15
   

As A Wise Man, Umm, Guy, Once Said

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 11:24 am
Your boy Tenet seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth:

Quote:
Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents and the government's prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, in a column by Robert Novak, in pondering why a State Dept employee was dispatched rather than a trained CIA agent, the identity of Wilson's wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame, was revealed. The Senate Intelligence Committee report and other sources confirm that Plame "offered his name up" to her superiors.

The actual words President Bush spoke: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" suggests that his source was British intelligence and not the forged documents.

However, George Tenet has admitted that making the claim was a mistake, stating, "The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."


Source
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 11:48 am
@Brandon9000,
Millions, from all over the world, demonstrated and begged Bush to use some common sense. That's not everybody, but proof that it was no secret how he was effing up.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 01:06 pm
@djjd62,
Actually he didn't make the statement "Mission Accomplished" or order the banner to be flown.

What he was celebrating was the military defeat of Saddam's forces. I don't think that's unseemly, do you?

Th execution of the primary strategy for the Iraq war (the establishment of a democratic, Islamic ally of the US was screwed up royally. Donald Rumsfeld was primarily to blame, but Bush was president and so he gets the blame too.

Whether or not the strategy could ever have been executed successfully is speculative, and not something that can be determined with any certainty.

Obama was following Bush's previously established plan for "ending the war" so there is a reason why he can't take all of whatever credit is due.

Unfortunately there was one aspect of the plan that Obama did not follow which has a direct relation to the current mess in Iraq. Negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement with Maliki that would have resulted in a continuing US military presence in Iraq.

Maliki has his reasons for not wanting one and so did Obama. If Obama wanted one he would have gotten one.

As soon as a SOFA was not reached, everyone should have known that something like we are seeing now was bound to happen. Perhaps not as respects the precise forces (ISIS) involved or the speed with which they have been able seize Iraqi cities, but it was certainly predictable enough to have drawn up a contingency plan in advance.

Is anyone on earth surprised that having gotten his ass in a sling, Maliki is now asking for us to bail him out? Is anyone with any basic knowledge of the region surprised that Maliki has also asked Iran to bail him out? Is anyone with half a brain surprised that ISIS has looted banks and military weapons and equipment depots in the cities they have conquered? Is anyone surprised that the Iraqi army was not up to the task of repelling ISIS - despite Administration assurances that it was? What other variables have to now be planned for? What really was a surprise?

Surely the "experts" at the Pentagon have a contingency plan for almost exactly this situation sitting on a shelf, and yet Obama tells us that he needs to think about what to do.

I am sure that the contingency plan exists and could been set in motion several days ago, just as the Iranians set in motion their contingency plan.

What Obama needs to do this weekend and into next week is to talk to political advisers, not generals. Politics, not national security is the biggest factor of consideration for him at this time.

Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Jun, 2014 01:23 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Millions, from all over the world, demonstrated and begged Bush to use some common sense. That's not everybody, but proof that it was no secret how he was effing up.

So, what? We, the right, beg Obama to use common sense, according to our beliefs, and he doesn't. What was the lie?
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 07:00 am
@McGentrix,
He's no linger President but the **** he pulled lives after him. Deal with it.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 07:01 am
@McGentrix,
Iraq was a stable country, twit, until W and co tipped it over.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 07:25 am
@Brandon9000,
So what? You people gave Bush a pass for every screw up he made, but you are all over Obama even before he acts. Its pure partisanship, not common sense.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:00 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

So what? You people gave Bush a pass for every screw up he made, but you are all over Obama even before he acts. Its pure partisanship, not common sense.

I guess it couldn't just be that we agree with Bush's thinking and not Obama's because we're conservatives.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:13 am
@Brandon9000,
Most of you aren't even conservatives, anymore. Most of you are fundamentalists, fanatics, who don't care what a Democrat does; its to be opposed.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:18 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Most of you aren't even conservatives, anymore. Most of you are fundamentalists, fanatics, who don't care what a Democrat does; its to be opposed.

As opposed to your treatment of George Bush. Like you, we oppose policies we disagree with.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:31 am
@Brandon9000,
Bush sort of had no policies. That's why everything went to hell under him.
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:34 am
@edgarblythe,
The idea that the people who disagree with one ideologically must be misbehaving as opposed to disagreeing is responsible for many of the problems in the world today.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:39 am
@Brandon9000,
While we disagreed with Bush many thousands of lives were destroyed. We had no choice in the matter.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 09:41 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

While we disagreed with Bush many thousands of lives were destroyed. We had no choice in the matter.

That's your point of view. It doesn't mean that anyone with a different point of view is misbehaving, unless, of course, you can't conceive of the right of people to sincerely disagree, in which case, aliens should probably destroy the Earth and just get it over with.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 10:20 am
@edgarblythe,
Declaring most of the people with whom you disagree, or "the opposition" if you prefer, fundamentalist fanatics, has a distinct fanatical tone to it.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 10:22 am
@Brandon9000,
Agreeing or disagreeing, where thousands are not killed, is fine. I don't have to agree to disagree when that sort of mayhem is taking place.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 10:29 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Agreeing or disagreeing, where thousands are not killed, is fine. I don't have to agree to disagree when that sort of mayhem is taking place.

You can act on your beliefs. I am talking about the idea that everyone on the other side of the aisle is merely misbehaving as opposed to disagreeing.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 10:37 am
@Brandon9000,
If I see somebody from that side act responsibly, I will applaud them. Show me a couple.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 10:47 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

If I see somebody from that side act responsibly, I will applaud them. Show me a couple.

The problem is that you define responsible behavior as behavior in line with your political beliefs. That whole, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" hasn't made much impression on you.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2014 10:58 am
@Brandon9000,
I define it with what's humane. If people are going to suffer needlessly, I want no part of it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 09:47:25