What we don't see in the news

[Salty Dog]

The thing that really gets my goat is all the blather about Bush being a "war criminal" because he sent all those good 'Merican boys to die and kill so many innocent Iraqi people for no good reason.

Where were these idiots when we were bombing Serbians? Where were they when we were lobbing tommies into Iraqi aspirin factories? In all honesty, I'm sure they were out there, blathering away, but you & I just didn't get to hear about them. Relevency and timeliness guiding the fourth estates' decisions more than politics, I'm sure... <gag>

Not that Bush isn't starting to lose me with pi$$ing away my tax money to buy every geezer in America their pills. After nearly 14 years in the Nav, I know socialized medicine is a flaming disaster. Yet our "principled conservative president" is pushing just that. And yes, some more leadership in the (we don't need a) TSA debacle would have been nice, too.

Still, KickSave's sarcasm notwithstanding, going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Intel recently discovered there led to an arrest of an Iraqi operative in the Chicago area. That's one that was publicized. A clear and direct link to our ops there improving internal national security. It was justified - maybe not point by point as extolled in the President's address to the nation, but in general and overall, America is more secure today because of it. More to follow, I'm sure.

 

[cherokee]

Interesting thought Wil, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they are going to let the libs run their mouth making their usual outrageous claims, talk about getting him impeached, etc. Then lay out their trump card and squash all would-be nominees before the '04 election. Would kill all they've said and make them look like the buffoons they really are. Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves.....

 

[KickSave]

There is nothing to suggest that Bush is not a reverent man, nothing to suggest that he had any knowlege of the veracity of ANY intelligence document, and nothing to suggest that Sadaam was not seeking to buy "yellow cake" for the second time since the 80's.

Nothing to suggest that he had any knowledge of the veracity of ANY intelligence documents that he paraded out ot us as the primary reason for going to war? Do you hear just how insane that sounds? There's nothing to suggest Bush knew his intelligence agency was feeding him crappy information, but he still went to war over it? Fantastic... It's like Monty Python... After Sir Galahad kills the entire wedding party with his sword, he says to the father of the bride "sorry". It's pathetic that you people are defending the president for not knowing his intelligence was either bogus or unverified, when he used that intelligence to send us to war at an incredible expense, in human and financial terms.


All that we DO know is that there was an apparent problem in the US intel community about whether this information was seen as sufficiently reliable. As you know, the Brits STILL feel that their intel is correct. I'm sure these facts make no difference to you.

I am not surprised.

Don't sugar coat it, the report was crap. It was as valid as some CIA desk jockey saying he heard his cousin Leonardo in Belgium saying he overheard some dude saying the president of Mozambique wanted to Nuke the US... so hey, lets attack them first! Of COURSE the Brits are still standing by it... Blair is fighting for his life, and admitting his reasoning for the war was marginal and clearly over inflated, he'd die right then and there. Only difference here is that our Congress is a little slower to want Bushes head for such a transgression.

If we removed every government we didn't like, or even every government that is known to harbour terrorists, we'd be at war for the next 100 years. Apparently all it would take would be to sell the American public about the impending nuclear threat, real or made up, and off we go. So who is next on our hit list? The Saudis? They clearly support Al Quaida. Syria? They do too, infact your lame rationale has them as the place where Saddam has hid all these supposed weapons he had.. you know, the ones we STILL can't find! Who's after that? Pakistan? Indonesia? Yemen? Palestine? Iran? They are telling us they are going nuclear. They pose just as much of a threat to us as Saddam did. Lets go get em! Right, off we go!

And PLEASE please spare me about all the human rights violations that Saddam perpetrated as any reasoning for this war. Saddam was sassing Kurds 15 years ago and we couldn't care less. We had our chance to take him out in 1991, and we let him stay in power because choosing foreign governements ISN'T one of our rights. So now we come around with a more personal reason, so make up and inflate the threat he poses and take him out. Yet when the truth slowly comes out that he was much less of a threat to us than we had advertised, we hide behind a phony veil of morality, and freedom for the Iraqi people. That's the most false spin there is... Thgis war was about Bushes ratings! Machievelli at its most basic level. Reverent? Please! He might call himself a Christian, but he's a hypocritical fraud, like the rest of you!

 

[Timebuilder]

I LOVE battling absurdity. Lucky for me, there is no shortage of it!

Oh yeah, don't compare Bush to Jesus either, isn't that sac-religious?

As Jarhead pointed out, it depends on who you ask. If you ask the Bible, it stipulates that Christians are to model their behavior, as best as they can, after Christ. Thanks for that opportunity.

Now, on to the best stuff:

Nothing to suggest that he had any knowledge of the veracity of ANY intelligence documents that he paraded out ot us as the primary reason for going to war? Do you hear just how insane that sounds?

Ok, lets's have a look.

Your statement contains an assupmtion that wasn't part of what I said. It's something that you inserted. Here it is:

...that he paraded out ot us as the primary reason for going to war?

No, the part where you say that this was the primary reason for going to war is incorrect. You are free to determine what part you feel is most signifigant, but the part that I thought was most signifigant was getting rid of a bad guy that was helping to destabilize the region. We knew he had WMD, and refused to give inspectors free reign, was dedicated to the destruction of Isreal, had killed thousands of his own people, and a dozen or so other reasons related to these. Whether or not he had actually purchased yellow cake was not, and IS not, anything more than a specious argument where going to war is concerned. Was there a strong possibility he was trying to do so? Based on history alone, yes.

Now, the first part:

Nothing to suggest that he had any knowledge of the veracity of ANY intelligence documents

That's right, there is NOTHING to suggest that he had any knowlege of the truth or falsehood of ANY documents. Since he was not the source of the documents, how, praytell, would he know how accurate they are? He relies on others, specialists in their field, to make those determinations. Do you see how insane YOU are sounding?

Let's continue.

It's pathetic that you people are defending the president for not knowing his intelligence was either bogus or unverified, when he used that intelligence to send us to war at an incredible expense, in human and financial terms.

See above. Pay special attention to the part about this intel NOT being the reason we went to war. Or ignore it. But don't insult our intelligence by pretending that something is a causal link, when in reality it is not.

Don't sugar coat it, the report was crap. It was as valid as some CIA desk jockey saying he heard his cousin Leonardo in Belgium saying he overheard some dude saying the president of Mozambique wanted to Nuke the US... so hey, lets attack them first! Of COURSE the Brits are still standing by it... Blair is fighting for his life, and admitting his reasoning for the war was marginal and clearly over inflated, he'd die right then and there. Only difference here is that our Congress is a little slower to want Bushes head for such a transgression.

I'll be kind, and say that you have a unique perspective. One that ignores the very solid, even most likely possibility that the British intel on this matter is better than ours. That doesn't happen often, but it can, and DOES happen.

If we removed every government we didn't like, or even every government that is known to harbour terrorists, we'd be at war for the next 100 years. Apparently all it would take would be to sell the American public about the impending nuclear threat, real or made up, and off we go. So who is next on our hit list?

I'll be honest with you. There is a time honored method in the martial arts: you do what you can. When confronted with multiple attackers, you start with attacker number one, as you determine that man to be. Then number two. You consider their size, their weapons, and youre own abilities. Sometimes, just kicking number one's a$$ is good enough to deter the others. Sometimes not. In a worst case scenario, you hurt the ones you can hurt, and you try and do so before they hurt you, or your friends. We are not equipped to take on everyone, but we will do what we can. The Saudis can be hurt very badly, and in a number of ways. A successful democracy in Iraq would go a long way there. Drilling our own oil would also help. We can do this without destroying the environment, but not enough people have been hurt here in America to make that drilling a reality. We don't need the Saudis nearly as much as they need US. This is just my opinion, but I like it a lot more than I like yours.

And PLEASE please spare me about all the human rights violations that Saddam perpetrated as any reasoning for this war.

We already covered that. Running out of material?

That's the most false spin there is... Thgis war was about Bushes ratings! Machievelli at its most basic level. Reverent? Please! He might call himself a Christian, but he's a hypocritical fraud, like the rest of you!

When you run out of argument, you and the other Bush haters turn to personal attack, which is only based on your opinion. Even when I was a liberal, and I heard others spouting this nonsense, I knew it was hurting our arguments and our credibility in general. Before you can make an argument against what makes a reverent man, I'd advise you to find out just what that means first, so you don't come away looking as bad as you do.

 

[captainv]

>>Interesting thought Wil, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they are going to let the libs run their mouth making their usual outrageous claims, talk about getting him impeached, etc. Then lay out their trump card and squash all would-be nominees before the '04 election. Would kill all they've said and make them look like the buffoons they really are. Give 'em enough rope to hang themselves.....


i can see your thinking here, but if the administration had proof of WMD and held until the election to benefit Bush, there would be absolute heck to pay for sitting on the evidence. it'd be better to release it now, take the heat off themselves. all the Dems would have left is the economy... besides, you couldn't keep something like that quiet for long. the grunts who found the proof would talk to their buddies in camp and the story would leak out. always does.

also, getting back to the original thread, why the mainstream media wouldn't run a story that would highlight Bush's reverence? well that's not news, is it? maybe a photo-op for an inside page, but doubtful front-page material, especially on a clandestine visit to the hospital. a story highlighting his faith would be more appropriate in the religious media, not the mainstream. i didn't check the link, but it sounds like snopes debunked the story anyway. people remember the Clinton photo (even if he was faking) because it was a newsworthy event, the D-Day anniversary.

 

[enigma]

>>

also, getting back to the original thread, why the mainstream media wouldn't run a story that would highlight Bush's reverence? well that's not news, is it?

I seem to remember that Hillarys book release made the news. Was her book "news"?

It is my opinion that the mainstream media is nothing more than propaganda, they report on the stories that further their beliefs.

regards,
8N

 

[greyhound]

bush

Sorry folks, but it's true that many people just believe the first thing the media says and don't make an effort to find out if it is fact or an exageration.

Bush declares war on terroism,
Can't find Osama," elections coming up, HMMMM, let's go get Saddam"

Can't convince the U.N or the world that war is neccesarry

Bush says,"Let's say Saddam and Al Qaeda are connected".
World says "prove it!"

Bush Can't,

But wait our intel says they have WMd.
U.N says O.k, prove it.

Collin Powell gives them their so called proof.
But bush can't wait any longer, doesn't wait for the U.N to consider it, or hand it over to the inspectors to verify,and gives Iraq it's final warning..

Then no WMD is found,

Bush says, " but hey, we liberated some oppresed people.

WHAT!!!!!

You justify all the civilian casualties, the killed and wounded soldiers on that!!!!!

From terrorism, to WMD, now to liberation of Iraq!

Never mind the economy, because wars do not favor most sectors of the economy.
Or the fact that the credibility of our intel will now always be in question.

But how the heck can you face the nation after all the human loss, and expense knowing you lied to everyone to go to war!

by the way, did you get MR. Hussein?
Bush can't answer.

So you lied, have people kill for you and get killed, and you now don't know if he's alive or dead. Isn't that called being worse off than before.

now you have a multi-millionaire, possibly alive who can buy anyone to blow himself up and you won't have a clue about his whereabouts?

Mr Bush,The good news is you prepared your country for this possibility right? Oh you didn't, you can't fund local and state governments for added security costs like you promised.

One more question Mr. Bush How do you manage to still have over a 50% approval rating.

Mr Bush thinks to himself, " most americans are gullable people" " they believe everything you tell them"
" maybe cutting back on education is actually a good thing for us politicians!

 

[Timebuilder]

I'll ignore the poor syntax, spelling, and use of punctuation. It isn't your fault the NEA has removed all accountabliity from the public schools you attended. It IS your fault that you didn't learn more, though.

Under FAR 61.53, you should decline any additional flying opportunities. From you post, I think you have a disqualifying medical condition: over active imagination.

 

[cherokee]

The thing I really love about the libs is the ol' 'Bush hasn't got Osama or Hussein yet'. Well, if you haven't noticed he's the President and he sets policy. He doesn't go capture people...the military does with the help of CIA. So when you rip on Bush for not finding these guys you're really ripping on the military and the CIA.

 

[PilotOnTheRise]

"Who cares if Bush lied about WMD. Apparently he didn't realize he was lying anyway. "


Yeah, good point. I'm sure the families of the men and women who died don't care if Bush lied about why (or if he was just midlead by his intelligence agency).

I'd bet the two men who lost their legs (at least two men, probably a lot more) or the guy who lost his hand... those guys probably don't care if Bush lied. Hey, he meant well, right?


And I KNOW for a fact that all the taxpayers of the USA don't care one bit about WHY we have a $50 BILLION bill to pay for all this... nope... who cares if he lied about why this all happened! I mean, if his CIA director just fed him some bogus report, it's an honest mistake, and he then fed it to the entire nation in a State of the Union address, thats nothing to get worked up about...


And now, I'll continue to wait for the aliens to land and take us away from all this.... Apparently some of us ARE living on a different planet than the rest of us

You know very well what I meant by that. This war was needed regardless of whether Saddam has WMD or not. He was going to get them sooner or later. He is/was an evil ruler! We also know that Saddam has ties with Osoma Bin Laden and other terrorist networks. What I mean is ... why is it such a big deal if WMD were involved or not ... he was an evil man who needed to be removed from leadership.

As far as the military and the troops are concerned. It is horrible that people had/have to die. I am deeply saddened by this and the troops as in the story who have lost limbs or been injured. The fact is, these soldiers knew the risks of joining the military in the first place. They were not drafted, they volunteered to serve. What they do/did is what a military is for and if you think people are not going to get hurt or die, then you are the one on the other planet!

 

[cherokee]

[As far as the military and the troops are concerned. It is horrible that people had/have to die. I am deeply saddened by this and the troops as in the story who have lost limbs or been injured. The fact is, these soldiers knew the risks of joining the military in the first place. They were not drafted, they volunteered to serve. What they do/did is what a military is for and if you think people are not going to get hurt or die, then you are the one on the other planet! [/B]

Great point!

 

[cherokee]

Originally posted by captainv
i can see your thinking here, but if the administration had proof of WMD and held until the election to benefit Bush, there would be absolute heck to pay for sitting on the evidence. it'd be better to release it now, take the heat off themselves. all the Dems would have left is the economy... besides, you couldn't keep something like that quiet for long. the grunts who found the proof would talk to their buddies in camp and the story would leak out. always does.

I certainly don't think they'd zap 'em with it right before the election but maybe let the criticism hit a crescendo. As they make their wildest accusations- bring it out. I don't know, may not be the case at all but I had thought of it. Mr. Rove is a helluva political mind......

 

[DarnNearaJet]

Is North Korea next? They have an evil ruler and WMD. (And I bet we can even find them this time!)

When is India going to attack Pakistan? Pakistan supports terrorism, is not a democracy, and has WMD. When India attacks next month, how can the US possibly condemn them?

 

[jarhead]

Are you serious. Pakistan supports terror!?!? For cryin' out loud, Pakistan is the country that allowed U.S. forces air space and other assets to chase the Talibam out of Afganistan.

Is North Korea next...........you make a good case for it. I support your view there! Yes, North Korea could well be next if diplomacy fails.

 

[KickSave]

Timebuilder, you are just a joke!

Go ahead and stand by the man as he's being brought down for this fraud, but the rest of us are a little less gullable.

FACT: We did not go to war with Iraq over human right issues! We went to war over the supposed "threat" they posed to our safety. While no one including myself disputes that Saddam was an Ahole and "deserved" to be taken out, that's not the same as being truly justified in actually going to war. There are a TON of Aholes all over the planet who deserve to be taken out, but it's not our place on the planet to dictate who runs each and every other country. I don't see us beating the war drums about Cuba, North Korea, Iran, so lets not pretend we had human rights as a primary reason for goign into Iraq. As I pointed out (which you ignored) we had human rights as an issue with them for decades and couldnt care less. So our only reason was WMD, and the supposed threat Saddam posed to OUR safety! Well, the WMD are no where to be found, and as it turns out, the nuclear threat to our safety was based on faulty, unproven intelligence! How many more wars should we start based on unproven intelligence from other countries? How many lies, or unproven intelligence reports, are we going to use to justify the next war?

I love your Martial Arts analogy... only take on those who you know you can whoop? Please! We could whip every other country on the planet with our military, but of course, we don't have a reason to, yet, do we? You think we can hurt the Saudi's by drilling our own oil? Of course we can, but HOW does that get them to stop supporting Al Quaida? It doesn't! The ONLY way we ca ndo that is to invade them militarily, like we did in IRaq. But we don't have support for that war yet, do we? Well, when you need a reason to get the Amercian people behind a war, all you gotta do is tell em that they want to Nuke us. If the Amercian people don't want us going to war with 15 different countries, all we gotta do is snow them on the reasons... after 9/11 we'll apparently belive anything we are told... or at least YOU will! We'll believe it, even if you got the report from Joe's Intelligence Store on the corner of Buckingham and Thames!

By your rationale, if the Brits tell us Iran wants to build nukes, we HAVE to go in there and stop them. We HAVE to go into North Korea also. This last war was about the threat they posed to us, so we CANNOT stop there! We MUST invade every country that poses a threat to us, even if we get word of that threat from some other intelligence agency that we have no control over. Of course, by more of your crazy reasoning, if we just kick a$$ on a few more countries, the rest of them will get the message and simply disband their nukes, stop supporting Al Quaida, and start waiving Old Glory in fear and respect! LMAO! If we flex our muscles enough, all the problems will just go away.... LOL! Who really cares what created the problems in the first place... had nothing to do with our muscle flexing back in the 80s and 90s, did it?

Sounds like a really solid foreign policy to me! But what else should we expect when the economy ain't going to get you re-elected anyway? Of course, with his ratings dropping steadily again, we should expect a new report to surface about the nuclear threat that Yemen poses to us, and be marching off to war with them next also. We autta be able to take them, right Timebuilder?


http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm