SURGING IN IRAQ

Add Bill Clinton, Gore, and Albright to the list, woiyo.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

I have no recollection nor do I believe every Senator, Congressman, World Leader over the past 15 years was "duped" by Bush.

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

You just sound like another Pelosi buttgirl.

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

Your rantings have no basis in fact. Your suggresting, without specific commentary, that World Leaders, dating back to the early 1990's were "co-conspirators" and only GWB acted on the fraudulent information?

Ridiculous, Woiyo.

Look, we all know that OJ is guilty. Everyone knows. Everyone thinks there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion. But if you decided to take his life, unilaterally, then it is you who would be responsible for what happened afterwards, the effects upon both you and the society around you.

Same with Bush. There was some evidence that showed Saddam was guilty of WMD, some that showed he wasn't. Bush chose to go with the evidence that he was, and that's where he took a big step further than anyone else had done. Turns out he was wrong, and now he's paying the price for being wrong.

Bush made a strategic error in attacking Iraq, not after attacking. Everything since then has been a Tactical error.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ridiculous, Woiyo.

Look, we all know that OJ is guilty. Everyone knows. Everyone thinks there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion. But if you decided to take his life, unilaterally, then it is you who would be responsible for what happened afterwards, the effects upon both you and the society around you.

Same with Bush. There was some evidence that showed Saddam was guilty of WMD, some that showed he wasn't. Bush chose to go with the evidence that he was, and that's where he took a big step further than anyone else had done. Turns out he was wrong, and now he's paying the price for being wrong.

Bush made a strategic error in attacking Iraq, not after attacking. Everything since then has been a Tactical error.

Cycloptichorn

At least you admit the evidence was conflicting. You are correct, Bush made a tactical decision that Hussein was probably involved with WMD, based on intelligence, Hussein's suspicious past and behavior, and Bush's gut feeling. Remember too that Congress supported him, and now many of those same congress want to disavow their own votes, for political advantage, which is very pathetic and back stabbing. Remember too that some believe WMD did exist and was moved out of Iraq? Remember the unexplained trucks and aircraft? Our assumptions before might have been wrong, and current assumptions could be wrong now. Bush might be proven correct by history.

We made a decision. We got rid of Hussein. Iraq has no WMD now, whether it was moved out or not. Lets go from here. Quit sniping at Bush. Okay Democrats, prove you have an ounce of sense about anything, now that Pelosi is being treated as if she was elected president. I am not optimistic.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

...MARINE CORPS STRETCHED...

0 Replies

********
Ms. de la Vega claims that Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (conspiracy to defraud) is as applicable to the Bush administration as it was in securing the convictions of former Enron CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Which is to say: "As the [Enron] jury was instructed� anyone who makes representations intending that the public will rely on them, has an affirmative obligation to make sure that they are true and accurate. Representations made with reckless indifference to their truth are as false as outright lies." [p. 21]

For example, Mr. Lay "tired to convince his employees to buy stock by telling them that he had bought $4 million in stock that very month. What he didn't mention was that he had also sold $24 million." [p. 58]

Similarly, on August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney asserted: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," [p. 173] a claim subsequently proven to be false after the U.S. invaded Iraq and found no such weapons. In support of his claim, Cheney cited evidence provided by Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, who had defected. Yet, in a blatant act of criminal fraud, Cheney failed to mention that the son-in-law also claimed that all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed.

Two examples - among hundreds -- of the Bush administration's criminal indifference to the truth occurred on October 2, 2002 and October 7, 2002, just days before Congress would approve a resolution authorizing him to use force against Iraq. On October 2nd President Bush asserted: "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency�it has developed weapons of mass destruction." [p. 192] And on October 7th President Bush gave a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which he claimed that Iraq "stands alone" as a unique threat.

Yet, just days before the October 7th speech, "a State Department representative was specifically informed by North Korean officials that North Korea already possessed nuclear weapons." [p. 225] Thus, the Bush administration fraudulently concealed information indicating that North Korea stood alone as the "unique" threat until after Congress approved its resolution concerning Iraq.

But, both speeches constituted attempts to defraud Congress and the American public. For, as we now know, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified in February 2004 that "the intelligence community had never informed the President that Saddam Hussein presented an imminent or urgent threat,"[p. 192] let alone a threat that stands alone.

Thus, the October 2nd speech, the concealment of information about North Korea's nuclear weapons and the October 7th speech constitute prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to defraud Congress.

Want more evidence of Bush's criminal violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371? Consider that, in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush asserted that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Although literally true, Bush's assertion was fraudulent because it was inserted as a way to weasel around the fact that "less than four months earlier, Tenet and the CIA had excised the sentence from the president's speech in Cincinnati because the assertion could not be confirmed and was thought to be shaky." [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack pp. 294-95]

As Ms. de la Vega notes: "Much has been written regarding what the President knew when he made this statement, but the analysis of whether this statement is fraudulent in a criminal context is very simple." Consider the following: "this President is highly involved in the speech-writing process. At the time of the speech, the public's support for the war was waning and the President wanted specific proof. If he could have phrased this assertion more strongly, he would have. It may have been literally true - the British did acquire this information - but it already had been debunked. Bush's phrasing was an attempt to deceive the American public into believing that he was vouching for the British intelligence information when he knew he could not do so." [p. 231]

********
HuffingtonPost

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ridiculous, Woiyo.

Look, we all know that OJ is guilty. Everyone knows. Everyone thinks there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion. But if you decided to take his life, unilaterally, then it is you who would be responsible for what happened afterwards, the effects upon both you and the society around you.

Same with Bush. There was some evidence that showed Saddam was guilty of WMD, some that showed he wasn't. Bush chose to go with the evidence that he was, and that's where he took a big step further than anyone else had done. Turns out he was wrong, and now he's paying the price for being wrong.

Bush made a strategic error in attacking Iraq, not after attacking. Everything since then has been a Tactical error.

Cycloptichorn

At least you admit the evidence was conflicting. You are correct, Bush made a tactical decision that Hussein was probably involved with WMD, based on intelligence, Hussein's suspicious past and behavior, and Bush's gut feeling.

Wrongo. Bush made a strategic decision to attack Iraq, not a tactical decision.

You forget the possibility that there may be other concerns which prompted the war in Iraq besides Hussein's supposed WMD, many of which may or may not have been in the best interest of the US population as a whole.

Quote:

Remember too that Congress supported him, and now many of those same congress want to disavow their own votes, for political advantage, which is very pathetic and back stabbing.

Two points -

First, many Dems did not in fact vote for the war in Iraq. All the Senate Dems did (except Feingold - he's the man!) but over 100 house members voted against the AUMF. It wasn't a complete sweep of congress by any means. So many of those who are complaining in fact did not vote to support this war.

Second, there's nothing wrong with admitting that you were wrong in the past. The Dems who voted the wrong way need to nut up and admit that they were incorrect. Edwards is a good example of this: he's flat out stated that he regrets his earlier vote, and that he was wrong, with no prevarications about circumstances or any of that.

I agree with you that more Dems need to take responsibility, publicly, for voting wrong on this issue. But it isn't backstabbing to demand a change of course once you realize things have gone so badly and that the intel was false.

Quote:

Remember too that some believe WMD did exist and was moved out of Iraq? Remember the unexplained trucks and aircraft? Our assumptions before might have been wrong, and current assumptions could be wrong now. Bush might be proven correct by history.

Sure, and the US may have caused 9/11. Conspiracy theories without evidence to back them up really aren't a convincing part of any discussion about the current war.

Same thing for the 9/11 crew applies to the 'wmd moved' crew - find more evidence, then come talk about it.

Quote:

We made a decision. We got rid of Hussein. Iraq has no WMD now, whether it was moved out or not. Lets go from here. Quit sniping at Bush.

It's difficult, because even without looking at the WMD issue, he's screwed up the occupation badly. So there's no trust left for him to win this thing, and why should there be? He hasn't shown any evidence that he has the leadership abilities to do so.

That isn't just a Dem opinion, btw. You know that many Republicans are deeply suspicious of the ability of the current team to win this thing. The numbers on Iraq would never be so low if that wasn't the case.

Quote:

Okay Democrats, prove you have an ounce of sense about anything, now that Pelosi is being treated as if she was elected president. I am not optimistic.

The Dems seem to be doing a good job to me so far. The real fun is just about to start; Biden today told Condi that there would be a constitutional confronation if aggressive actions were taken towards Iran. You'll see news about it tonight.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

I have no recollection nor do I believe every Senator, Congressman, World Leader over the past 15 years was "duped" by Bush.

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

You just sound like another Pelosi buttgirl.

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

Your rantings have no basis in fact. Your suggresting, without specific commentary, that World Leaders, dating back to the early 1990's were "co-conspirators" and only GWB acted on the fraudulent information?

Ridiculous, Woiyo.

Look, we all know that OJ is guilty. Everyone knows. Everyone thinks there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion. But if you decided to take his life, unilaterally, then it is you who would be responsible for what happened afterwards, the effects upon both you and the society around you.

Same with Bush. There was some evidence that showed Saddam was guilty of WMD, some that showed he wasn't. Bush chose to go with the evidence that he was, and that's where he took a big step further than anyone else had done. Turns out he was wrong, and now he's paying the price for being wrong.

Bush made a strategic error in attacking Iraq, not after attacking. Everything since then has been a Tactical error.

Cycloptichorn

You compare this to OJ? That's what you compare this to? Rolling Eyes

You forget the enforcement of the terms of surrender from Gulf War 1 as if they had no relevance in the decision process?

0 Replies

More political spin is all that amounts to. A congressional investigation found Bush did nothing to alter intelligence. Politicians in the U.S. and around the world said Hussein had WMD before Bush even took office. Get over it.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

I have no recollection nor do I believe every Senator, Congressman, World Leader over the past 15 years was "duped" by Bush.

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

You just sound like another Pelosi buttgirl.

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

Your rantings have no basis in fact. Your suggresting, without specific commentary, that World Leaders, dating back to the early 1990's were "co-conspirators" and only GWB acted on the fraudulent information?

Ridiculous, Woiyo.

Look, we all know that OJ is guilty. Everyone knows. Everyone thinks there is enough evidence to come to that conclusion. But if you decided to take his life, unilaterally, then it is you who would be responsible for what happened afterwards, the effects upon both you and the society around you.

Same with Bush. There was some evidence that showed Saddam was guilty of WMD, some that showed he wasn't. Bush chose to go with the evidence that he was, and that's where he took a big step further than anyone else had done. Turns out he was wrong, and now he's paying the price for being wrong.

Bush made a strategic error in attacking Iraq, not after attacking. Everything since then has been a Tactical error.

Cycloptichorn

You compare this to OJ? That's what you compare this to?

Same thing. Doesn't matter what other people say or said; you take action, you take the heat.

I only picked OJ because it was a popular and well-known example.

Quote:

You forget the enforcement of the terms of surrender from Gulf War 1 as if they had no relevance in the decision process?

They don't have any relevance in the decision process. It had nothing to do with our decision to invade.

Don't kid yourself, sheesh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

And Cyclops, what about dems that said we needed more troops on the ground, the very same ones that are condemning it now? More Democratic politics as usual. Reminds me of the lady that sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee. I guess its the modern world we live in. Nobody wishes to take responsibility for anything, and that fits Democrats to a tee.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And Cyclops, what about dems that said we needed more troops on the ground, the very same ones that are condemning it now? More Democratic politics as usual. Reminds me of the lady that sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee. I guess its the modern world we live in. Nobody wishes to take responsibility for anything, and that fits Democrats to a tee.

We have lots of dems and some but gaining repubs who are backing away from the Bush plan, they are running for re-election and understand the american people are not going along with Bush and company. The really bad thing about a democracy is that people who vote are supposed to make the decisions, you know like in majority rules and all that. Okie, never will you or I ever represent the majority other than accidentally.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And Cyclops, what about dems that said we needed more troops on the ground, the very same ones that are condemning it now?

Sigh

There have been times in the past in which I called for more troops as well. Now, things are different. Why? The situation has gotten significantly worse, to the point where many including myself feel that sending more troops will not be effective and is only being done to cover political ass.

Quote:

More Democratic politics as usual.

You should just say 'politics as usual.' It isn't a partisan thing.

Quote:

Reminds me of the lady that sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee. I guess its the modern world we live in.

That lady won her case not because McDonalds gave her hot coffee, she won because they gave her coffee that was over 100 degrees hotter than the recommended serving temperature. She was a fool for spilling it all over herself while driving, but that wasn't ever the question; the question was whether or not McDonalds was negligent in serving their coffee far too hot, and the jury found that they were.

This case has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or any votes about it.

Quote:

Nobody wishes to take responsibility for anything, and that fits Democrats to a tee.

Republicans as well. From the 'party of responsibility' to 'it's the MEDIA's fault that we're losing in Iraq! Democrats fault too. Certainly not ours.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am always amazed that so many people, like Okie, are unconcerned about their credibility. Okie, the Downing Street Memo is not political spin, but a congressional investigation (if there was one) is usually spin.

There was no WMD when Bush took office, and he knew it. Even the 9/11 report shows that Bush was determined to invade Iraq at the time he took office.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
And Cyclops, what about dems that said we needed more troops on the ground, the very same ones that are condemning it now? More Democratic politics as usual. Reminds me of the lady that sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee. I guess its the modern world we live in. Nobody wishes to take responsibility for anything, and that fits Democrats to a tee.

We have lots of dems and some but gaining repubs who are backing away from the Bush plan, they are running for re-election and understand the american people are not going along with Bush and company. The really bad thing about a democracy is that people who vote are supposed to make the decisions, you know like in majority rules and all that. Okie, never will you or I ever represent the majority other than accidentally.

Do I have to break the news to you, dys, that this country is not supposed to be a pure democracy? The people ARE NOT supposed to make the decisions. They are supposed to elect people they trust to make the correct decisions, and then if they don't like the results, they can elect somebody else to take their place. That is what is wrong with politics these days. If I ran for office, I would run on what I believe, not what I think most people believe. If elected, I would vote my own beliefs. If the people did not like it, they could vote me out next election.

The problem with many politicians, including most Democrats, we don't really know what they believe because they ride the fence and flip flop, depending on public opinion. It makes for a very spineless and weak foreign policy, because depending on the latest news flash, and how poll questions are phrased, we will be sending troops in one day, and the next day pulling them out, then the next day sending them in again, etc. etc. etc. Right now, Bush is one of the few politicians that has been reasonably consistent on Iraq. I don't know of any Democrats that have, except Lieberman comes to mind.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
And Cyclops, what about dems that said we needed more troops on the ground, the very same ones that are condemning it now?

Sigh

There have been times in the past in which I called for more troops as well. Now, things are different. Why? The situation has gotten significantly worse, to the point where many including myself feel that sending more troops will not be effective and is only being done to cover political ass.
Cycloptichorn

I won't even address the other points. This one illustrates my point that you will always have a reason why what you advocated is not now practical if Bush begins to advocate it. No matter what Bush says, he is always wrong, always, according to Democrats. Pure politics, cyclops. You are a typical Democrat, Cyclops. Proof is right here in this post. You will not take responsibility for anything, will you? If Bush said lets reduce troops, I would bet a dollar to a doughnut you would be saying right now that more troops are needed, not less.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
And Cyclops, what about dems that said we needed more troops on the ground, the very same ones that are condemning it now?

Sigh

There have been times in the past in which I called for more troops as well. Now, things are different. Why? The situation has gotten significantly worse, to the point where many including myself feel that sending more troops will not be effective and is only being done to cover political ass.
Cycloptichorn

I won't even address the other points. This one illustrates my point that you will always have a reason why what you advocated is not now practical if Bush begins to advocate it. No matter what Bush says, he is always wrong, always, according to Democrats. Pure politics, cyclops. You are a typical Democrat, Cyclops. Proof is right here in this post. You will not take responsibility for anything, will you? If Bush said lets reduce troops, I would bet a dollar to a doughnut you would be saying right now that more troops are needed, not less.

No matter what Bush says, he is always wrong, always, according to Democrats.

Instead of taking the time to write out a response to this, I will instead cut and paste from a post I made earlier today:

Quote:

Though I have been criticized for 'never having anything good to say about Bush,' I thought his speech last night was not bad. I disagree with the conclusions that he has come to but his speech laid out the thought processes much clearer than past ones and he delivered it competently if a little flat. Even as someone who opposes his policies, I found the arguments presented to be somewhat compelling in that they represent a far greater acceptance of reality than past speeches by the Prez have. This is a hopeful sign that decisions made from here on out may be more reality-based than ones in the past, which seemed to be more ideologically-based and full of words like 'freedom' and 'hope.'

I am willing to give Petraeus (I know that you righties love his Roman-sounding name) a shot at this counter-strategy before I start ramping up my withdrawl rhetoric. But I don't expect any sort of success, as the counter-insurgency doctorine he calls for specifically asks for more troops than they are going to get, and I have zero trust in the Iraqi army when it comes to going after Shiite militias.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2480307#2480307

Bush isn't inherently wrong because of who he is. I don't have a hatred for the 'person' of Bush, just for his actions. He is wrong because he has consistently made poor decisions and continues to do so.

As I said above - and now that we've safely shown that your criticism of me in your last post is, in fact, untrue - it is amazing to hear a Republican speak about responsibility, when they continually blame the failed war started by a Republican-led Congress and Executive branch... on the media and Democrats. That's how you define taking responsibility?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

To set the record straight, cyclops, I take responsibility for my opinion and support of the war. As I've said before, I teetered on whether it was the right decision or not when we went to war. After looking at all the information available at that time, I backed the administration. I think we are better off now than we were in 2001 in regard to terrorism and the Middle East, and in regard to the Iraq problem. I never believed the war would be easy. Bush told us that. I do not think we have lost the war, or are losing it. We do not yet have a stable Iraq, but I did not expect smooth sailing on this front. It is about where I figured it would be, although I hoped for better. Casualties are far lighter than my worst fears.

Any realistic politician and any realistic citizen should know all of the above. I have little or no respect for politicians that stick their political fingers into the wind and change their positions for political advantage. I blame Democrats, and Republicans, for not being consistent. Consistency and commitment is crucial in the efforts to fight terrorism, and to fix the Iraq problem. I also blame certain U.N. countries for not seeing the light in terms of what they should do for their own good, and for the good of a civil world community. Bush has been one consistent leader in this regard, and for this, I give him credit, and I think history will vindicate him completely.

As far as poor decisions, I don't think there has been any more than other wars. I think the war has been executed very well, and many of the problems are beyond our control. The military has performed beautifully in my opinion. The main thing to remember about this war is that it will not be over soon, and anybody that thought so is delusional. We need to adjust our approach, and tactics, I agree in that regard, but I do not think we have lost the war at all. If we continue to talk defeatism, we will lose. If we band together, change our attitude, and some tactics, we can and will win the war. It is as much a matter changing our attitude, public opinion, and media spin as it is battlefield tactics.

0 Replies

Good post. I am going to think about it a while and respond.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

SURGING IN IRAQ

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know