New and Improved Version of 'Bush Did It"

[Bfgrn]

Welcome to the board, Alvin.

Curious that you inadvertantly used the word 'Honestly..'

Now, I understand that to you this is a mere cliche, meaning 'Isn't my point just brilliant, you know, that Rumsfeld did things that I disagree with, so he has no right to speak, and if he is correct, we should ignore him anyway.'

But just for a moment, let's hypothesize that you were a thinking human being who has the ability to judge the truth, no matter the source... a bit of a stretch, huh?

But just go with it for a moment.

What is the effect that you fear vis-a-vis the respect folks have for a President who would tell any lie to strengthen his own position, or, as the OP states, use the new and improved version of 'Bush did it.'?

And here is the irony that said thinking human being would be aware of:

If the President was not such a small person, and did not fear giving his predecessor some credit, he could have pointed to the same kind of surge he was speaking in support of for Afghanistan, and pointed to its successin Iraq!

Funny, huh?

As a citizen, Rumsfeld has the right to speak, but the man has no credibility...funny PC, you chide the current president, but always ignore the FACT the Bush administration was a complete FAILURE...


Rumsfeld Forbade Planning For Postwar Iraq, General Says

Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said.

Brig. Gen. Mark E. Scheid told the Newport News Daily Press in an interview published yesterday that Rumsfeld had said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Scheid was a colonel with the U.S. Central Command, the unit that oversees military operations in the Middle East, in late 2001 when Rumsfeld "told us to get ready for Iraq."

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us . . . that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4" -- plans that covered post-invasion operations such as security, stability and reconstruction, said Scheid, who is retiring in about three weeks, but "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that."

WASHINGTON IN BRIEF - washingtonpost.com

Ah, the BoringFriendlessGuy is back.

But, then again, where else could he go?

I suspect that there may be a reason Friendless returns to a thread on which he as been stomped, over and over, time and time again: he’s Friendless.

Any response, no matter how dispositive, no matter how insulting to his argument, his intellect, or his manhood, serves as inducement for Friendless to post a long, repetitive, and often boring response, frequently baited with logical errors, hoping to coax further repartee, and all because- you guessed it: he is lonely.

BoringFriendlessGuy has no compunction about hijacking a thread, or posting huge multicolored font, charts, and graphs that have no bearing on the subject of the thread, or even ending a thread by long, boring pedantry, other than having killed the ‘golden goose’ of a place to post…but then he’s not that smart.

Borrowing from Sherlock Holmes, I would venture a guess that BoringFriendlessGuy might suffer from a speech impediment, which relegates any badinage to cyberspace.

Or- possibly, folks in his locale are more easily able to see him coming, and beat a hasty retreat, than posters on the message board, and so we are the beneficiaries of his argufying ambush!

Again and again he returns to the source of his psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical ‘meat’.

If the post does not speak for itself, I for one find him as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

Although I expect to be disappointed, let’s hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy.

Wow PC, do I intimidate you THAT much? Your posts reveal a very insecure creature... how sad...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[geauxtohell]

So you wait around until you see the soldiers approaching before you'd move your troops huh?

Speaking of logical fallacies:

This is not a conventional war, and it never has been.

Stop trying to make it one.

If you can't grasp that nuance, it's no wonder you are so confused about this.

I am going to lay something heavy on you.

Are you ready for this?

The violence in Iraq was driving by how oil revenues were going to be split.

That means the fuckers that are grinning for the cameras and shaking hands with bigwigs, were also the guys paying dumb Iraqi saps to plant bombs in the street.

Funny how the basic template doesn't change from either side of the spectrum.

Hey genius, we are talking about Afghanistan here.

Negative, I was specifically talking about the Iraq Surge being a political maneuver by the Bush Administration. You might have not been sharp enough to get that when you responded to my point, but that is what I am talking about.

The thread is certainly about Afghanistan. It's the same scenario. This is not a conventional war. We don't maneuver brigades against other brigades.

Again, if you can't grasp the difference, there is not much point in going further.

 

[geauxtohell]

As a citizen, Rumsfeld has the right to speak, but the man has no credibility...funny PC, you chide the current president, but always ignore the FACT the Bush administration was a complete FAILURE...


Rumsfeld Forbade Planning For Postwar Iraq, General Says

Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said.

Brig. Gen. Mark E. Scheid told the Newport News Daily Press in an interview published yesterday that Rumsfeld had said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Scheid was a colonel with the U.S. Central Command, the unit that oversees military operations in the Middle East, in late 2001 when Rumsfeld "told us to get ready for Iraq."

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us . . . that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4" -- plans that covered post-invasion operations such as security, stability and reconstruction, said Scheid, who is retiring in about three weeks, but "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that."

WASHINGTON IN BRIEF - washingtonpost.com

Ah, the BoringFriendlessGuy is back.

But, then again, where else could he go?

I suspect that there may be a reason Friendless returns to a thread on which he as been stomped, over and over, time and time again: he’s Friendless.

Any response, no matter how dispositive, no matter how insulting to his argument, his intellect, or his manhood, serves as inducement for Friendless to post a long, repetitive, and often boring response, frequently baited with logical errors, hoping to coax further repartee, and all because- you guessed it: he is lonely.

BoringFriendlessGuy has no compunction about hijacking a thread, or posting huge multicolored font, charts, and graphs that have no bearing on the subject of the thread, or even ending a thread by long, boring pedantry, other than having killed the ‘golden goose’ of a place to post…but then he’s not that smart.

Borrowing from Sherlock Holmes, I would venture a guess that BoringFriendlessGuy might suffer from a speech impediment, which relegates any badinage to cyberspace.

Or- possibly, folks in his locale are more easily able to see him coming, and beat a hasty retreat, than posters on the message board, and so we are the beneficiaries of his argufying ambush!

Again and again he returns to the source of his psychological nourishment, similar to the behavior of a hyena or other scavenger, seeing any opportunity to post as though another scrap of polemical ‘meat’.

If the post does not speak for itself, I for one find him as welcome as emphysema at a glass-blowers convention.

Although I expect to be disappointed, let’s hope that this missive serves as our adieu, BoringFriendlessGuy.

Wow PC, do I intimidate you THAT much? Your posts reveal a very insecure creature... how sad...

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Isn't that the exact same post she made in another thread?

That's sort of humorous.

Kind of like people that put people on ignore and feel the need to post "this message is hidden because Joe Schmoo is on your ignore list".

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Did someone actually try to call PP a liberal??????????

OK, that's funny.

Not the only "fact" this guys plays fast and loose with I see.

Its not the first time someone has called me a liberal.

What the heck are you trying to say in the last sentance, it is structured poorly and hard to comprehend?

I think they were refering to me Plymco...the "PP" title is yours as you were here first. Perhaps everyone could just use Patek for me.

 

[saveliberty]

Did someone actually try to call PP a liberal??????????

OK, that's funny.

Not the only "fact" this guys plays fast and loose with I see.

Its not the first time someone has called me a liberal.

What the heck are you trying to say in the last sentance, it is structured poorly and hard to comprehend?

I think they were refering to me Plymco...the "PP" title is yours as you were here first. Perhaps everyone could just use Patek for me.

.. or just not be a lazy ass and use the whole name. Looking up the definition of a liberal might have a few benefits as well.

 

[edthecynic]

But just for a moment, let's hypothesize that you were a thinking human being who has the ability to judge the truth, no matter the source... a bit of a stretch, huh?

But just for a moment, let's hypothesize that you were not an arrogant CONdescending know-it-all who knows nothing and you suddenly have the ability to judge the truth, no matter the source... a bit of a stretch, huh?

My new friend, it is not Rumsfeld's 'view,' but rather whether he is telling the truth or President Obama is telling the truth.

The truth matters, doen't it, Alvin?

And since Secretary Rumsfeld has called for a Congressional investigation, it seems that the preponderance of hypothesizing should be in his favor, no?

The problem with that "logic" is the Rummy Dummy has not been truthful in the past and he has a habit of bluffing, so to experienced people, the preponderance of hypothesizing should NOT be in his favor, yes! Truth never matters to CON$ like the Rummy Dummy.

Trust not him that hath once broken faith; he who betrayed thee once, will betray thee again.
- Shakespeare.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
– Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on November 14, 2002

 

[edthecynic]

Really?? Then the following people where lost in the same fantasy......

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

.....

.....

Trotting out long stream of cherry-picked out-context-quotes might look damning but is essentially meaningless without the context.

This list is probably the most overused cut and paste job I've seen endlessly presented as some sort of "proof".

Coyote, you are the typical Liebtard Idiot that can be hit with IRREFUTABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE up the GAZOO, and you will STILL be the brainless LIEBTARD IDIOT that you are.

You are fucking HOPELESS.

And you are equally BLIND!!!
Whenever a CON$ervative calls their phony "facts" IRREFUTABLE you know they are easily refuted.

If you look at the dates of all your cherry-picked quotes an observant person see they are all at least 2 years BEFORE 9/11 and before the Bush CIA and Bush State Department said there was no WMDs or AFTER Bush cooked the "evidence" after 9/11 to deceive anyone who trusted him.

Conspicuous in their absence are these quotes, which were made in between the dates of your deliberately misleading quotes:

"Iraq does not represent any threat to the United States at this time.* Their weapons programs have been exaggerated by the Clinton Administration."
- Tom Delay, 1999

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs."
- President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001

 

[GWV5903]

Trotting out long stream of cherry-picked out-context-quotes might look damning but is essentially meaningless without the context.

This list is probably the most overused cut and paste job I've seen endlessly presented as some sort of "proof".

Coyote, you are the typical Liebtard Idiot that can be hit with IRREFUTABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE up the GAZOO, and you will STILL be the brainless LIEBTARD IDIOT that you are.

You are fucking HOPELESS.

And you are equally BLIND!!!
Whenever a CON$ervative calls their phony "facts" IRREFUTABLE you know they are easily refuted.

If you look at the dates of all your cherry-picked quotes an observant person see they are all at least 2 years BEFORE 9/11 and before the Bush CIA and Bush State Department said there was no WMDs or AFTER Bush cooked the "evidence" after 9/11 to deceive anyone who trusted him.

The left never ceases to amaze me, denial is their best trait, here you go, all post 9/11 dates in BOLD so you can't miss it this time, it makes more sense every time someone like you makes this mistake, no wonder your so easily lead to the slaughter, I mean polls......

Oh, BTW Coyote, here it is again.....lmao

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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 F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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 ... 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."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[edthecynic]

Coyote, you are the typical Liebtard Idiot that can be hit with IRREFUTABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE up the GAZOO, and you will STILL be the brainless LIEBTARD IDIOT that you are.

You are fucking HOPELESS.

And you are equally BLIND!!!
Whenever a CON$ervative calls their phony "facts" IRREFUTABLE you know they are easily refuted.

If you look at the dates of all your cherry-picked quotes an observant person see they are all at least 2 years BEFORE 9/11 and before the Bush CIA and Bush State Department said there was no WMDs or AFTER Bush cooked the "evidence" after 9/11 to deceive anyone who trusted him.

The left never ceases to amaze me, denial is their best trait, here you go, all post 9/11 dates in BOLD so you can't miss it this time, it makes more sense every time someone like you makes this mistake, no wonder your so easily lead to the slaughter, I mean polls......

The CON$ never ceases to amaze me, playing dumb is their best trait.
I made no "mistake!" After 9/11 the Bush administration SUDDENLY changed their tune from their OWN claims BEFORE 9/11.

Here is the lying Bush-Whacker's OWN CIA and State Department saying in FEBRUARY of 2001, before Bush and Cheney cooked the evidence, that Iraq had no WMDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001

 

[Claudette]

Geauxtohell, save your breath and your fingers. The liberals on this board don't care for the truth.

Bush was President but he couldn't do anything without the Congress approving it. The Congress with both Dems and Reps. End of story in my book. You can call Bush, Rummy, Cheney any name you choose but the fact remains that our Congress approved the war. Both parties. The Dems were just as rabid about it as the Reps with very few exceptions.

 

[Alvin]

They voted based on what information?
Who fed them that information?
Who was "sexing" it up?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Democrats voted against the war 147 to 110.

NYLiebtard Idiot,

WHEN did the Democrats vote against the war 147 to 110, you stupid fuck ????

.

The Iraq war resolution, genius, 2002.

And the details

House
Vote 296-133-3 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 10 October 2002, 3:05 PM
Republicans: 215-6-2
Democrats: 81-126-1
Independents: 0-1-0

Senate
Vote 77-23 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 11 October 2002, 12:50 AM
Republicans: 48-1
Democrats: 29-21
Independents: 0-1

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did someone actually try to call PP a liberal??????????

OK, that's funny.

Not the only "fact" this guys plays fast and loose with I see.

Its not the first time someone has called me a liberal.

What the heck are you trying to say in the last sentance, it is structured poorly and hard to comprehend?

I think they were refering to me Plymco...the "PP" title is yours as you were here first. Perhaps everyone could just use Patek for me.

and pilgrim for me

 

[Article 15]

NYLiebtard Idiot,

WHEN did the Democrats vote against the war 147 to 110, you stupid fuck ????

.

The Iraq war resolution, genius, 2002.

And the details

House
Vote 296-133-3 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 10 October 2002, 3:05 PM
Republicans: 215-6-2
Democrats: 81-126-1
Independents: 0-1-0

Senate
Vote 77-23 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 11 October 2002, 12:50 AM
Republicans: 48-1
Democrats: 29-21
Independents: 0-1

Like I've been saying this whole time ... the majority of Dems voted AGAINST the AUMF.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Iraq war resolution, genius, 2002.

And the details

House
Vote 296-133-3 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 10 October 2002, 3:05 PM
Republicans: 215-6-2
Democrats: 81-126-1
Independents: 0-1-0

Senate
Vote 77-23 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 11 October 2002, 12:50 AM
Republicans: 48-1
Democrats: 29-21
Independents: 0-1

Like I've been saying this whole time ... the majority of Dems voted AGAINST the AUMF.

Yep...agreed...the only place where they had more Democrats vote for the war than against it was in the Senate controlled by Democrats and Daschle....at the time of this Resolution....which is understandable due to the junior Senators supporting the power brokers.

 

[Claudette]

Well Alvin, from what I've read they had the same intel as the President did. The same intel that every other intelligence agency had and believed.

 

[Alvin]

Well Alvin, from what I've read they had the same intel as the President did. The same intel that every other intelligence agency had and believed.

They didn't have the same intel the President did. They had some of the same intel.
Office of Special Plans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[geauxtohell]

Geauxtohell, save your breath and your fingers. The liberals on this board don't care for the truth.

Bush was President but he couldn't do anything without the Congress approving it. The Congress with both Dems and Reps. End of story in my book. You can call Bush, Rummy, Cheney any name you choose but the fact remains that our Congress approved the war. Both parties. The Dems were just as rabid about it as the Reps with very few exceptions.

I am a liberal.

I firmly place the blame for getting us into Iraq on Bush. He pushed for the policy. The congress approved it, the GOP was in the majority. I fault the DEMs that voted for it, and that is why H. Clinton did not get my vote in the primary. It was a mortal sin. She refused to think rationally for fear of being smeared by the GOP saber rattlers.

On top of that, I blame Bush for a shoddy plan, failing to "know his enemy", and virtually every other facet of Iraq.

He was the CINC, after all.

 

[Claudette]

I'm an Independent. Though I do lean right.

Can't remember how many didn't vote for the war but I don't think it was many. Kinda a collaborative effort by both the Dems and the Reps pushed along by bad intel.

Your right that the war wasn't very well run and it turned into a mess that I don't think any of the planners expected.

Did I agree with the war?? Was of two minds because of the WMD's. The fact that every major intelligence agency was giving the same info really worried me. Of course in hindsight it should never have been fought. No. Iraq was a big mistake one I'm sure the Bush administration would take back in a heartbeat if they could.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm an Independent. Though I do lean right.

Can't remember how many didn't vote for the war but I don't think it was many. Kinda a collaborative effort by both the Dems and the Reps pushed along by bad intel.

Your right that the war wasn't very well run and it turned into a mess that I don't think any of the planners expected.

Did I agree with the war?? Was of two minds because of the WMD's. The fact that every major intelligence agency was giving the same info really worried me. Of course in hindsight it should never have been fought. No. Iraq was a big mistake one I'm sure the Bush administration would take back in a heartbeat if they could.

There it is again, the same GOP hate run media echo chamber crapaganda parroted by the mindless drones.

Please tell me how the Bush CIA and State Department correctly knew in Feb 2001 that there were no WMDs in Iraq if every intelligence agency was given the same info?????????

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001