bluelight

What they said

Mellon

Yeah, looks like a great, unbiased, credible source.

(Sarcasm can be inserted anywhere in this post)

bird chest

I heard the former head of the CIA talk about Iraq and compares it to other times when the UN under eseimated countries weapons. So it was not like the US did this after UN has never messed up. They under estimated (vastly sometimes) many times. It is easy to look back and say it but even the Iraqie generals thought every other army had wmd's except theirs. Thus spies inside Iraq would have been doing their job as well as possible and still be wrong.

raid517

Why do you guys always seem to find it so much easier to blame someone else when someone messes up? What is the big deal with taking responsiblity for your actions for a change. 'Why not say, we're sorry, we screwed up. We will try to learn from our mistakes?'

Sigh... Oh well I guess you can't speak for your leaders - but people would certainly respect them more if they did.

GJ

bird chest

Woops I still do not think we screwed up. Their may be no wmds but all of our intel pointed that way. Even still we got Saddam out. What exactly do you want me to apologise for?

Vampyromaniac

True, it is from a Democratic representative, but it's basically a collection of quotes.
Are you accusing Representative Waxman of fabricating the quotes? I would have some evidence to back up such a claim.
Heh, might make for a big scandal, since he's on the Commitee on Government Reform.

Unless I'm misinterpreting you calling it non-credible . . . .



Info on the quotes presented is found, if you click "full methodology" near the bottom. Seems he did a pretty fair job to me.

__________________

raid517

Misleading the people?

GJ

PS

I don't think it's you who needs to appologise.

bluelight

Ha ha ha....Funny post...funny post..




Are you saying the qoutes arent correct?


Another thing:

What is an ....unbiased source?!

IM 50 years old and i have never ever in my whole life seen "an unbiased source" so what is your point?

The source can be whatever......The qoutes are what they are.

Now....tell me...are they correct or not?




Bluelight

bird chest

I comepletley agree with what you just said. But some are more then others.

The_Neon_Cowboy

Funny how alot of you ammo comes from fired people or peole that quit (weather they were force out or not)(most who didn't do thier jobs very poorly) yea everyone loves statement by ex disgruntled employees, with an agenda/ an axe to grind with the current administartion.

__________________

raid517

I assume you are referring to a different debate - and all those guys that are now comming clean about Bush? Well sorry to burst your bubble - but all those guys left voluntarily - so they didn't have much to be disgruntled about. I wonder who you would believe though? I bet even if Bush came out and said openly 'I'm sorry I lied, I took my eye off the ball on the war on terror when I invaded Iraq' that even this wouldn't be enough for you? Just exactly would it take?

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

Well I tell you one thing a lot of people that have been fired/forcibly removed "left on their own", if you in a high up position you’re given the option to resign, most don't fire they just request your resignation and they do so, for example a governor can’t fire a mayor but he can ask for his resignation.

because then it doesn’t look so horrible on you or your office and because the way some of the government positions city council level and up are setup it's not like a business to be actually fired is actually imposable. You can be removed from office but for example the mayor couldn’t fire a city council member (as with any elected/appointed official) but he could ask for his resignation and he is obligated to then resign for his office.

(Because it nearly imposable to remove them other wise until their term is up)

This is even at the lowest city/town levels and we are talking the very top rungs of the government.

I don’t know about you but if you’re told to resign ad you resign did you truly leave voluntarily? No!
Do you say someone asked for you resignation? no .....thats all hush hush

__________________

raid517

But there is usually some reason for it, some scandal, something.... These guys were all pretty high profile, so if there was even a whiff that they had done anything wrong we would have heard something about it. We didn't. Besides which if they were 'asked to resign' due to something they had done, the government would undoubtedly be very keen to use it now. The haven't got anything.

Dick Clark served under 4 presidents in total - and was deeply respected both in Government - and in the intelligence community. I think its fair to say that if he says Bush ignored the real threat and was fixated on Iraq that there is probably something in it.

This is just you inventing your own propaganda again - in the absence f any supporting proof, you just make something up that seems to fit the picture - and then convince yourself no matter how unlikely that it just has to be true. How do the Republican party manage to train you guys to think like that?

However they do it, it's certainly a neat trick.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy

"This is just you inventing your own propaganda again - in the absence f any supporting proof" funny you guys say that then we look at alot of the souces you guys get your articals/information and they have 0 proof other wise it would be all over the news....you have only the anti us / anti war totally un accountable person to "trust" alot of times...

as for dick clark isn't the angel you might take him out to be as its been put buy the white house he wasn't and has exactly been doing his job citing instaces with the clintion administartion and for eample the world trade center bombeings I can't rember the details, this was stuff stated by the whitehouse as well as some politiocal analists

EDIT: ------------------------

Even in a n interview with honz bliz last week he says the saddam was acting like he had and was hideing wmd!!!!!! (this is direct from his mouth, you know the lead weapons inspector) weather he had then or not that saddam was claming (hinting or what ever) to his neigbors that he had them and wasn't afraid to use them. he even cites the way they were doing they wer handleing wepons inspecations..

when out troops got near bagdad there we even threats of use of WMD on our troops!!!

he does mention that he thinks they still had and have no wmd since they were required to distory them

I say again this is all stuff from honz bilx on an interview on CNN, lest week


---------------

edit even with out wmd mr. 1441 covers us

__________________

raid517

Er, what? Who or what is honz bliz? There seems from what I can make of it, to be a few quite disjointed arguments there.

But whatever, I haven't got the time to rake over all this old stuff again.

You should know that it isn't just Dick Clark, its David Kay Bush's own CIA man in Iraq, Gregory Thielmann, who served as director in the state department's bureau of intelligence during the Iraq campaign, General Jay Garner, effective US administrator of Iraq immediately after the invasion, several senior CIA officials - and no doubt there will be many more to come as a result of the current investigation.

In any case I really am curious, what if the current investigation finds that Bush did ignore the terrorist threat, what would you say then? Would you still be so fanatically devoted to him as you are now?

Like I said, what would it take?

GJ

Guidoo

A few points to consider..

1. Dick Clark really has nothing to with with what this topic started out addressing.
He is has made statements and offered testimony regarding counter-terrorism and what was or wasnt done
in the years,months and days leading up to 9/11.

2. Hanz Blitz,chief UN weapons inspector, did make a statement to the affect of Saddam acting like he had wmd.
Blitz also went on to state (if i recall properly) that Saddam may have been misled by some of his own people
regarding Iraq's wmd capability. I also seem to recall that the Iraqi information minister (Bagdad Bob was always
good for a laugh) threatened use of wmd in some respect. Then again to hear him tell it American soldiers were
dying by the thousands at the gates of Bagdad. Point being is most threats coming from Bagdad were quite outlandish.

3. UN resolution 1441 was just that. A UN resolution, not a US resolution. Meant to be acted on by the UN.


Guido

raid517

Lol Bagdad Bob was good for a laugh.

But it sure seems like some of the guys here took him seriously...


GJ

raid517

Well I have to disagree with that. Dick Clark is predominantly pointing out a disparity between what was said and what was actually done. Which very much was at the head of this topic.

with regard to your second point - those statements were made in the context of harsh criticism of the war - and after the war had finished - where he said that it was unclear what the true status of WMDS in Iraq was - but just like the Americans - throughout the time they spend there they were unable to find any. Blitz has consistently stated that the weapons inspectors should have been granted more time to conduct their investigations before any war was allowed to take place. So again that is a matter of what he did and did not say - and a few statements taken out of context in this regard is not helpful.

As for number 3 - I have no problem with that - and indeed I am often quite confused by the sheer hypocrisy of people who claim they loath the UN and do not subscribe to it - but are acting in its name and under its authority.

GJ

bird chest

If they find him innocent of what you just stated will you give him some credit?

raid517

Sure! I guarantee if the current investigating committee finds him innocent of all wrong doing I will ease off on him a little.

But that's not the question, the question is what will you guys do if the committee does conclude he became distracted over Iraq - and that this caused him to ignore the real threat of terrorism? What will you do if the one ace Bush has left is proved to be a fake?

Would you still want to sleep with a photo of him tucked under your pillow every night?

I am genuinely curious what your response would be.

GJ

bluelight

Innocent of what?''

Over exaggerating the threat and starting a war on false premises? While bypassing the international community?


Well...we all know that dont we.

The verdict will be passed by the voters.

Bluelight

bluelight

We know..

He went for Iraq because Wolfwitz and the boys had it penned down as something to do since long time ( He phrased what Usa does now already when he was in Bush SR´s government but was considered to extreme then ,to the advantage of Powell) and since Wolfwitz got the golden opportunity with 9/11 and Afghanistan didnt give as much as they thought they kept going by making up a load of garabage about connections between Hussein and his possession of WMD´s in order to be able to justify their plan for total domination of the mideast.

This we know for facts.
We also know that they were lying.
Some of us knew it already then.

Some of us will never admitt what they know ...now.



Bluelight

bird chest

Don't take this the wrong way. But if the comitee is not to biased then I will just hate bush more. Now by biased I mean a bunch of left wingers but since I do not know who is on the comitee at the moment... Yes I will hate bush more but I will still choose bush over kerry!

raid517

Well by law these committees have to be made up of a mixed bunch - Republican and Democrat - so the verdict they give is supposed to be balanced and impartial. So there you have that answer.

As for John Kerry - while I would be somewhat different from you in that I would choose anyone but Bush - I certainly wish the Democrats had picked someone other than John Kerry. I don't see a lot of depth or substance to Kerry - and that worries me. I also think he has a 'shifty' look about him - and all in all there is just something about him I don't trust. (No less and no more than Bush though). It would be cool if the Republicans fielded somebody like Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice as their candidate rather than Bush - as this would at least serve to give some credibility and intelligence back to the Whitehouse. But that would only happen if Bush choose to resign - or if he was somehow eventually pushed out. (These investigations look set to drag on well past the next elections, so who knows maybe it could still happen). What I don't understand is why both parties when they have infinitely better candidates, did they choose these people?

Oh well I'm just glad it's not me making the choice.

GJ

bluelight

You dont risk ever seeing a black man nominated a president for the republicans.
That will not ever happen.


Powell serves as a "liberal alibi" while the rest of them is cooking a completly different soup in the background.

Had he been democrat....Yeah im pretty sure that the democrats would have difficulties not nominationb Powell to become president.

Bluelight

raid517

Can you say that last part again blue? I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

In any case I thought about it too - and I realised how unlikely it was that the Republicans would put a black man up as their leader, let alone a black woman. There are still probably too many ultra right influences in the Republican party. So I guess you can scrub that idea.

GJ

bluelight

Powell is the only person in the Us political world that has enough cred and vibe to be accepted....everywhere...in the world.

He is talked to in confidence by all sides it seems.It is also obvious that therte is a "Fight for balance" withing the government and that Powell is practically alone "on his side of the fence"...Still the others cant do without him since none of them is acknowledged as anythinhg else that representatives of an extreme (and in fact not very traditional )way of Us politcs.

The whole unilateral business thought up by the neoconservatives isnt very productive...it is at least not more productive than what was before its introduction with the Bush government.

Someone said (Naomi Klein)that the one thing the Bush government has given the world is fear.

Well you cant trumpet fear for years and expect that people will listen forver.People will start listening to other tunes that are more constructive if the "fear waltz" doesnt give results.

And it hasnt.

I have said this before...Republican government in USA...YES! But not a neoconservative..not a Neoliberal.

Powell would even be a better choice i than Kerry..but with out the load of the other darkmen.

Bluelight

bird chest

Powell was asked to be pres by the republicans but he refused. He was also asked by the democrats.

Neo means new.

raid517

No neo conservative has other meanings too. It is used to imply a new even more extreme brand of conservatism than anything that has been practiced in the past. That is why George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and others are referred to as 'neo Conservatives' because their brand of conservatism is seen to be 'new' and much further to the right than their predecessors - like Bush's father, and his predecessor (Ronald Regan) and others.

It's a pity about Powell, because he is at least someone most people could learn to get along with.

Shoot me down if you want - but I think that's what the world needs right now - someone who can again help unify American foreign policy and to heal some of the wounds to international relations that have been caused by Bush.

But it ain't going to happen - so there you are. No point arguing about it I guess.

GJ


PS

I wish someone would move the 'post new thread' button over to the far lest of this screen and seperate the buttons a little. I don't know how many times I have hit 'post new thread' instead of reply. Slightly annoying but there you are...

bird chest

Man do you sleep lol.

but neodemocrats? That was what my point was more pointed to.