The Speech of a real leader

[Dogger]

Still waiting for one of you lawyers and really smart people to provide one shred of evidence that Bush illegally controlled the intel the Congress got. And while you are at it provide the evidence how he got Clintons and other leading democrats to say the same thing, how he brainwashed everyone in Europe starting in 1991.

I won't hold my breath though.

If Bush's intel was so reliable, why did Colin Powell first claim that that Iraq was so weak Saddam couldn't even threaten his neighbors with conventional weapons. Why did they never explain how Iraq grew from a weakling under Clinton to a major threat under Bush?

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

Colin Powell's press remarks, Cairo, Egypt on February 24, 2001

Subsequent events proved Powell's original assessment to be correct. Clinton acknowledged that Saddam was a problem at one time, but he dealt with that successfully with sanctions. Committing to war after the enemy threat had vanished is the epitome of a dumb war, and a tragic waste of 4,000 America lives.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Bush's intel was so reliable, why did Colin Powell first claim that that Iraq was so weak Saddam couldn't even threaten his neighbors with conventional weapons. Why did they never explain how Iraq grew from a weakling under Clinton to a major threat under Bush?



Subsequent events proved Powell's original assessment to be correct. Clinton acknowledged that Saddam was a problem at one time, but he dealt with that successfully with sanctions. Committing to war after the enemy threat had vanished is the epitome of a dumb war, and a tragic waste of 4,000 America lives.

Still waiting for some proof that Bush lied to Congress. Which is a crime. Proof he tampered with the intel Congress received, another crime. You guys keep making the claim, back it up.

 

[Dogger]

Still waiting for some proof that Bush lied to Congress. Which is a crime. Proof he tampered with the intel Congress received, another crime. You guys keep making the claim, back it up.

The Downing Street Memo revealed that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq. You can find lots of links showing the administration’s effort to manipulate information and other misconduct here.

I've written plenty with supporting reasoning, and gotten nothing from you but ad hominen (though you're getting better about that) and rote contradiction.

Now that I've answered your question, why don't you explain why you think Bush's intel was legitimate, and why it differed so vastly from Powell's position in Cairo in 2001, and the events that unfolded after the war began.

 

[Swamp Fox]

October 2, 2002

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/

Is this the same guy who stated he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons by all means available to include military? Now, if the intelligence community comes to President Obama and tells him that Iran has nukes, what is he going to do? If he goes to war, isn't he doing the same thing he's castigating George Bush for? What if the intel is wrong and there are no nukes after all? What's he going to do then?

I'll tell you what he'll do. He won't believe it until there's a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and then he's going to be up shit creek without a paddle.

Some leader...............

 

[Swamp Fox]

Is George Bush the person who made the intel report? Why is he being blamed for something that happened levels below him? If that's the case, why didn't Clinton get railroaded for his bad intel on the gas factory that was making aspirin in the Sudan?


Now, having said that, some people should have been fired. National security is too high stakes for someone who is involved (director, intel person, etc) not to be held responsible.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Downing Street Memo revealed that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq. You can find lots of links showing the administration’s effort to manipulate information and other misconduct here.

I've written plenty with supporting reasoning, and gotten nothing from you but ad hominen (though you're getting better about that) and rote contradiction.

Now that I've answered your question, why don't you explain why you think Bush's intel was legitimate, and why it differed so vastly from Powell's position in Cairo in 2001, and the events that unfolded after the war began.

Last I checked British Government memos have nothing to do with US Government actions. That Memo is an opinion. Further even if totally true it does not provide one shred of evidence that Bush illegally tampered with intel delivered to Congress nor that he lied to Congress.

For a Lawyer you are pretty dumb when it comes to this issue.

Powell worked for Bush, Powell did not get to set policy or direction. And last I checked facts change, intel changes and real world events cause change. Sanctions never worked and never HAVE worked. Saddam was getting RICH off your sanctions and making enough extra cash to BRIBE Russia, China and France.

The embargo was a failure, read some of the reports by troops on the ground, they found munitions in boxes with date stamps well after the embargo was in place. Some as late as the year before the invasion. I saw a picture of a box of french ammunition with a date stamp of 2001.

 

[Gunny]

If Bush's intel was so reliable, why did Colin Powell first claim that that Iraq was so weak Saddam couldn't even threaten his neighbors with conventional weapons. Why did they never explain how Iraq grew from a weakling under Clinton to a major threat under Bush?

If Powell was correct then why was I spending 6 out of evey 24 months sitting on his border babysitting his ass? Oh, because he was a threat.

Subsequent events proved Powell's original assessment to be correct. Clinton acknowledged that Saddam was a problem at one time, but he dealt with that successfully with sanctions. Committing to war after the enemy threat had vanished is the epitome of a dumb war, and a tragic waste of 4,000 America lives.

Thanks for playing. "Subsequent events" = "Monday morning quarterbacking." In hindsight, we probably could avoid most fo the wars we have been in, and even most of the problems we have in out daily lives.

When you get that crystal ball working though, be sure and let me know. I'll be your best friend.

 

[midcan5]

I love the personal attacks and innuendo when reason flies out the window.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Nothing particularly stirring to me about this speech. Lincoln, JFK, Reagan, yes, real leaders.

 

[jillian]

Nothing particularly stirring to me about this speech. Lincoln, JFK, Reagan, yes, real leaders.

Somehow I don't think there's anything Obama could have said that would be "particularly stirring" to you.

 

[midcan5]

Somehow I don't think there's anything Obama could have said that would be "particularly stirring" to you.

I second that. He could steal from Abe and they'd still find fault.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I second that. He could steal from Abe and they'd still find fault.

Both of y'all are correct. His global ideology and disregard for some of our constitutional beliefs and rights prohibits me from taking anything this man seriously. No offense, but he's an empty man in certain aspects.

 

[jillian]

Both of y'all are correct. His global ideology and disregard for some of our constitutional beliefs and rights prohibits me from taking anything this man seriously. No offense, but he's an empty man in certain aspects.

I have no issue with you disagreeing with his ideology. As for disregard of the Constitution. No that's what's happened over the last 7 years. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar and its the one issue that would make me never, ever, vote for McCain under any set of circumstances.

As for empty, that's not the sense I get of him at all. See, I'm real big on calling stuff what it is. I will tell you absolutely the things I like and dislike about each of the candidates. I understand you dislike Obama's philosophy. Maybe you even dislike his aloofness (which others might call calm and steady, others might call controlled). But empty? I don't think so. Again, empty is what I see us having had for the past 7 years.

 

[Dogger]

If Powell was correct then why was I spending 6 out of evey 24 months sitting on his border babysitting his ass? Oh, because he was a threat.

Thanks for playing. "Subsequent events" = "Monday morning quarterbacking." In hindsight, we probably could avoid most fo the wars we have been in, and even most of the problems we have in out daily lives.

When you get that crystal ball working though, be sure and let me know. I'll be your best friend.

Powell did not say he was no threat; that's a straw man argument (or implication). Powell said the threat was contained.

I guess Powell meant you and your buddies on the border. Good job, Gunny. You helped keep Saddam contained and unable to attack his neighbors. Powell implied that you did your job and that your efforts were effective.

You should be proud of your achievement, but you should also ask why George W. Bush thought that your sacrifice wasn't enough. I'm glad you got to go home, but I would have preferred to replace you with live soldiers in your old position, instead of killing 4,000 soldiers in a new mission.

As to your Monday morning QB nonsense: when you state factual matters clearly on Friday, and Sunday proves you were right on Friday, it's fair to ask why you believed something different on Saturday.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have no issue with you disagreeing with his ideology. As for disregard of the Constitution. No that's what's happened over the last 7 years. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar and its the one issue that would make me never, ever, vote for McCain under any set of circumstances.

As for empty, that's not the sense I get of him at all. See, I'm real big on calling stuff what it is. I will tell you absolutely the things I like and dislike about each of the candidates. I understand you dislike Obama's philosophy. Maybe you even dislike his aloofness (which others might call calm and steady, others might call controlled). But empty? I don't think so. Again, empty is what I see us having had for the past 7 years.

I'm assuming your talking about wiretapping? I've not spoken of the Iraq war or terrorism here in this forum due to the fact that I have two cousins and a close friend that have served tours over there. I've heard arguments from both of them regarding the aspects of gathering intel and how it has helped, not specifics since what they do is classified. I will say this, if it helps to save American lives, I see nothing wrong with it. I'm sure you could say the same about the 2nd amendment in regards to background checks and guns making it into the wrong hands. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not schooled in your field, but wasn't there a precedent set with Lincoln in a time of war?


As far as Obama's ideologies. I don't see this land riddled with misery, hate, racism. And I'm left to wonder from reading his books how much influence his pastors and other friendships would directly affect foreign and domestic policy. Also, of course his tax philosophy I'm in total disagreement with. I'll never understand the reasoning behind a govt that will take half of one's pay. Other than that, he's probably a decent man.

 

[Larkinn]

Notice neither he nor Mr Mensa Larkinn actually will take a test to prove their superiority to dumb little ole me.

Err, wha?

I was the one challenging you to take a test, not the other way around.

 

[jillian]

I'm assuming your talking about wiretapping? I've not spoken of the Iraq war or terrorism here in this forum due to the fact that I have two cousins and a close friend that have served tours over there. I've heard arguments from both of them regarding the aspects of gathering intel and how it has helped, not specifics since what they do is classified. I will say this, if it helps to save American lives, I see nothing wrong with it. I'm sure you could say the same about the 2nd amendment in regards to background checks and guns making it into the wrong hands. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not schooled in your field, but wasn't there a precedent set with Lincoln in a time of war?


As far as Obama's ideologies. I don't see this land riddled with misery, hate, racism. And I'm left to wonder from reading his books how much influence his pastors and other friendships would directly affect foreign and domestic policy. Also, of course his tax philosophy I'm in total disagreement with. I'll never understand the reasoning behind a govt that will take half of one's pay. Other than that, he's probably a decent man.

No I wasn't talking about FISA, though I'll say my issue isn't with FISA as it existed before Bush's presidency and as I believe it exists now. I have no problem with information gathering. And if it saves lives, great. My objection was to removing the requirement that a warrant be obtained within 72 hours of the commencement of surveillance so that SOMEONE, ANYONE is accountable and they just can't use their information gathering the way that, say, J. Edgar Hoover did. And given that this nunc pro tunc warrant was virtually always approved by the FISA Court, there was no reason, but for a desire to evade accountability for who was being wiretapped, for doing away with that "formality".

Rather, with respect to the Constitution, I'm talking about the pretense that there is such a thing as "strict constructionism". There isn't. It's a political construct which has nothing to do with the way constitutional construction has ever been done. So I want to see justices on the Court who know how to analyze the Constitution. McCain will give us more Alito-types.

I don't believe Obama sees a land riddled with misery, hate, racism. But certainly all of those things exist. I think Obama spoke honestly about the racism issue in his speech the Friday after the Rev. Wright story came out. He said himself that if things weren't better; if we hadn't advanced from what people like Wright see, then he wouldn't be running a credible campaign for president of the U.S., and in fact, will probably be our nominee.

As for taxes, well, I guess it depends on what you think government should do. I don't like my tax dollars being used to fund the Iraq War, but want my son's schools adequately funded. I want to know that I'll get back the money I invested in social security. I want to know my bank is insured so that if it goes bankrupt, I won't lose my money.... I want to know that if I were to be unable to work and continue to pay for my health insurance, that I'd have health care... that type of thing.

I think Obama seems like a decent man, too. And I think Hillary Clinton probably isn't so decent. But I thikn she'll make a very good president. I think if Obama is elected, he'll do a good job, too. But I worry about McCain because of the issues we've been discussing, though I think he's probably a pretty decent guy, too, and I certainly don't, at this time, feel about him the way I do about Bush/Cheney.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Err, wha?

I was the one challenging you to take a test, not the other way around.

So now you will take a proctored IQ test? If you think I am going to take a specific test in your specific field you are as stupid as you claim I am.

 

[Dogger]

So now you will take a proctored IQ test? If you think I am going to take a specific test in your specific field you are as stupid as you claim I am.

Give it up, RGS. You need a proctology exam instead.

 

[Larkinn]

So now you will take a proctored IQ test? If you think I am going to take a specific test in your specific field you are as stupid as you claim I am.

The LSAT is an intelligence test, retard. It has nothing to do with law. There are no law related questions on the test.