and yet defend the intelligence actions and want to take action on the hear say of credible intelligence community. LOL!

This says it all.

I'm sorry you didn't get your new war (which you wouldn't have fought in, or paid any immediate price for).
Cooper your a loser. You assume you know things about things of which you know nothing about.

Dude everything has a bias, why are you afraid to read differing opinions? Rarely are any of these sites completely wrong. They just give you a differing viewpoint on a topic. Which is a good thing.

I read ALL kinds of publications. But, in the end postulating about facts does not change facts. The facts in this case are Iran never had fissile material and certainly not the equipment to make nuclear weapons.

One thing I do know about Iran is that Agmadinejad (who has no power outside Iran's borders) is disliked by the Iranian people and has been called to the carpet by the Assembly of Experts for his ridiculous sabre rattling (the ruling body with the power).

I also know that former moderate Iranian President Khatami, with the blessing of the Assembly of Experts, sent a letter to Bush when he took office offering to open dialogue and end the diplomatic void that had existed the past 22 years. Despite this, Bush mentioned them as part of the Axis of Evil - which resulted in the hardliners to say, 'See? We told you so'. There would never have been an Ahmadinejad had Bush taken them up on their sincere effort to end the two decades without diplomatic relations.

OK. I've talked about this all I can tonight. Later.

Lazier than Ronald Reagan. 100x less articulate. Half as smart. That's W!

You state this and yet defend the intelligence actions and want to take action on the hear say of credible intelligence community. LOL!
sorry not true. I asked you to justify your accusations of someone lieing. Are you saying the NIE is hearsay?

The facts in this case are Iran never had fissile material and certainly not the equipment to make nuclear weapons.
Many don't think that is factual. So how do you know its a fact.

Did Cooper get the message from Boyd, Badweek, Barney (they want to post again cause they think Cooper sucks).........who did I miss Cooper?

Beavis Christ.

Ride on-
As usual, you missed the point for your obsession with personality.

Allow me to take this occasion to say that I'm sincerely sorry for whatever serious public embarrassment I've caused you on this blog.

Maybe it should be said that only a foolish individual would put any credibility into the findings of an intel agency that has been wrong on most of the important issues for the past 25 years.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-12-05 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag

Yep, you are correct, you didn't say this!

You contradict what you support and then flip flop back and forth. Which is it, I am not sure but the hacking politically is obvious.

Re-
Many don't think that is factual. So how do you know its a fact.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-12-05 11:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

There we go. You trust Bush/Cheney above your own common sense.

Again, I'm sorry your new war has had a setback.

Carry on. I'll look to the editorial page of the otherwise fine WSJ for your opinions on this matter in the future.

The facts in this case are Iran never had fissile material and certainly not the equipment to make nuclear weapons.

"Many don't think that is factual. So how do you know its a fact."

SLICK

Well, common sense dictates it. Iran for the first time in recent weeks has the centrifuges neccessary to process urnaium, yet even then it's said it would take a long time to produce enough material for weapons.

All of you prove over-and-over again just how gullible you are! You refuse to believe any intelligence which indicates a loss for terrorism, but hold any intelligence which you can use to attack a fellow American up as GOSPEL!

With one end of your radical spectrum of ilk believing that blue blobs are aliens, and the 'normal' mob of party gangsters supporting Iran and believing that all their claims (now believed by you to be outright lies!) are just a form of 'diplomacy' to you all -- they are really good guys who need a hug -- it is no wonder that you all are becoming known as the party of subversive, war profiteering, cement-for-brains idiots I've known you to be, now for about 40 years!

And, you self-blinded scum think you can lead the greatest nation this world has ever seen? Sure, sure ... if their is a Cuban cigar dildo you can use in just a certain diplomatic way ...

Oh great Taddy the Trool has arived. Better get Your hip waders out. It's bound to get mighty thick in here.

Larry Mohr

TADOWE

You got us all wrong.

We DON'T believe intelligence that's been cherry picked.

We DO believe intelligence that's managed to escape the wrath of Cheney's Magic Marker.

It's no more complicated than that. Really.

Twin makes excuses, "We DO believe intelligence that's managed to escape the wrath of Cheney's Magic Marker."

You validate my comments -- don't you understand that, by now?

You all are actually downright pitiful, you have no concept of language or how to use it. You can only parrot propaganda you get from some party organ or the other ...

It is all hate-hate-hate Republicans, so that our team can win ... even if we have to lose a war for all of the USA to do so ...

You are the cement-for-brains neo-nazis of the 21st Century! Progressive People's Party uber alles! The Democratic party has been in goosestepping, baton wielding mode since the 2000 elections!

Oooh. Two-dump Taddy drops the "N" bomb. How creative and original!

Twin said -"We DO believe intelligence that's managed to escape the wrath of Cheney's Magic Marker."

There have been numerous sources cited indicating that:

1. Cheney has been pushing for military action against Iran.
2. There has been a struggle between his camp and Condi Rice's camp over how to approach the issue.
3. Condi favors diplomacy over military action and appears to be prevailing, at this point.
4. Cheney attempted to block the NIE because it did not support his position.

Do you have information indicating any of the above is NOT true?

As far as I'm concerned, not getting involved in another military adventure unnecessarily is a GOOD thing for America.

You may disagree with that and believe war is the answer to all problems, but I'm reasonably certain that does not make me a Nazi.

I hate to break this to You Taddy but Iraq was lost the very second it started. I am sorry that it hurts You so but tis the truth.

Larry Mohr

TADOWE:

The Democratic party has been in goosestepping, baton wielding mode since the 2000 elections!

I don't know what you're complaining about.

Somebody had to do it. My only complaint is how long it's taking.

The Democrats have been very kind of this president over the past 7 years and some odd months.

Now it's time (past time, really) to lower the boom.

The boney finger of shame points to the neo-cons, not the Democrats. We have a country to save and it's name isn't Iraq.

SANTONIO

I'm adding Tadowe's expressions to my list of

BUZZ WORDS THAT NUMB THE MIND.

But don't tell him. It will take away his reason for living.

So here's the latest -

First we are asked to suspend all sense of reality and buy that the intelligence community came to Bush last August and said "we have interesting new information about Iran's nuclear program"; and that they didn't tell him what it was, and he didn't ask. Sure.

Then we are told that Bush wasn't even briefed on what was in the NIE until Nov. 28. Which gets curiouser and curiouser in that it is now confirmed he discussed the findings with the Israeli PM on Nov. 26.

But of course the incurious automatons will spin, deflect, and obfuscate, but never, ever directly address the point. Right Tad?

"BUZZ WORDS THAT NUMB THE MIND."

Twin - you might also accurately name it "Buzz Words From a Mind That's Numb". LOL

Now it's time (past time, really) to lower the boom.
0 - 40 on votes on Iraq. Time to lower the boom?

We have a country to save and it's name isn't Iraq.
Raise taxes and creating more dependency on government are the major tenets of your parties plan for saving the country. Thats why the media is consumed with someone wearing majic underwear...

SLIKSTER

I don't know if we're going to create more dependency on government or not. I know that neo-con fumbling and bumbling has caused a lot of distress especially in New Orleans

However, restoring taxes to the pre-cut level is a given. You call it an increase. I call it Righting the Ship of State.

Somebody has to pay off the debts of Rumsfeld's Folly.

BTW, I've heard rumors about Romney's underwear.

Can you tell me what you know?

What about Mrs. Romney? I keep trying to peek under her dress but I don't see anything.

I know that neo-con fumbling and bumbling has caused a lot of distress especially in New Orleans
After the billions that were spent before Bush and katrina and the billions that were spent after katrina you still want to blame someone 1000 miles away in DC for the problems created by a corrupt local government, a corrupt chocolate mayor, a incompetent gov and the highest crime rate in US. Why isn't MS experiencing the same issues as NO? They experienced just as much damage as NO. But the difference is they are not wards of the state. Let NO become the cesspool it should be. The citizens are enjoying the fruits of their labor(or lack of).

Any idea that the NIE is anything more than an ***ESTIMATE*** is a stupid conclusion, but here the Left and, or Democratics gathering in the collective mob to defame a President, and believing it as if it were the gospel of Christ; delievered by 3 liberal angels, all dressed in pure white!

Indeed! Where was the CIA just a few months ago and with an ***ESTIMATE*** that Iran isn't seeking a nuclear "solution" to the Jewish problem?

How about last year? Two years ago? NO! THE INFO ISN'T TRUE UNLESS IT IS 5 YEARS OLD!

So, you squirming muckrakers of the Left can defame some more Americans in your zealous urge to support Iran and international terrorism!!!

Akmandinjad has been LYING for over 2 years about their right to seek nuclear armament; despite ***DIPLOMACY***!

So, now you have a victory for Iran, and they are more than happy at your support for them against Israel and the Great Satan ...

You scum sucking, cowardly, anti-patriotic crapweasels! You want the USA to lose, so your party can win along with terrorism! Faithless traitors!

"Let New Orleans become the cesspool it should be...."

Now, this is interesting to me, and far from the first time I have heard something like it.

Regarless of how "nice" the citizens are perceived to be, aren't they part of the United States? We want to write off part of our own country? Until they come up to some sort of financial standard?

What I don't understand about economics is legion, but this I do know: the truly blessed classes in this nation consider almost everyone that posts in this blog as being as much losers as the folks in New Orleans.

If you want to write these people off, then let them secede.

SLICKSTER:

Why isn't MS experiencing the same issues as NO?

LOL . . . Can you say TRENT LOTT?

But let's get back to the important stuff.

How about Mrs. Romney's underwear?

Com'mon SLICK. Fess up. You've been peeking, too, haven't you?

Tell us what you saw.

P.S. I agree that some parts of New Orleans is a cesspool.

WHEW! Have you ever been to the French Quarter between hosings. WHEW!

We want to write off part of our own country? Until they come up to some sort of financial standard?
They wrote themselves off by continuing to elect the same corrupt local government that for decades has misused and stolen money intended to be used to maintain the levees. They wrote themselves off by declaring the need for NO to be a 'chocolate' city.

Shockingly, Taddy rejects addressing the issue in favor of profuse frothing at the mouth.

"You scum sucking, cowardly, anti-patriotic crapweasels!"

And YES, I am making you the issue. You and your "ilk" who are really the ones blinded by hate. Enmeshed in your "calumny" you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by your hero/gods. Mired in your "traitorous" attitudes you vilify and dehumanize all who disagree with you.

But, sadly for you, all the vitriol and invective in the world cannot right the wrongs done to this country by your hero/gods. And all your spin, deflection and obfuscation cannot excuse you for your duplicity.

(And yet our national debt rose over a TRILLION dollars for the first time in U.S. history by the end of Reagan's term. Current debt service eats up $450 BILLION a year. Lest we forget Clinton was the driving force and instigator of Welfare Reform).

They wrote themselves off by continuing to elect the same corrupt local government that for decades has misused and stolen money intended to be used to maintain the levees.

SLICK

I have to say 'BULLSHIT!'.

The levees are the purview of the Army Corp of Engineers, who's budget was CUT by Bush, and who's funds for NO levee repair were diverted elsewhere.

Oh Tadowe, Tadowe

Akmandinjad has been LYING for over 2 years about their right to seek nuclear armament; despite ***DIPLOMACY***!

Well, it's just an "estimate" (LOL) of course, but it could have something to do with George Bush's stupid Axis of Evil declaration.

I don't know why he didn't just send them a singing telegram. It would have been a lot cheaper.

(If you're going to pin a bulls eye on somebody's back, it's not prudent to advertise it. Things like that tend to make another country ramp up their defenses.)

Louisiana's National Guard had 2/3rds of it's equipment in Iraq - including the heavy equipment which would have been of immeasurable assistance in the aftermath of Katrina- and close to half it's personnel in Iraq or on the East Coast preparing to fly out to Iraq.

Joe Scarborough: "We are left with only two options here. Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid."

Reagan also presided over two more long-term tax increases:

1. Disallowing 2% of the filers' AGI against business expenses. That tax increase has been on the books over 20 years.

2. Instituting a 7.5% floor of AGI for nondeductible medical expenses. For someone making $20,000, the first $1,500 in out-of-pocket expenses can't be written off. That has cost more people, more money than most would believe.

"Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid."

Again I feel compelled to point out that the two options are not mutually exclusive.

And in other news: the "missing" emails from the WH now number 10 million.

TWINPAC

Bush gave that speech a scant 3 weeks AFTER Khatami, moderate former President of Iran, sent a letter to Bush (with the blessing of the Grand Ayatollah and the Assembly of Experts) seeking to open diplomatic channels and end the 20+ years of isolation fromt the U.S. After Bush told them to fuck off the hardliners said, 'See? We told you so".

There would have BEEN no Ahmadinejad had Bush bothered to talk to them.

I should also mention that spontaneous outpouring of sympathy and candlelight vigils broke out all across Iran on the night of 9/11

DANFORTH

Facts are such inconvenient things aren't they? LOL

Reagan and Bush 41 raised taxes more than in any other period since WW2, yet somehow they successfully labled the Dems "tax and spend". No one's beaten the record of the Bush's and Reagan yet for increasing govt. spending and taxes.

I don't mind discussing the issue. The issue is simple: Either Iran is lying about continuing their nuclear program, or this document is lying about the program.

If Iran is lying, then what use 'diplomacy'? When has 'diplomacy' stopped and an invasion begun?

If the NIE is lying and Iran has continued their nuclear program, then they are playing politics with national intelligence.

You prefer to believe Iran is lying, I take it. And, which means that they cannot be reached diplomatically; else why suffer sanctions and the harm it does to your nation and population, if diplomacy is what you need in this world?

If the NIE is a political document, then Leftist and, or Democratic partisanship is influencing our national security in negative ways, and actually working in support of Iran and its status as an international supporter of terrorism and genocide.

You are losers, either way. On this hand, you are muckraking haters of fellow Americans and tacitly support the enemy that hates us for defending Israel and wants to wipe them out, man, woman and child. On that hand, you join in subverting the success and quality of national intelligence -- not to save the nation, but rather to gain votes by defaming and reviling another American because he belongs to the "other" party.

I think all you collectivists are sick, scummy, subversives and about the worse thing that could happen to our nation ... cowards, slimey war profiteers who want to lose a war so they can get some votes ...

Disgusting antipatriotic trash ....

They wrote themselves off by continuing to elect the same corrupt local government that for decades has misused and stolen money intended to be used to maintain the levees. They wrote themselves off by declaring the need for NO to be a 'chocolate' city.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-12-06 09:01 AM | Reply

Wrong again. Please do educate Yourself more thoroughly upon the subject matter at hand. Google Sometime Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Project established in 1995 as a result of 5 people drowning from flood waters. It is the responsibility of the US Army Corps of ENgineers to maintain the levees Dikes streams and waterways here in the United States of AMerica. Oh and insidentally the US Army Corps of Engineers took full responsibility for the failure of those levees. Please do try again.

Larry Mohr

I love it.

Bush plays another round of "Am I a liar or an idiot" and this is somehow the democrats fault.

Even Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan can see this for what it is, but compared to some posters here...they're leftists.

-Disgusting antipatriotic trash ....

The writing assignment at the "home", must have been self-description today.

PS- Saddam lied about his WMD's to keep himself in power.

Unless you're one of the idiots that think they're in Syria... I wonder, if we invade Iran and they have no Nuclear Weapons, what country do you suppose the neocon apologists will say they were moved to to make a us look bad?

And if Syria DOES have Saddam's WMD, why don't we invade them?

Because the whole talking point is so laughably untrue and unprovable that even the Bush admin won't say it, that's why. But Tadowe will.

And Tad is projecting, btw. He wa spart of the intel community once, right? So calling them liars is an admission of his own spin.

"The issue is simple: Either Iran is lying about continuing their nuclear program, or this document is lying about the program."

C'mon Tad. Are you really saying that the 18 agencies that make up the NIE are relying on what Iran SAID about their program. I don't think its the ISSUE that's simple here.

"If Iran is lying, then what use 'diplomacy'? When has 'diplomacy' stopped and an invasion begun?

Continue to ignore the evidence of the ongoing battle between Cheney and Rice if you wish.

"If the NIE is lying and Iran has continued their nuclear program, then they are playing politics with national intelligence."

Are you really contending that 18 different agencies all got together and conspired to give disinformation to the President? Really!? Or maybe you just woke up in a Krauthammer kinda mood today.

The rest of your post kinda went downhill. Well, not downhill so much as completely over the edge.

Always good for a laugh old sod.

Are you really contending that 18 different agencies all got together and conspired to give disinformation to the President?

Yes.

It's the only reality where Bush isn't a stupid, lying sack of shit. And some of the people here voted for him twice. They have a vested interest in this man that goes above the well being of our country.

And they know it, which is why they project all the "traitor" talk at anyone who pins the tail on their little W donkey.

"In August, I think it was John Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was."
-W.


LIAR!

AMERICANUNITY

Bush gave that speech a scant 3 weeks AFTER Khatami, moderate former President of Iran, sent a letter to Bush (with the blessing of the Grand Ayatollah and the Assembly of Experts) seeking to open diplomatic channels and end the 20+ years of isolation fromt the U.S. After Bush told them to fuck off the hardliners said, 'See? We told you so".

I know, but with Tadowe you have to keep to the basics or he'll get all upset and have a coronary.

The longer he goes, the frothier he gets. Then he starts giving that "Caps Lock" key all kinds of hell.

I try to keep things on the light side.

"I know, but with Tadowe you have to keep to the basics or he'll get all upset and have a coronary."

When his heart rate doubles to a Montgomery Burnsian 4 beats/minute you know its imminent.

TWIN and SANANTON

LOL

It's OK. Tadowe's nurse stops by about 8 am PST for his Thorazine shot. The manic phase usually lasts from about 2 am until he gets his 'shot'. Then it's ZZZZZ shuffling in his bathrobe until he lays down.

SANTONIO

If you look at our seniority level, Tadowe and I both joined this site about the same time in 2004 shortly after it was started. First him, then me.

I've pulled a couple all-nighters with Tadowe and I know the outcome. There really isn't anything to be gained by getting into a protracted exchange.

Tadowe needs a whipping post in his life since his wife left him and I refuse to be it. That's all.

Oh Taaaaaaaad. Taaaaaaad...

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was told in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program, the White House said on Wednesday, a day after Bush said he was not given a full report on the issue."

But the President just loved that WWIII fear-mongering analogy, and was able to pronounce most of the words in it, so he decided to run with it anyway.

Twin - I know what you mean. I've spent a lot of quality time with the great bloviator myself over the past couple of years. Nothing much ever changes with him. He makes ludicrous, unsubstantiated charges, moves the goal posts constantly, and resorts to hate speech at every turn.

I long ago gave up changing his mind about anything, but I refuse to let his crap slide by unchallenged. Plus its a hoot to see just how worked up we can get him.

if you love this country, then ya gotta do some soul searching as to how these two turkeys ever became pres and vp - how did we allow this to happen? will we continue to accept con men wearing make up, who have never driven a nail or milked a cow, who believe that they can lie with impunity, who hold us the citizens in disdain and treat us with contempt and condescension, who are in dire need of mental health treatment, whose bank acount defines their character and whose greed is their god to be our leaders?

If you think THATS bad AU, you should see him WITHOUT makeup!

But I kid the Tadster...

Hissing and spitting at a world that has passed him by is the only fun the old fellow can muster. He's always struck me as the kind of individual that isn't really happy unless there's urine on his cornflakes, even when he get caught flagrante delicto.

--Mr. Lyon Krapweisel

"Hissing and spitting at a world that has passed him by is the only fun the old fellow can muster."

Bingo! We have a winner! No more calls please.

FF Dutch.

bankrupt all three companies he was in charge of

Texas went bankrupt? Wow, the illegals must have done them in...

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-12-05 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I mentioned nothing about Texas, I was referring to the 3 companies that he was CEO of and clearly indicated so. Please try an keep up.

All 3 bankrupt under the 'guidance' of Dumbya.

CEO president? I guess he is. He's keeping his tradition of bankruptcy and ineptness alive and well with the US Treasury.

Making George W. Bush "aware of something" means nothing, since most things you make Bush aware of will not actually be processed by his tiny brain. His defense is valid.