cicerone imposter wrote:H2O, Where have you been all these years? The Coalition of the Willing have dropped away when they learned the truth about why we were in Iraq.
What you are saying is that coalition sacrifices mean as much to you as they do to Obama, nothing.
The two of you have very narrow minds.
Has anyone ever had a teenage daughter infatuated with some kid? No amount of reason or logic will ever change their mind. That is what has happened with Obama. Ooooohhh, what a cool guy, what cool sun glasses, how hip, how popular, oooh, even the guys are swooning over this guy. I find it amazing, disappointing, and sickening as well, but he is a fad, plain and simple. We may have to run an experiment with this guy, if he becomes president, with him playing with all of our lives, a socialist doing on the job training, just to see what might happen, before the infatuation gives away to reality.
H2O wrote: What you are saying is that coalition sacrifices mean as much to you as they do to Obama, nothing.
The two of you have very narrow minds.
You're the one with a narrow mind - or better still, no mind. The governments of the coalition were smart enough to understand that the reasons given by the Bush administration to justify this war (WMDs and al Qaida) were all lies and innuendos. When no WMDs were found and the truth came out that Saddam never had any direct contact with al Qaida, this administration changed their justification to a) get rid of Saddam, and b) bring democracy to the Middle East.
The big question is, why are "we" there?
cicerone imposter wrote:
The big question is, why are "we" there?
You forgot?
Go brush up on your history and get back to us later.
H2O_MAN wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:
The big question is, why are "we" there?
You forgot?
Go brush up on your history and get back to us later.
You are the one without any knowledge - on any topic you involve yourself on a2k.
The big lie is the most pathetic program to spin Bush, beginning shortly after Bush was elected. They vote for war based on the CIA and all the available evidence, then make up a whole new story to isolate Bush politically. It truly has marked a most pathetic chapter in our history with some of the most pathetic politicians and pathetic press, of all time. Treasonous in my opinion. Bush is about the only one with any honor left.
From publicintegrety.org:
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
ci's post illustrates a good example, one of the many countless ones, as part of the media propaganda campaign to discredit Bush. ci's post is in fact a good example of just how pathetic it has all been. Democrats with a willing media, to spin, lie, twist, and cherry pick information, to build the false case against Bush, an honorable man.
It has truly been a very ugly few years, and one I do not wish to see happen again. And it is truly one big reason I will not trust the press, ever, and I will not vote for a Democrat, ever, for a national office.
P.S. Congress investigated whether Bush concocted evidence, it was dismissed as nothing to it, there was no evidence. For the thousandth time, the people in Washington said Hussein had WMD long before Bush even got to Washington and appointed the people in ci's stupid post.
I hate to even look at this thread, and doing so, to look at the swath.
I'll say that I think McCain has some trouble keeping up, which I have some empathy for, and that Obama can be a little roto speechifier at times, which I'm a bit forgiving about, but not entirely. Plus, even though I often agree with him, not always, even with some big issues.
The whole physical, emotional, intellectual, financial effort of campaigning and trying to be as perfect as you can be all the time for, really, years, plus having plans worked out and ready and well defensible at all times is some kind of fantastical nightmare.
We have it - in the US - that all of government is some kind of campaign forevermore and again.. endless. Not good.
The whole role of the president in the US makes me look at other democracies. It is like a tv construct.
On Obama, I get it he is savvy.
I'd prefer he not just work up the current flume on what to do where.
I'm learning he might not be past that.
I don't like tooling, even though I like intelligence.
I pick it over cluelessness, but not always cheerfully.
cicerone imposter wrote:H2O_MAN wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:
The big question is, why are "we" there?
You forgot?
Go brush up on your history and get back to us later.
You are the one without any knowledge - on any topic you involve yourself on a2k.
Wrong again ci.
okie wrote: ci's post illustrates a good example, one of the many countless ones, as part of the media propaganda campaign to discredit Bush. ci's post is in fact a good example of
just how pathetic it has all been. Democrats with a willing media, to spin, lie, twist, and cherry pick information, to build the false case against Bush, an honorable man.
It has truly been a very ugly few years, and one I do not wish to see happen again. And it is truly one big reason I will not trust the press, ever, and I will not vote for a Democrat, ever, for a national office.
P.S. Congress investigated whether Bush concocted evidence, it was dismissed as nothing to it, there was no evidence.
For the thousandth time, the people in Washington said Hussein had WMD long before Bush even got to Washington and appointed the people in ci's stupid post.
Sorry ci, you are just flat wrong about so many things here on A2K - you should take a sabbatical.
Unfortunately Okie and H20 man have forgotten that there was a phase two of the intelligence wmd investigation which did not exonerate the Bush administration.
Quote:"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said. "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
"It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa'ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa'ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
"These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures - both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration - in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again," Rockefeller added.
The Committee's report cites several conclusions in which the Administration's public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of Manucher Ghobanifer and Michael Ledeen in the meetings was inappropriate. Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials. Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.
Today's reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks.
The Committee released its first report on July 9, 2004, which focused primarily on the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and links to terrorism. Those findings helped lay the foundation for some of the intelligence reforms enacted into law in late 2004.
In September 2006, the Committee completed and publicly released two sections of Phase II: The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress; and Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments.
In May 2007, the Committee released the third section of Phase II: Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq.
Separately, in early 2007, the Pentagon Inspector General released its own report on the intelligence activities conducted by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and also concluded that those activities were inappropriate.
Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq
Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --
True Hussein had WMD before Bush got into office, however there was not enough evidence that he constituted a grave and gathering threat to the US at the time of the invasion and in fact there was outright doubt about some of the claims the administration made in the lead up the invasion. The intelligence community conducted new investigations at the behest of the administration into Hussein and WMD and any connections to AQ and nuclear weapons. That intelligence was twisted and cherry picked and some outright ignored by this administration as post invasions investigations and reports have shown.
PRINCETON, NJ -- The race for the presidency has moved back into a statistical tie in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update of national registered voters, with Barack Obama now ahead of John McCain by just one percentage point, 45% to 44%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109177/Gallup-Daily-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx
Seems to me, Registered Voters are not buying the rhetoric and bullsh!t being tossed out from the Obama camp.
"TO HOLLYWOOD it smacked of desperation.
That's why the reaction to a new John McCain ad attempting to portray Barack Obama as a kind of mindless celebrity -- likening him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears -- drew collective yawns and shrugs of irritation from politically active members of the entertainment industry.
"I didn't think McCain could look silly," mused Norman Lear. "But that ad diminishes him and makes him look silly."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause1-2008aug01,0,6538800.story
The fact that the snobs in Hollywood are "upset", means there is truth to McCains message. These same snobs who support Obama will release recordings filled with hate (McCain being paralized? Paint the White House Black) are doing McCain a favor.
I am glad to see you now like polls. We'll see in a few days now that he is back from his tour if his numbers go up. I am guessing they will. He seems to do well when he has to fight for it. But I could be wrong.
Obama has begun his slide to the bottom
I doubt it; but we'll see.
woiyo - When "[we] were ahead?" You say that is if "we" aren't still.
H20 - You're "sure of it" eh? Let's watch what reality says about your intuition in the next week/month/year. Obama is polling great, and McCain just isn't making the traction he needs.
T
K
O
