More hapless Libs speaking out of their ass

[jacksmar]

President Bill Clinton, 1998: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Sen. John Kerry, Oct. 10, 2002: "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 Edwards, Oct. 10, 2002: "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Al Gore, 2002: "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Why do these kool-aid drinkers speak without thinking? Why do we have to hear it?

[Nickdfresh]

Dude, here's a clue.

If you want to start a thread to bitch about how "liberals are ruining your life," let's at least make it topical, like from this year at least?:D

Oh yes, provide a link for your delusional, partisan cut and pastes as well...

[knuckleboner]

can't we find a quote from richard I about weapons in the middle east?

[jacksmar]

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Nick, c'mon:rolleyes:

[FORD]

How many times are you Busheep going to post the same set of irrelevant, out of context quotes?

This isn't a dupe thread, it's a whatever word applies when something's been posted 20 times thread. Anybody got a fucking Latin dictionary?

[jacksmar]

More two faced shit from commie lib shills:

"I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration," Dean told reporters while campaigning in California. "We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing them today." Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, however, continued his attacks on Bush's Iraq policy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/15/as_bush_gets_lift_democrats_laud_capture/

Oh No!!! Not Doctor YEEEEWAAAAAAHHHHH Dean as well????!!!!??

[jacksmar]

Ford, thanks for reading.

Here's more from a treasonous senator that stepped on his dick and tongue at the same time.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons," Bush quoted West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller as saying in an October 2002 speech.

Rockefeller, who now serves as the top ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was among the 29 Democrats who voted for the war in a key 2002 Senate vote.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14442372.htm

[FORD]

Originally posted by jacksmar
More two faced shit from commie lib shills:

"I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration," Dean told reporters while campaigning in California. "We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing them today." Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, however, continued his attacks on Bush's Iraq policy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/15/as_bush_gets_lift_democrats_laud_capture/

Oh No!!! Not Doctor YEEEEWAAAAAAHHHHH Dean as well????!!!!??

wow, an article from 2003..... Keep going, at this rate you'll be in the present time eventually.

One thing interesting in that article though.....

It's when Judas, Gepheartless, Holy Joe, and the rest of the DLC shit for brains were bashing Dean for making the factual statement that the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make a damn bit of difference to the safety and security of the United States of America.

As usual, Dean was proven correct. :cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Nick, c'mon:rolleyes:

Seriously? I've seen these same, out of context, quotes about 50-times in this forum...

What's your point? That the "Liberals" are liars? Dude, have you even read the news for the past six-months? Read the article on CURVEBALL, then tell me all about it.

You know you don't always need to run interference ass-covering for BUSH and his yo yo's...



Originally posted by jacksmar
President Bill Clinton, 1998: "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

There had been no inspections for years at that point. He was still going on the assumption that since IRAQ was preventing UN Inspectors from entering in, that they must be hiding something. They were in fact trying to pretend that they had chemical weapons in order to deter an IRANIAN attack, while truthfully telling us they had none.

DAVID KAY WAS IN IRAQ before the IRAQ WAR to conduct inspections and he found nothing. But of-course, those IRAQIs are really good hiders.;)

Pres. CLINTON neither stated any specific threat, nor was he advocating anything more than airstrikes (which actually destroyed most of the IRAQ stockpiles of WMDs, the inspections got the rest).


Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002: "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

**Well, you have to admit that at least she said that? While CHENEY and BUSH kept saying, or insinuating, that there was a connection.**

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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

She was receiving selectively culled and "cherry-picked" intelligence reports directly form the Administration cronies at the DIA, and from Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The Congress was not made aware of the fact that the CIA had serious doubts about most of these claims, and had even proven many of them to be false.


Sen. John Kerry, Oct. 10, 2002: "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 Edwards, Oct. 10, 2002: "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Al Gore, 2002: "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


We had been using "force" all along, and see the above answer. The Administration lied to their own people such as POWELL, not the just the Congress...

They systematically selected and intelligence that proved what they thought to be in line with their ends, and repressed any critical views regarding the existence of WMDs, or of their sources. They even attacked the CIA repeatedly, remember? Because the CIA refused to go along with all of the "KOOL-AID drinking...


Why do these kool-aid drinkers speak without thinking? Why do we have to hear it?

Oh, so it's there fault that BUSH invaded IRAQ and killed 2,100 service members and over 100,000 Iraqis?

When did CLINTON plan to invade IRAQ with 160,000 US service members?

Blaming congress for this debacle is like blaming stockholders for the failure of ENRON...

[Hardrock69]

jacksmar says "liberal Democrats" are liars without bothering to point out the NONSTOP lies that Cheney and his organ-grinder moneky Chimpy keep mindlessly repeating again and again and again AT THE PRESENT TIME.

Not only that, all of the Dem statements were based on intelligence that was provided by the Bush Criminal Empire.


Man, this thread is probably the most irrelevant thread I have seen in the Front Line in some time.

[jacksmar]

According to your context, President Bush has been a busy killing machine. And I think that a few members of the US military might take exception to President Bush just going over to Iraq and killing 2100 servicemen.

If you’re really so concerned about Iraq:
http://www.iraqblc.com/iraq-reconstruction.htm

I’m sure you’re aware the hapless Dems agreed to delay the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senate Democrats agreed to the Republicans’ proposal to postpone until after the presidential election. You knew this right?

For Ford, this is defined as complicity.

When hapless Democrats lie, no one died.

[Warham]

Clinton got his intelligence from the BCE? Do tell! ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
According to your context, President Bush has been a busy killing machine. And I think that a few members of the US military might take exception to President Bush just going over to Iraq and killing 2100 servicemen.

How would you know? Have you been involuntarily extended too? They only see the ground in front of them. And if I had that shitty job, I wouldn't want to hear the truth either.


If you’re really so concerned about Iraq:
http://www.iraqblc.com/iraq-reconstruction.htm


I mostly concerned about Americans, and the billion$ we're spending there, and how much of it is being lost through corruption, and "no-bid contracts."


I’m sure you’re aware the hapless Dems agreed to delay the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Senate Democrats agreed to the Republicans’ proposal to postpone until after the presidential election. You knew this right?

For Ford, this is defined as complicity.



You mean the "Intelligence Report" that was a complete white wash of the Administrations' "use" of the intellingence?

You mean when they tried to blame everything on ex-DCI George TENET, and he threatend embarressing (Richard CLARKE-like) "disclosers" on the Administration? So they quietly disregarded everything...

Yeah, that was grate.:)


When hapless Democrats lie, no one died.

Again, they did not put forth the utterly self-defeating, retarded policy of attacking the wrong nation after 9/11 in the name of "Terrorism," and using a tragic terrorist attack to advance an agenda that will ultimately cause more terrorism. Many Democrats went along all-too willingly with your pseudo-Patriotic Freedom Fries and Jesus-Juice flavored Kool-Aid© bullshit, yes. But it never would have happened with a GORE Whitehouse.

Sorry dude, but your "patriotic" horseshit is getting thin and nauseating around here. Being loyal to BUSH is no more patriotic than being loyal to Hitler made one a "good" German.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton got his intelligence from the BCE? Do tell! ;)

Of course he did! (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

[Warham]

Didn't George Tenet tell Bush it was a 'slam dunk' that WMDs were over there? When you've got members of your administration lying to you, I'm not sure what you can do.

[FORD]

Tenet was telling the Chimp what he wanted to hear, so Cheney would stop hanging around his office all day.

[Warham]

Well, then that would be Tenet's fault. Who put him in that position anyway?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, then that would be Tenet's fault. Who put him in that position anyway?

So why did the Monkey give him a "Medal of Freedom" then?

It would seem that Tenet did exactly what the BCE wanted him to do.

[jacksmar]

Sorry dude, but your "patriotic" horseshit is getting thin and nauseating around here.

That’s how I know you’re a lib, Nick. I put the defense of our nation first, at any cost.
I make no excuses for that.
“America is freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rate. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].”
“After two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”


Being loyal to BUSH is no more patriotic than being loyal to Hitler made one a "good" German.

President Bush has out spent President Clinton.
President Bush has not protected our borders.
President Bush has not enabled US farmers.
President Bush has not protected US manufacturers.
Government has grown under President Bush.

Did I miss something?

[knuckleboner]

nobody? ok. here goes:


King Richard I, 1190: "Something must be done about the proliferation of weapons that the Muslim world continues to harbor. The entire Western world remains in peril until this threat is dealt with. I strongly support the use of force to remove this threat from the Middle East."

[Warham]

So we've got an incompetent chimp running the show and even MORE incompetent people giving him advice. Clinton really had a good track record for putting guys in the right positions, like Tenet and Freeh.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Didn't George Tenet tell Bush it was a 'slam dunk' that WMDs were over there? When you've got members of your administration lying to you, I'm not sure what you can do.

Did he actually say this?;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, then that would be Tenet's fault. Who put him in that position anyway?

Good point! So why didn't they officially censure him?:)

[Warham]

I've heard that 'slam dunk' comment in quite a few places.

Listen, I'm not going to deny that Bush most likely cherry picked intel, like any other president would have done. Clinton didn't have the stones to send 130,000 troops over to Iraq. He was too worried about the polls dropping to consider such an option.

But when you've got blunderers like Tenet giving you a thumbs up, what the hell are you going to do?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Sorry dude, but your "patriotic" horseshit is getting thin and nauseating around here.

That’s how I know you’re a lib, Nick. I put the defense of our nation first, at any cost.
I make no excuses for that.
“America is freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rate. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].”
“After two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”

Let's hold hands and sing songs now.:) So let's destroy America's economy by invading distant nations and bankrupt ourselves?

I'm a "lib?" Hardly, common sensical actually...



President Bush has out spent President Clinton.

You're right. Since 9/11, BUSH has spent mor'on defense. $455Billion. Say, riddle me this, what does the next country spend on defense?


How we doing in IRAQ for all that dough?



President Bush has not protected our borders.

Very good. He has done little to stem the flow of illegal immigration because his corporate whores don't want him too...


President Bush has not enabled US farmers.

Yes he has, to some extent.


President Bush has not protected US manufacturers.

Nope.


Government has grown under President Bush.

Did I miss something?

So are you for this, or against this?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
So we've got an incompetent chimp running the show and even MORE incompetent people giving him advice. Clinton really had a good track record for putting guys in the right positions, like Tenet and Freeh.

Yes, to some extent that's true. But I think TENET was from BUSH I, wasn't he?

And FREEH (an arch-conservative Neo Con, and prime example of someone promoted to his level of incompetence) was to placate the right and to show CLINTON's bi-partisanship. Of Course, FREEH turned on him like a rabid rottweiler and became more obsessed with investigating his own President than he was about foreign terrorists in flight schools, but don't let irrational hatred of CLINTON cause you to ignore these truths...

CLINTON was a far better President than the fool in the White House which has been nothing short of a disaster for this country (another "conservative" promoted to his level of incompetence)...:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I've heard that 'slam dunk' comment in quite a few places.

Listen, I'm not going to deny that Bush most likely cherry picked intel, like any other president would have done. Clinton didn't have the stones to send 130,000 troops over to Iraq. He was too worried about the polls dropping to consider such an option.

But when you've got blunderers like Tenet giving you a thumbs up, what the hell are you going to do?

Oh yes, the last bastion of the Neo CON Iraq argument, "CLINTON wanted to invade too." Yup, uh-huh. Except he didn't, did he? Nor was there any evidence he wanted too.

Although, he did in fact contemplate invading IRAN in 1996.;)

BTW, what gave BUSH the "chips" to invade IRAQ, a terrible tragedy he "used."

Ooof, you voted for that?

[Warham]

I don't hate Clinton. ;) I just find him an easy target since so many liberals place him on a pedestal as a messiah for liberalism.

Louis Freeh apparently didn't do his job very well, but some of the blame can be placed on Janet Reno for putting up that wall that made it difficult for the different agencies from passing information on to each other back in 1995.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh yes, the last bastion of the Neo CON Iraq argument, "CLINTON wanted to invade too." Yup, uh-huh. Except he didn't, did he? Nor was there any evidence he wanted too.

Although, he did in fact contemplate invading IRAN in 1996.;)

BTW, what gave BUSH the "chips" to invade IRAQ, a terrible tragedy he "used."

Ooof, you voted for that?

Yep, and how many Democrats voted for Bush last year? We'll never know, because they won't admit it. ;)

And I never said Clinton wanted to invade Iraq. I said he didn't have the balls to do it, period. Sure, we'll chuck a few missiles over there, and kill a few civilians, hopefully taking out a couple of terrorists in the process, but a mass invasion? Never. Not even if Iraq DID have WMDs lying around after 1998.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't hate Clinton. ;) I just find him an easy target since so many liberals place him on a pedestal as a messiah for liberalism.

Really? The guy who initiated welfare reform? A lot of die-hard Liberals think of him as a sell-out traitor. I just think he kind of knew what he was doing, though I agree he could be a dick bag politician as well...


Louis Freeh apparently didn't do his job very well, but some of the blame can be placed on Janet Reno for putting up that wall that made it difficult for the different agencies from passing information on to each other back in 1995.

No, that "wall" was long up, and was exacerbated by the first Bush Administration in fact.

In fact, wasn't it the extreme right wingers, like those in the Michigan Militia, that were crying about phantom "jack-booted (DEA) thugs" and excessive Fed. gov't power, like in the WACO and the Randy WEAVER episodes...

Funny how many want their cake and to eat it too...

And those agencies were in competition with each other more than anything, their "wall" excuse is largely a turf war that went on for decades...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, and how many Democrats voted for Bush last year? We'll never know, because they won't admit it. ;)


Not as many as the hick bible-thumpers he conned.;)


And I never said Clinton wanted to invade Iraq. I said he didn't have the balls to do it, period.

Yeah, what a courageous thing to get other people killed in your fuck up wars.:rolleyes:

Now that takes balls!

That would have made CLINTON real brave!


Sure, we'll chuck a few missiles over there, and kill a few civilians, hopefully taking out a couple of terrorists in the process, but a mass invasion?

Chuck missiles where?

There were no terrorists in IRAQ before we invaded.

Talk about specific incidents...

And BUSH has killed A LOT OF CIVILIANS!


Never. Not even if Iraq DID have WMDs lying around after 1998.

Well, apparently they didn't.:)

[Warham]

April 19, 2004, 8:49 a.m.
The Wall Truth
Gorelick provides the clearest proof yet that she should resign.

The grandstanding Richard Clarke having made apologies all the rage, one should expect that President Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be getting one in the next day or two. Something like this:

Dear Mr. President and Dr. Rice:
Very sorry about all that high dudgeon a couple of weeks ago. You remember, when we couldn't pass a microphone, a pencil, or a camera without perorations about the vital need to have the President waive executive privilege and ignore scads of history so Dr. Rice could be permitted to testify under oath and publicly (and improve our Nielson numbers) to address provocative allegations by another commission fave — er, witness — Richard Clarke. Turns out we should have mentioned that if Condi had just zipped an op-ed over to the Washington Post that would have done the trick. We regret any inconvenience to you, your staff, or the Constitution.
Respectfully, the 9/11 Commissioners.

If that note is not forthcoming, then someone's got some explaining to do about "The Truth About 'the Wall,'" Jamie Gorelick's remarkable Washington Post op-ed from Sunday, which purports to put to rest the nettlesome squawking about her untenable position as a commissioner judging the causes of pre-9/11 intelligence failure, a matter in which she was a key participant. Leaving aside, for a moment, how off-the-wall her account of the wall is, the fact that she well knows she needed to say something is the clearest indication yet that she belongs in the witness chair, not on the commissioners' bench.

Gorelick's op-ed intentionally raises five different points in her purported defense. Around them are sandwiched two others — opening and closing salvos that she can't resist mentioning but avoids identifying as argument points because she is too smart not to know that they scream out for her recusal. I'll take them in the order in which she makes them.

1. Ashcroft is wrong.+

Gorelick starts by asserting that Attorney General John Ashcroft gave testimony that was "simply not true" when he claimed both that "the single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents[,]" and that Gorelick "built that wall through a March 1995 memo." In fact, Ashcroft's testimony was entirely true: The wall was a policy that virtually guaranteed intelligence failure, and the March 1995 memo was its first building block, a harbinger of the further institutionalizing of the wall that would come, from Gorelick, only a few months later. That, however, is beside the point.

When witnesses give differing accounts, it is left to an impartial arbiter — not one of the witnesses — to sort it out. Moreover, the commission's standard, announced to maximum preening effect only three weeks ago after Clarke's testimony spawned demands for Rice's testimony, is that essential witnesses, and particularly those who are in a position to clarify or refute the testimony of prior essential witnesses (i.e., the position Rice was in vis-à-vis Clarke), must testify under oath and in public. Not surprisingly, while brazenly accusing the attorney general of the United States of giving false testimony, Gorelick elides mention of the Clarke/Rice dust-up. But it did happen, and Gorelick was gleefully in the thick of it. Why is what's sauce for the goose not sauce for the commissioner?

2. "I did not invent the "wall," which is not a wall but a set of procedures implementing a 1978 statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) and federal court decisions interpreting it."

Gorelick did invent the wall. The wall was not a set of procedures implementing FISA as construed by federal decisional law. To quote Gorelick's 1995 memorandum (something she carefully avoids doing), the procedures her memorandum put in place "go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." (Emphasis added.) As this rather straightforward English sentence illuminates, the wall exceeded the requirements of FISA and then-existing federal case law.

What the wall implemented was not the FISA statute as construed by the courts but rather Gorelick's overheated view of what would be useful to avoid being accused of misusing FISA. To be sure, it is often prudent for the government to hamstring itself beyond legal requirements; going-the-extra-mile improves the (already good) chances that courts will reject motions by defendants to suppress damaging evidence (like incriminating recorded conversations). It is, however, irresponsible for the government to hamstring itself when that means national security will be imperiled — which is what happens when agents are forbidden from communicating with one another.

3. The prohibition on prosecutors directing intelligence investigations was in effect long before the 1995 guidelines issued by the Reno Justice Department.

This is transparent misdirection. The government usually collects evidence of ordinary crimes under the criminal law, not FISA; but there is nothing inherently wrong with collecting evidence of ordinary crimes under FISA. The error that was made during the 1980s was FISA's certification requirement (which merely called for a representation that the government was seeking FISA-interception authority for the purpose of collecting national-security intelligence) was read as if it limited the government's ability to use FISA-derived evidence in ordinary criminal cases. The federal courts compounded this error by fashioning a "primary purpose" test which required the government, before it could use FISA evidence in a criminal case, to prove that it had been motivated to use FISA by national-security concerns — i.e., that it hadn't used FISA as a pretext to conduct what was really a criminal investigation.

This was the state of play in 1995, when the Reno Justice Department — with Gorelick pulling the laboring oar — instituted the wall. Gorelick may be correct — we'd have to hear her testify subject to cross-examination to be sure — when she declares that "[t]he point [of the Reno guidelines] was to preserve the ability of prosecutors to use information collected by intelligence agents." (My own sense, for what little it may be worth, is that the point was to mollify civil-liberties activists and conspiracy theorists who trumped up baseless fears that the government would dishonestly use FISA authority to investigate people who were not national-security risks — but I am not the person who wrote the guidelines, and we should probably give her the benefit of the doubt regarding her intentions. But good intentions hardly mean the actions they spawn will be sound.)

The wall generally forbidding intelligence agents from communicating with their criminal counterparts was a suicidally excessive way to ensure that what little information intelligence agents were permitted to pass would be admissible in court. This is the product of a mindset that insists, beyond all reason and common sense, that terrorism is just a law-enforcement problem. The object of a rational counterterrorism approach is to prevent mass murder from happening in the first place, not to improve your litigating posture for the indictment you return after thousands of people have been slaughtered.

4. The Ashcroft Justice Department failed to dismantle the wall prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, that's true. And it was dumb, which was why Ashcroft got grilled over it by Gorelick's fellow commissioners. But Gorelick's argument actually makes my point. If it was relevant, probative and highly material for the commission to probe why Ashcroft did not eradicate the wall when he had the chance in the months before 9/11, it is doubly relevant, probative, and highly material to probe why on earth Gorelick erected the wall in the first place.

5. Gorelick's March 1995 memo concerned only two cases and permitted "freer coordination between intelligence and criminal investigators than was subsequently permitted by the 1995 guidelines" and the Ashcroft Justice Department. So what?

The fact is that Gorelick's 1995 memo was excessively prohibitive. Who cares if it was somewhat less excessively prohibitive than the July 1995 guidelines — especially given that Gorelick was responsible for the 1995 guidelines (that were reaffirmed in 2001). If Gorelick is looking for a medal because she was, at least as she sees it, marginally less irresponsible in March 1995 than she was in July 1995, she should not hold her breath.

And her hyperventilating about acting to protect the two cases (including mine) from the threat of having convictions reversed is specious. By the time she penned her March 1995 memo, the first World Trade Center bombing prosecution had been over for a year and my case was in its third month of trial. The only conceivable threat to eventual convictions would have been (a) if the prosecutors and agents in my case had learned information about defense strategy by virtue of the government's continuing investigation of some of our indicted defendants for possible new crimes; or (b) if the continuing investigation had turned up exculpatory information about the defendants in my case and I had not been told about it so I could disclose it. Far from being unique to national-security matters, that situation is a commonplace when the government deals with violent organizations (which tend to obstruct justice and routinely plot to kill or influence witnesses, prosecutors, and/or jurors, thus requiring continuing investigations even as already indicted cases proceed).

To avoid constitutional problems in such a situation, the government regularly assigns a prosecutor and agent who are not involved in the already indicted case to vet information from the continuing investigation before it is permitted to be communicated to agents and prosecutors on the indicted case. This way, the team on the indicted case learns only what it is allowed to know (viz., evidence of new crimes the defendants have committed), but not what it should not know (viz., defense strategy information and incriminating admissions about the indicted case made without the consent of counsel); and the government maintains the ability to reveal any exculpatory information (as federal law requires). As Gorelick's 1995 memorandum recounts, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York had already made sure that was done in my case long before Gorelick's memo. There was no need for Gorelick to do more; what she did served only to place additional, unnecessary barriers to information sharing which — her memo, again, acknowledges — were not required by existing law.

6. The July 1995 guidelines — the wall — did not really prevent information sharing and merely implemented court decisions.

The guidelines did prevent information sharing — that was their purpose. They literally permitted some information to be passed over the wall if intelligence agents realized that evidence they'd developed might prove the commission of a serious crime. Intelligence agents, however, were hardly in a position to come to such a realization with any confidence because the wall generally forbade them from coordinating with criminal agents. Thus, they were ill equipped to recognize the significance of information to which they were privy.

More importantly, the hyper-technical 1995 guidelines were so byzantine as to be inscrutable for non-lawyer agents in the field, who found it far easier to assume they weren't allowed to communicate with one another than to venture into Gorelick's labyrinth without benefit of Ariadne's golden cord. That is why, for example, the FBI's criminal division declined to assist its intelligence division in August 2001, when an astute agent was frantically trying to find Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, the eventual suicide hijackers who steered Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Whether or not the wall procedures dictated that decision, the culture of dysfunction the procedures had fostered was by then firmly entrenched.

7. The relevant history regarding the wall is well known, Gorelick has recused herself from consideration of her own actions and those of the Justice Department while she was there, and her fellow commissioners have spoken up in her defense.

This is offered as Gorelick's wind-up. If it is adopted as the new standard, the commission should stop wasting everyone's time and money right now. First, the relevant history of many aspects of the 9/11 investigation is extensively well documented; yet, the commission has insisted on calling witnesses — despite the fact that our nation is at war and many of the witnesses have been taken away from their wartime responsibilities for hours (and sometimes days) to comply with commission requests for information and testimony. To this point, no witness has been permitted to get away with a curt "you don't need me — you've already got enough information."

Second, Gorelick's conflict is not so tidy as to be solved by avoiding inquiry into her time in the Justice Department. If that were the case, John Ashcroft could have been a commissioner — and just imagine the howling if someone had proposed that. Gorelick's conflict, central to the matter of intelligence lapse, goes to the heart of the commission's investigation. Whenever she asks a question on another subject — even if she does it in good faith — the public is entitled to wonder whether she is trying to shift blame or scrutiny away from herself. The legitimacy of the commission is thus critically undermined.

Finally, the support of Gorelick's fellow commissioners is irrelevant. Again, these are the same guys who were screaming for Rice three weeks ago, for no better reason than that Clarke had made allegations Rice was in a position to shed light on. Ashcroft has now made assertions far more central to the salient matter of institutional impediments to information sharing. That those same commissioners are not being consistent, that they are not calling for Gorelick to step down and be sworn as a witness, is inexplicable. I'm sure they have all bonded; I'm quite certain they admire and respect Gorelick's powerful mind and exemplary work ethic — they'd be foolish not to. But imagine for a moment that Gorelick had not been appointed to serve on the commission. Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't think she'd have been subpoenaed to testify after her memorandum came to light during last week's proceedings? Is there anyone who thinks she could have avoided testifying under such circumstances by writing an op-ed?

Gorelick's "defense" merely underscores how inappropriate it is for her to sit in judgment as a commissioner. Obviously, she's hell-bent on staying. And so we watch as the commission slowly mutates from a potentially useful exercise, to a politicized teledrama, to a hopelessly suspect irrelevancy.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is an NRO contributor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200404190849.asp

[jacksmar]

Okay Nick. Common sense, agreed. Fair enough?

Against growing the US government BTW.

Prefer to believe and think I’m using common sense as well.

So while I don’t believe a lot of the same things as you do, I do believe one thing: President Bush didn’t lie. Why? Common sense.

There would be investigations and have been. President Bush acted how any US President would act with the information presented to him. Every investigation states the same issue with regard to WMD. Everyone got the assumption wrong.

Here’s what they got right.
“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, “
Now here’s where I apply common sense. On the WMD, it appears to be way wrong. Getting something wrong isn’t a lie. If you miss your exit on the interstate, you got it wrong. Did you lie? No. You got it wrong. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Yes, The Iraq war was based in large part on WMD, but it wasn’t a lie.
But the rest was dead on. Torture chambers, people being thrown from buildings, people shot, mutilated for fun, return of education and schools, basic infrastructure improvements and a new government.

Maybe my standards are too high but those seem like good things, and a reason to be proud of what the US and the Alliance have accomplished.

[jacksmar]

There were no terrorists in IRAQ before we invaded.
Nick? Really?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060746734/104-1823585-6314339?v=glance&n=283155

The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
"In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
There were no terrorists in IRAQ before we invaded.
Nick? Really?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060746734/104-1823585-6314339?v=glance&n=283155

The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 66):
"In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

Most of the "alleged meetings" have been completely discredited as bullshit by the CIA. And even if true, how are two delegates supposedly in IRAQ indicative of anything? It's been reported that US Intelligence (the CIA) met with al Qaida, to get information and to try to turn them away from attacking the US. And in fact we trained the core of al Qaida largely in the Afghan War. Should we invade ourselves now?

Why don't you read the article that HARDROCK69 posted here. (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30168) SADDAM in fact wanted to infiltrate al Qaida, not work with it.

Bin LADEN also publicly called a Jihad against the IRAQI invasion of KUWAIT in 1990.

IRAQ never assisted the 9/11 attacks. Not in any way, most of the suicide attackers were SAUDI.

Again, don't let actual facts get in the way of your arguments, or of what you want to believe.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
Okay Nick. Common sense, agreed. Fair enough?

Against growing the US government BTW.

Prefer to believe and think I’m using common sense as well.

So while I don’t believe a lot of the same things as you do, I do believe one thing: President Bush didn’t lie. Why? Common sense.

There would be investigations and have been. President Bush acted how any US President would act with the information presented to him. Every investigation states the same issue with regard to WMD. Everyone got the assumption wrong.


He lied in which he presented the strength and certainty of his case. Also, the repeated tie in's of IRAQ to the 9/11 attacks and of terrorism, 99% based on lies or bad info, shows that he clearly had an agenda and alterer motives that has little to do with secure AMerica from terrorism. That is a big lie!


Here’s what they got right.
“Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, “
Now here’s where I apply common sense. On the WMD, it appears to be way wrong. Getting something wrong isn’t a lie. If you miss your exit on the interstate, you got it wrong. Did you lie? No. You got it wrong. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Yes, The Iraq war was based in large part on WMD, but it wasn’t a lie.
But the rest was dead on. Torture chambers, people being thrown from buildings, people shot, mutilated for fun, return of education and schools, basic infrastructure improvements and a new government.

Maybe my standards are too high but those seem like good things, and a reason to be proud of what the US and the Alliance have accomplished.

Oh bullshit! They never cared for the IRAQ people for one second, until SADDAM got his hands on KUWAITI oil. And we killed 100K Iraqis to "liberate" them, that seems like a contradiction.

And how can an Administration that tortures, and has dictators as our main allies, lecture anybody with a straight face?
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg
Yeah, we're all about human rights, when it suits our agenda.:rolleyes:

[jacksmar]

"Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
...

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200404190849.asp

I never said there wasn't a "wall" WARHAM, but it has been greatly exaggerated by these agencies...

No matter what they say, the fact was that domestic Islamic extremist terrorism was not the priority...

And the CIA hates(ed) the FBI, and vice versa.

There were 52 warnings regarding the thread of hijackings delivered to the White House between April and September of 2001, and they clearly knew something was up, yet no action was taken. I'll let you decide why for yourselves. I think I already have...

It was simply in everyone's interest for a low-level terrorist strike to happen in the mainland US.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
"Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender."

Why do you need to quote other people? Nobody wanted to "appease" al Qaida...

We choose where to fight, not them. And we handed them a big gift when we invaded IRAQ...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
So we've got an incompetent chimp running the show and even MORE incompetent people giving him advice.

This post shows that you are finally, now, up to speed on things.

[jacksmar]

A picture or in this case video of a LIAR is woth a 1000 laughs as the hapless lips not only get caught with their pants around their two faced ankles, but are actually shown stepping on their dicks and tongues.
http://www.gop.com/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=1033&TypeID=2');

[blueturk]

Fucking sheep...Nobody can beat the chickenhawks for making asses of themselves. Sorry Warham...

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by jacksmar
A picture or in this case video of a LIAR is woth a 1000 laughs as the hapless lips not only get caught with their pants around their two faced ankles, but are actually shown stepping on their dicks and tongues.
http://www.gop.com/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=1033&TypeID=2');

Actually, I find delusional nihilists to be the funniest BuSHEEP of all...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by blueturk
Fucking sheep...Nobody can beat the chickenhawks for making asses of themselves. Sorry Warham...

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003


God I love this post :cool:

How can any sane, rational person read this and NOT be disgusted with Chimpy, Darth Cheney, And Rummy the Dummy?

Ask yourself sheeple, who has actually done more harm to the troops


Bush = "Bring 'em on"

Cheney = "last throes of insurgency"

Rummy = " go to war with army you have, not army you want"

or fine brave patriots such as Murtha asking for a fucking goddamn plan and /or timetable.

One side is looking out for the best interest of the troops, and one side is trying to save their politcal asses after fucking up every step of the way.

Fuck this administration and the sheeple here who excuse and justify their actions.

:mad:

[Ernie123]

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" details George Tenet's "Slam Dunk" quote. It is a fact spewed by the left's journalistic Moses... The man that brought down that big, bad facist Richard Nixon!!!!

Finally, Every liberal Democratic Senator that is now turning and RUNNING like hell from what they said BEFORE the war can kiss my ass. Is that the type of leadership you want? People who HAWK out at the drop of a hat and then turn around say they were mislead...

The only misleading being done in Washington is by the Democrats and that IDIOT Howard Dean. It's the old game of misinformation. If you state it as truth long enough, it will eventually be perceived that way. Josef Goebbels of the Nazi regime in WWII was the KING of it.. The Democratic party has co-opted it, although they keep stepping on their own dicks.. Oh, in Hillary's case, her tits... God that woman is homely.

[ELVIS]

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/2107.jpg

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"


"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."


"Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street."


"Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place"


"If the day should ever come when we [the Nazis] must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction.."

Joseph Goebbels



:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ernie123
Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" details George Tenet's "Slam Dunk" quote. It is a fact spewed by the left's journalistic Moses... The man that brought down that big, bad facist Richard Nixon!!!!

Finally, Every liberal Democratic Senator that is now turning and RUNNING like hell from what they said BEFORE the war can kiss my ass. Is that the type of leadership you want? People who HAWK out at the drop of a hat and then turn around say they were mislead...

The only misleading being done in Washington is by the Democrats and that IDIOT Howard Dean. It's the old game of misinformation. If you state it as truth long enough, it will eventually be perceived that way. Josef Goebbels of the Nazi regime in WWII was the KING of it.. The Democratic party has co-opted it, although they keep stepping on their own dicks.. Oh, in Hillary's case, her tits... God that woman is homely.

OMG, could this be anymore delusional, nihilist horseshit? No? Congratulations!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/2107.jpg

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"


"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."


"Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street."


"Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place"


"If the day should ever come when we [the Nazis] must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction.."

Joseph Goebbels



:elvis:

Goebbels or Dick CHENEY?:)

[Nickdfresh]

What about RICHARD CLARKE's book?;)

[Cathedral]

I really don't understand why all the fuss, guys...both sides are losers and you all look silly trying to take the moral high ground from one another.
United we stand, divided we fall....have a nice trip...when you pick yourselves up just reach for the top because that's where you'll find me. :)

I mean really, does it make much sense to chop people apart over dirty laundry when your own washer is just as full of filth?

Honestly, around here hypocracy comes wearing many different faces yet, they're all the same clown wearing makeup.

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, "we're in the last throes of the insurgency." (VP Dick CHENEY)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Cathedral

Honestly, around here hypocracy comes wearing many different faces yet, they're all the same clown wearing makeup.

That's not true...

What's up your ass ??


Occasionally our bitch and shout fests are productive...


Hang in there 'ol buddy...;)

[Cathedral]

LOL, whats up my ass?
The government and these piss fests where people tend to forget the shortcomings of their own chosen party in the name of partisanship.

I believe that Jesus would be saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Now i'm a Conservative, but i won't ignore the fact that the current Administration has it's own shortcomings.
If it were truly what it has claimed to be and did what it promised 5 years ago the heat on the abortion debate would be getting hotter, not cooling off.
Immigration would have been dealt with on 9-12-01 and not just now being addressed in it's current political fodder.

Iraq would have been better planned and instead of the argument still being bantered about as it is, our troops would have had all the support they needed to be actually wrapping up all military operations by now.

I just cannot defend either side with what some of you are usuing to do just that.
I'm sorry to be unproductive here, but it smells of hypocracy to me and i'm trying not to take part in it.

You can't be honest with anyone if you cannot be honest with yourself.
This is the very reason we tend not to learn from our mistakes and are doomed to repeat them.

Bush gets all spiritual on camera, but then as soon as the cameras are turned off, or so he thinks, his true nature comes out and that is also hypocritical in my opinion.
It plays against the true Christian, which i am trying to be, and in doing that one has to be prepared to call out his/her own when he/she doesn't agree.

Elvis, I have become more critical of Bush because of what so many people calling themselves obedient Christians seem to ignore about the man's character.
That said, i will defend anyone, including Bush if there is no proof of the accusations made beyond the shadow of a doubt.

It's called being fair, you got no problem with that, do you?

One problem is that there was a program on the other day where it was claimed that Bush is in the bible code. when people start doing that i almost break out in a sweat because of how general these claims are.
Damn near anyone in power could fit in the framework they presented and it scared me for everyone.

In politics it is always about the lesser of two evils, I hate that and want representation that is not evil at all...we don't have that and never really will again.

Like President Lincoln once said, "Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."

This idea that Bush was the "chosen one" by God is dangerous because if you know anything about God you know that when he calls someone to something it doesn't make everything they do sanctified, just what he called them to do. the rest is where free will comes in and if people grant you a pass based on faith one time, they'll do it again then they have made what could be a grave mistake, just like those Bush has made in the name of his faith.

For the record, I don't think Iraq was a mistake. it was our duty as a super power to free the oppressed and it doesn't end in Iraq.
but things should be approached differently than they were there.
Diplomacy should be completely extinguished, and then tried one more time before any bombs or troops are sent in.
Then, we should go in with such a force that getting bogged down in a battle with insurgency won't take the toll on our forces that Iraq has taken.
Victory will be achieved, but it could have been more efficient fi the peace had been planned for.
I knew there would be an insurgency, you had to know the same thing, so when our government said it wasn't anticipated, i have to call that a lie, and it doesn't stop there.

[FORD]

Why would you defend the Chimp when you have acknowledged yourself that he is a liar and a hypocrite who pretends to be a Christian?

[Cathedral]

I don't, i was using that as an example that if i don't see evidence or proof of someone's guilt i won't judge them as guilty. that is what i meant by "even G.W. Bush".

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Why would you defend the Chimp when you have acknowledged yourself that he is a liar and a hypocrite who pretends to be a Christian?

Tell me about it :rolleyes:

It's a common thread [no pun ] running throughout the NeoCon community in here of late.

Warpig says Bush is a liar, and has a Chimp avater, yet runs to his defense, as well as that of this administration all the time.

Cath claims to be a neutral, hate 'em all centrist, but when pushed always ends up defending the Chickenhawks, and tries to cast the Dems as "having no plan"

Too bad they never seem to hold the current administration to the same blow job ethic levels they hold for others....

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Tell me about it :rolleyes:

It's a common thread [no pun ] running throughout the NeoCon community in here of late.

Warpig says Bush is a liar, and has a Chimp avater, yet runs to his defense, as well as that of this administration all the time.

Cath claims to be a neutral, hate 'em all centrist, but when pushed always ends up defending the Chickenhawks, and tries to cast the Dems as "having no plan"

Too bad they never seem to hold the current administration to the same blow job ethic levels they hold for others....

Well, the Dems don't have a plan, and if they do, i'd like to see it.
But i'm confused, how am i defending the chickenhawks?

Splain, please...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ernie123
Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" details George Tenet's "Slam Dunk" quote. It is a fact spewed by the left's journalistic Moses... The man that brought down that big, bad facist Richard Nixon!!!!

Woodward didn't really bring down NIXON, his deputy-FBI director did. In fact, many would argue that the Wash. Posts' coverage was no better than anyone elses', only Woodward got lucky and was approached by DEEP THROAT, precisely because he was young and easy to manipulate. And it was in fact many Republicans that turned against Tricky Dick for the good of the nation, and NIXON really wasn't that right-wing, in fact his policies were quite moderate in comparison to Da' CHiMP....

Secondly, you're assuming WOODWARD is leftist, there are many that see him as an Administration lap dog if fact, far too close to objectively report, much like "Ms. Run Amok," the TIME journalist jailed over the Plame leak.

I'd really like to hear TENET's take on it. But we won't, because nobody (in gov't) will talk to him now due to his threats to reveal a lot about the BUSH Admin. is he was soley held accountable for 9-11/WMDs, and he's mum about it.


Finally, Every liberal Democratic Senator that is now turning and RUNNING like hell from what they said BEFORE the war can kiss my ass. Is that the type of leadership you want? People who HAWK out at the drop of a hat and then turn around say they were mislead...

Oh, but they were fed cherry-picked, selective intelligence devoid of any of the CIA's skepticism.

I guess you prefer the leadership of a lame duck Chimp and his gang of incompetent, corrupt cronies, but whatever...


The only misleading being done in Washington is by the Democrats...

You are completely delusional if you truly believe this. Have fun in nihilist land.:)


and that IDIOT Howard Dean. It's the old game of misinformation. If you state it as truth long enough, it will eventually be perceived that way. Josef Goebbels of the Nazi regime in WWII was the KING of it.. The Democratic party has co-opted it, although they keep stepping on their own dicks.. Oh, in Hillary's case, her tits... God that woman is homely.

Oh fucking spare me? Using NAZI analogies now to describe the party that led the fight against them? Sounds like the "truth" about WMDs. Uh dude, you need to check the douches you voted for apparently. Let's see:

Like the Nazi GERMANS:

Used false pretenses to start a war *Check*

Manipulated and politicized intelligence (to the point of self-destructiveness) *Check*

Used irrational fear to maintain power and increase gov't control *Check*

Used torture *Check*

Enjoyed invading people and putting tanks in the desert, but hated the messy guerilla/intelligence wars that followed *Check*

Incompetent war planners that were initially very successful, but fucked up and made critical miscalculations based on what they wanted to believe (vis-a-vis The Eastern Front) *Check*

Punished their domestic political enemies *Check*

Et cetera...

[LoungeMachine]

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | September 30, 2005
Idea of the Week: What To Do Now In Iraq

While the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein, America must remain committed to success in Iraq. A failed state in Iraq would destabilize the entire region, hand our jihadist enemies a major victory and result in a devastating blow to our national security credibility and interests. But the right course now is neither to give the terrorists a victory by withdrawing, nor to continue Bush's failed policies. We urge progressives to place maximum pressure on the administration to reverse its mistakes and pursue a new strategy linked to clear benchmarks for success in Iraq and in the broader war on terror.

Here are three ways the U.S. can do exactly that:

First, we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; clearly shift the primary responsibility of defending the country to the Iraqi military (with embedded Coalition troops), and adopt a joint military strategy based on proven principles of counterinsurgency. The last point means abandoning Vietnam-style "search and destroy" missions against the insurgency, and instead focusing on progressively securing territory where reconstruction can proceed and normal civic life can resume.

Second, we should launch a new political strategy aimed relentlessly at winning Sunni support for the new government, and at isolating jihadists. We still have considerable leverage among Shi'a and Kurdish leaders; we should use it to push for confidence -- building measures like the integration of communal militias into the Iraqi army and police forces; a blanket amnesty for former Baathists not implicated in atrocities; and for intensified talks with Sunnis on supplemental protocols to the proposed constitution that would ensure a viable central government and minority rights.

Third, we should muster all our diplomatic resources to create a more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government. It should not be that hard to establish a UN-authorized international contact group to coordinate political support and economic assistance.

We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs, using economic incentives where possible, to undermine support for insurgency and encourage political engagement. These Arab states should also push Syria (in conjunction with potential U.N. sanctions) to finally close off travel routes into Iraq for jihadists.

We should formally push for indictment of chief terrorist Zarquawi for crimes against humanity in Iraq, drawing worldwide attention to the vicious anti-Shi'a ethnic cleansing campaign that characterizes the insurgency. All these steps are politically feasible, but there's no evidence the administration is taking them.

In calling for this new strategy, we acknowledge that we are asking brave Americans to sacrifice still more for a crucial goal under the direction of an administration that has failed so often to pursue that goal competently or honestly. We share the anger of most progressives towards Bush's blunders, even as we urge them not to let that anger obscure the very real national stake we all have in taking every step possible to leave Iraq in a condition where it will not become a failed state and a terrorist base for global operations.

As usual, Tony Blair best articulated those stakes, for our people and his, just this week:

"This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq. It has allied itself there with every reactionary element in the Middle East. Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind."

That's a reality that all of us, whether or not we supported the original invasion of Iraq, need to keep in mind, holding our leaders most accountable not for their blunders, but for their willingness to recognize them and change course now.

[LoungeMachine]

Tuesday, November 29, 2005
It’s time for an Iraq timetable

By Joseph R. Biden Jr. Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:43 PM CST






Special to The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The question most Americans want answered about Iraq is this: When will our troops come home?

We already know the likely answer. In 2006, they will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind — in Iraq or across the border — to strike at any concentration of terrorists.

That is because we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence — while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown — is increasingly counterproductive. A liberation has become an occupation.

There is another critical question: As our soldiers redeploy, will our security interests in Iraq remain intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos?

There is a broad consensus on what must be done to preserve our interests. Recently, 79 Democratic and Republican senators told President Bush we need a detailed, public plan for Iraq, with specific goals and a timetable for achieving each one.

Over the next six months, we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.

First, we need to build political consensus, starting with the constitution. Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq. But unless Shiites and Kurds give them a stake in the new deal, they will continue to resist. We must help produce a constitution that will unite Iraq, not divide it.

Iraq's neighbors and the international community have a huge stake in the country's future. The president should initiate a regional strategy — as he did in Afghanistan — to leverage the influence of neighboring countries. And he should establish a Contact Group of the world's major powers — as we did in the Balkans — to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor.

Second, we must build Iraq's governing capacity and overhaul the reconstruction program. Iraq's ministries are barely functional. Sewage in the streets, unsafe drinking water and a lack of electricity are all too common. With 40 percent unemployment in Iraq, insurgents do not lack for fresh recruits.

We need a civilian commitment equal to our military effort. Just as military personnel are required to go to Iraq, the president should identify more skilled foreign service officers to help.

This should not be their burden alone. Britain proposed that individual countries adopt ministries. It's a good idea that we should pursue. We must redirect reconstruction contracts away from multinationals and to Iraqis.

Countries that have pledged aid must deliver it. So far, only $3 billion of the $13.5 billion in non-American aid has made it to Iraq. And the president should convene a conference of our Gulf allies. They have reaped huge windfall oil profits — it's time they gave back.

The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. In September, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. acknowledged that only one Iraqi battalion — fewer than 1,000 troops — can fight without U.S. help. An additional 40 can lead counterinsurgency operations with our support.

The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help. We should take up other countries on their offers to do more training, especially of officers. We should focus on getting the security ministries up to speed. Even well-trained troops need to be equipped, sustained and directed.

We also need an effective counterinsurgency strategy. The administration finally understands the need not only to clear territory but also to hold and build on it. We have never had enough U.S. troops to do that. Now there is no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis. We can help by changing the mix of our forces to include more embedded trainers, civil affairs units and Special Forces.

Iraqis of all sects want to live in a stable country. Iraq's neighbors don't want a civil war next door. The major powers don't want a terrorist haven in the heart of the Middle East. The American people want us to succeed.

If the administration shows it has a blueprint for protecting our fundamental security interests in Iraq, Americans will support it

Biden is a senator from Delaware and ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

[FORD]

Interesting..... the DLC traitors seem to be slowly backing away. Or do they just want it to appear that way? ;)

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Cath claims to be a neutral, hate 'em all centrist, but when pushed always ends up defending the Chickenhawks, and tries to cast the Dems as "having no plan"


The Democrats don't have any plan. Well, actually they do, but they were holding off until after Thanksgiving recess to announce it. It was so important, they put it off for later.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ernie123
The only misleading being done in Washington is by the Democrats and that IDIOT Howard Dean. It's the old game of misinformation. If you state it as truth long enough, it will eventually be perceived that way. Josef Goebbels of the Nazi regime in WWII was the KING of it.. The Democratic party has co-opted it, although they keep stepping on their own dicks.. Oh, in Hillary's case, her tits... God that woman is homely.

Blueturk has a quote for you...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
DLC | New Dem Dispatch | September 30, 2005
Idea of the Week: What To Do Now In Iraq

the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein,


Here are three ways the U.S. can do exactly that:

First, we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; clearly shift the primary responsibility of defending the country to the Iraqi military (with embedded Coalition troops), and adopt a joint military strategy based on proven principles of counterinsurgency. The last point means abandoning Vietnam-style "search and destroy" missions against the insurgency, and instead focusing on progressively securing territory where reconstruction can proceed and normal civic life can resume.

Second, we should launch a new political strategy aimed relentlessly at winning Sunni support for the new government, and at isolating jihadists. We still have considerable leverage among Shi'a and Kurdish leaders; we should use it to push for confidence -- building measures like the integration of communal militias into the Iraqi army and police forces; a blanket amnesty for former Baathists not implicated in atrocities; and for intensified talks with Sunnis on supplemental protocols to the proposed constitution that would ensure a viable central government and minority rights.

Third, we should muster all our diplomatic resources to create a more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government. It should not be that hard to establish a UN-authorized international contact group to coordinate political support and economic assistance.

We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs, using economic incentives where possible, to undermine support for insurgency and encourage political engagement. These Arab states should also push Syria (in conjunction with potential U.N. sanctions) to finally close off travel routes into Iraq for jihadists.


Those are some excellent suggestions. But the fucking chimp doesn't do anything except try to make us forget about Iraq! God damn it our leadership is worthless!