Even Powell admits he *ucked up!

[Timebuilder]

It's impossible to provide evidence regarding Bush's intentions as to the statements he and his administration made regarding intelligence data. The Bush administration is NOT going to release any documents or recorded dialogue (like the Nixon tapes) that may convey a sense of lying or deception on its part. Any admission on their part of lying would be political suicide and a sure-fire win for Kerry come November.

What you CAN do is this: compare what Bush said to what people like Clinton and Albright said.

It's the same thing.

So, where is the likelihood of a lie?

 

[Timebuilder]

Side note:
When you understand the process of gathering intelligence, the sources & methods (as much as gets into the public domain, which is quite a bit, though not everything), and the limitations on each of them, you can see how no intelligence product can ever be perfect. When a nation is doing its very best to keep some of its cards very very close to the vest, investing great resources to protect the truth & deceive all attempts to see in, it's at best a terribly complicated task to piece together fragmentary evidence into a cohesive picture. Nevertheless, EVERY intelligence service in the western world reached the SAME conclusion: that Iraq had WMD!

Very well said.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Unbelievable!

CPTex
Of course they won't come out directly and admit that they lied about the intel. That would be political suicide! So they have to dance around the issue, appoint committees that will investigate the issue that won't conclude their investigations until well after the election. So taking that into account, they lied and just won't come out and say it because it will surely be their ticket out in November.
Hypocondriac! More confirmed facts justifying that people like you don't have a clue! Of course I am wrong, you watch CNN, CNNBC, and MSMBC! What other info could you possibly need?


ATL2 - the FA
US intelligence, unfortunately, has proven time and time again to be an unreliable source of information for military operations. From the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade to the lack of WMD in Iraq, the intelligence community in general has failed time and time again to provide credible, reliable information. Blame it on budget, politics or corruption, the simple fact of the matter is that the general population at large knew information coming from Iraq was iffy, at best. Yet, the Bush administration orchestrated a war and occupation based on that information.

I'll reiterate again that Saddam and his ways have no special place in my heart. However, if we're going to invade Iraq, why not Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, most of Africa and Russia. In each of these cases, and more, there can be found examples of weapon stockpiling, human rights violation, sponsoring of terrorist organizations and/or much, much more. Yet, for some reason, we choose Iraq and Afghanistan. I would think that North Korea and Cuba pose more 'imminent threats' than Iraq, yet we leave these countries be.

Sir, do you read what you write? Do you understand that you are the classic uninformed liberal that just writes classic dribble with no proof. Some of those areas that you mention are on the hit list, others are not related to this argument. But you already knew that. You already knew that Clinton degraded the covert community dramatically prior to the Bush presidecy. But it is still the Bush administrations fault that the info was not correct. After all, Bush had a whole 8 months to protect the country after Clinton had 8 years to do the same. Please do us all a favor, change your "have flown" in your profile to "have flown in" so we know that you are also telling the truth. For this discussion, Pilot's are no better that FA's, but we still need the truth. We are all the same, so don't sweat it.

 

[414Flyer]

Yes, but you are still pretending that all those sentiments came about suddently when Bush took office, when you could find extremely similar statements made by officials in the Clinton adminstration.

Why not show quotes of Clinton, Albright, Gore, Kerry about Iraq, especially before 2001.

Kerry even said in 98 that we need to be prepared to act alone against Iraq, since France and Russia had been corrupted by Saddams oil money.

The intel and statements about Iraq did not change from Clinton to Bush, only the course of action about it.

 

[Capt. Tex]

He doesn't need proof. Why don't we invade N. Korea which has ADMITTED, read it again, ADMITTED they had weapons, even sent us pictures of them!! Yet we do nothing? It's a valid question.

What other info could you possibly need?

And I suppose you have secret documents sent straight to you from the oval office proving me wrong right? Do you think before you write sir?

 

[Timebuilder]

Why don't we invade N. Korea which has ADMITTED, read it again, ADMITTED they had weapons, even sent us pictures of them!! Yet we do nothing? It's a valid question.

That's easy. There are so many reasons.

We want to get the Chinese on board for this one, since they stand to lose a lot if this country continues to deteriorate.

There are opportunities there for the N. Korean people to embrace the ways of the south, and overthrow their own dictator. It is a completely different situation, and it will be handled in a completely different way.

Each situation presents a separate set of parameters that must be taken into account.

Its a big world, and you have to choose your operations wisely, looking at the cost/benfit ratio. Some of the benefits in Iraq are planting the seeds of a democracy, adding stablity to the region, and establishing an up close and personal example of helping and caring, starting with the overthrow of Sadaam and proving that we don't want to be the new dictators by handing back control over Iraq in June.

 

[ATL2CDG]

What's frightening is that you quote the liberal lie yet again. In the State of the Union address, President Bush said very clearly that while Iraq was (at the time) a very dangerous nation, it was not yet an IMMINENT threat, but that to wait until we have certain proof that it IS imminent, would be to wait too long. You have to act against real threats BEFORE they are sufficiently imminent to impose mass casualties on the USA! The New York Times ran an article "discovering" that the threat was not, in fact, imminent, and using it as proof that BUSH LIED when, in fact, that was never his claim. But they had to put words in his mouth that he never spoke first. Bush didn't lie nor claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.

"Absolutely."

- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

These two individuals speak for the Office of the President of the United States of America. I, for one, have not claimed Bush personally used the word 'imminent' (probably because he can't pronounce it - he's got 'regime change' on the brain).

TysV

 

[ATL2CDG]

Its a big world, and you have to choose your operations wisely, looking at the cost/benfit ratio. Some of the benefits in Iraq are planting the seeds of a democracy, adding stablity to the region, and establishing an up close and personal example of helping and caring, starting with the overthrow of Sadaam and proving that we don't want to be the new dictators by handing back control over Iraq in June.

OIL

TysV

 

[Timebuilder]

You know, it might have been smart if it was oil we were after.

Instead, we are in the capital, not building more oil derricks. We are fixing some, and that oil will help the Iraqi people this time, and not Kofee Annan and his son, or to build palaces for Sadaam.

Getting that oil would be a big help, but if we get any of it, we will be paying Iraq for that oil, at a good price, too.

So, when do we start taking oil out of Kosovo?

 

[Capt. Tex]

Its a big world, and you have to choose your operations wisely, looking at the cost/benfit ratio. Some of the benefits in Iraq are planting the seeds of a democracy, adding stablity to the region, and establishing an up close and personal example of helping and caring, starting with the overthrow of Sadaam and proving that we don't want to be the new dictators by handing back control over Iraq in June. [/B]

You talk like Bush came up with that idea all by himself.

There are opportunities there for the N. Korean people to embrace the ways of the south, and overthrow their own dictator. It is a completely different situation, and it will be handled in a completely different way.

Of course it will. The dictator in N. Korea has nothing to lose. He actually has the balls to bomb us with his nuke.

So, when do we start taking oil out of Kosovo?

Last time I checked, there wasn't any there. There were opportunities for Iraq to embrace the ways of the west also. The people of Iraq were capable of toppling Saddam if they really wanted it.

establishing an up close and personal example of helping and caring,

Huh?? I thought we were there because there were WMD's. Aren't we supposed to be searching for the alleged bombs? Now the reason we kicked Saddam out is because we cared so much for the Iraqi people that, gosh darn it, we just have to do something? And if I remember correctly, half of the Iraqi population still disagrees with the American occupation. I don't think they care about our "helping and caring"

proving that we don't want to be the new dictators by
handing back control over Iraq in June.

With all the violence still occurring, frankly, you're living in a dream world if you think it'll happen in 2 months. Here's what'll happen, we'll end up staying through the rest of the year, at least. The Iraqis won't want us to go because of almost daily killing and bombings. And the bush camp STILL won't have an exit plan figured out.

 

[TDTURBO]

Why debate who is lying about what?

It is my opinion that BOTH democratic and republican parties are made up of lying, self-serving, thieving, ego-maniacal political maggots that should be lined up and shot

This country is f*cked!

We need a viable third party and fast. The two party system has long out-lived its usefulness.

Why debate about such ridiculous assertions as "who’s lying" when both parties consist solely of deceitful corrupt parasites that would sell out their own mother to stay in office another day?

Of course Bush is lying, so is that idiot Kerry, they're all disgusting excuses of mankind, the sooner the country realizes that and votes for a third party candidate the better off we'll all be!

 

[350DRIVER]

Why debate who is lying about what?

Mainly because this current administration lied to the American people and to the international community. Many American soldiers and innocent people have been killed daily and someone needs to be held accountable for these actions. It was this current administration that made the choice to go to war with Iraq for reason(s) that never even existed in the first place. To put the icing on the cake bush never even had an exit plan so this new administration that takes over is going to have one he!! of a mess on its hands. Are we safer? I think not, if anything we created many more anti-American terrorists/groups that are going to use this event to cause us more problems and attacks against our interests. This typical G.I. Joe attitude that bush has is not taking this country anywhere positive or solving any problems.

This country is f*cked!

Yes it is.

Of course Bush is lying, so is that idiot Kerry, they're all disgusting excuses of mankind, the sooner the country realizes that and votes for a third party candidate the better off we'll all be!

Anyone is better than bush, he has done enough to last many years. Take the lesser of the two evils. I am not a big Kerry fan but he surely will be getting my vote this november.


I would be highly surprised if bush gets re-elected-

3 5 0

 

[TDTURBO]

Well I'm voting for Ralph Nader, Kerry is a mongoloid with acromegaly(pituitary disorder) and Bush is just a plain idiot. How can you vote for another jagoff that will just perpetuate further incompitence? Get that s*it out of there for good. Thats ALL Clinton did was lie, that's all Kerry will do, that's all Bush will continue to do! Vote both those C*cksuckers out and send them to Rwanda.

 

[350DRIVER]

but.... A vote for Nader in reality is a vote for Bush. I personally would not chance giving Bush another four years so without a second thought the only other alternative is a vote for Kerry. Nader will not do anything other than help re-elect Bush but that choice is up to you.


3 5 0

 

[N2264J]

No we're not...

If you compare our present level of safety, which is difficult to quantify, with what our likely level of safety would be had we not taken the actions we have taken, then yes. We are safer now.

More terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the 30 months after Sept 2001 while the Bush administration was executing a war against it than there were in the 30 months prior.

How many of our troops, that we profess to support, have been blown up by roadside car bombs in the last year since Baghdad fell? We're not talking about typical strategic or tactical objectives of a conventional war here - this is guerrilla terrorism to target and kill Americans five or six at a time.

Richard Clarke is right. The United States invasion of Iraq played into the hands of anti-American Islamic extremists and made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism thereby undermining the ill conceived "War on Terror."

 

[sqwkvfr]

Re: No we're not...

More terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in the 30 months after Sept 2001 while the Bush administration was executing a war against it than there were in the 30 months prior.

How many of our troops, that we profess to support, have been blown up by roadside car bombs in the last year since Baghdad fell?

How many of these attacks would have taken place on American soil had we not taken the fight to the terrorists?

It's also interesting to see all of the Al Queda types fighting and/or being found in Iraq considering the left's assertion that Al Queda and Iraq have nothing to do with each other.

 

[rettofly]

OIL

TysV

1. The price of fuel is somewhat (except for taxes and the cost of production and distribution) dependent on supply and demand.

2. The price of fuel in the U. S. has risen substantially in recent months (in constant dollars, it's about where it was during the Carter administration).

3. If we went into Iraq for oil, why isn't the supply and demand element of fuel prices pulling prices down?

Liberal rhetoric is a sight to behold. Allow me to mention the recent pious ranting of Candidate Kerry over rising fuel prices while frantically disavowing his earlier call for adding $.50 tax to each gallon of gasoline. It's laughable!

 

[N2264J]

Re: Even Powell admits...

It's also interesting to see all of the Al Queda types fighting and/or being found in Iraq considering the left's assertion that Al Queda and Iraq have nothing to do with each other.

They didn't have anything to do with each other until we went into Iraq. That's the connection.

The United States invaded a Muslim country like bin Laden predicted which had the effect of galvanizing the anti American extremist Islamic factions.

We are not safer and the Bush administration struggling to pick a color to paint this turd for the 9/11 commission isn't at all reassurring to me. It's still a turd.

 

[Timebuilder]

Richard Clarke is right. The United States invasion of Iraq played into the hands of anti-American Islamic extremists and made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism thereby undermining the ill conceived "War on Terror."

Richard Clarke is an inconsistent, duplicitous opportunist who we probably should not have kept on from the Clinton administration.

The war on terror is "ill conceived?"

Really.

I'll ask again. What is your alternative?


(Minutes of stunned silence.)

Yep. Your answer is most likely appeasement. And we already have seen how well appeasement workd with Nazi Germany, and how poorly appeasement has served Israel.

 

[350DRIVER]

Richard Clarke is an inconsistent, duplicitous opportunist who we probably should not have kept on from the Clinton administration.

Sometimes the truth hurts huh?!?! Your above statement really does not surprise me at all since he turned on your boy bush and now you are just a tad mad- lol I am very glad as many others are that Mr. Clarke did come forward and I hope he continues to be outspoken. I love now how you try to paint a picture of him to be "inconsistent" just because the information that he has come forward with is not what you want to hear neither does it agree with your beliefs and desires. . . Too funny.


3 5 0