Using the 5 whys to understand GWB and BHO performance

[JRK]

the Bush admin told lies about Iraq.


Your Rices mushroom clouds


rummys we know right where the WMDs are.


why are you guys pretending a new reason ?

Lies?
are you stating that Iraq never had WMDs?
are you stating that on 1-27-2003 that the UN stated that there where 6500 WMDs missing as well as 8000 liters of anthrax?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...I1StFGTpvLPncf1V2vRGIoA&bvm=bv.46340616,d.cGE
this is from the UN, not GWB

and as far as yellow cake
bottom line is that none of this made it to the main stream and the bottom line no matter the whers and the whens, it was there until late in the war
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/01/05/media-slow-to-show-wikileaks-justified-iraq-war/

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush trip to Switzerland called off amid threats of protests, legal action

Iraq did not have the WMDs as described by the admin before the invasion.

If they had been found, Bush would have announced it. Bush stated that would not have invaded if he had been aware, as later he was, that Iraq had no WMDs.

 

[t_polkow]

5 Whys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why did we invade Iraq?
Simple
Saddam
why?
he refused to adhere to the UN resolutions that after 9-11 was no longer an option. Also Al Qaeda was setting up camp there in 2002
Why did we invade Afghanistan?
9-11
without these events we still have no understanding of how many lives would have been lost
Saddam we know killed 100s of thousands before we invaded.
UBL had killed 1000s before we invaded Afghan
How many die if no action is take? based on there past probably as many or more than us invading
use the 5 whys

Why is our deficits so large?
The dem senate and GOP house with GWB added no child left behind and Medicare D without funding them. About 200 billion
based on the 2007 budget this still allows for a balanced budget in times as we had sense 1994 with a GOP senate (5% UE, no wars)

No real jobs sense 2008 has added another 3-400 billion, (BHO failed policies sense 2010, wall street greed from 08-2010)
The other 800 billion?
Afghan added 150

The rest?
BHO and the dems added 500 billion in 09. That has grown to 700 in 2011 and now is back to 500 in 2012
(Iraq war ending) no budgets sense Omnibus

It is really that simple
expanded oil and gas extraction
continue the GWB tax rate
Allow CLEAN coal to be mined and used
use Tarp as it was intended
eliminate the failed stimulus
have a REAL budget each year sense Omnibus?

Where probably close to 2007 levels or even better (the last GOP budget with 5% UE. REAL jobs)

what does Obama-care add (or added) is still to be seen

It is that simple

The 5 why are an excellent tool to delving into the bagger mind and getting to the root cause

 

[JRK]

5 Whys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why did we invade Iraq?
Simple
Saddam
why?
he refused to adhere to the UN resolutions that after 9-11 was no longer an option. Also Al Qaeda was setting up camp there in 2002
Why did we invade Afghanistan?
9-11
without these events we still have no understanding of how many lives would have been lost
Saddam we know killed 100s of thousands before we invaded.
UBL had killed 1000s before we invaded Afghan
How many die if no action is take? based on there past probably as many or more than us invading
use the 5 whys

Why is our deficits so large?
The dem senate and GOP house with GWB added no child left behind and Medicare D without funding them. About 200 billion
based on the 2007 budget this still allows for a balanced budget in times as we had sense 1994 with a GOP senate (5% UE, no wars)

No real jobs sense 2008 has added another 3-400 billion, (BHO failed policies sense 2010, wall street greed from 08-2010)
The other 800 billion?
Afghan added 150

The rest?
BHO and the dems added 500 billion in 09. That has grown to 700 in 2011 and now is back to 500 in 2012
(Iraq war ending) no budgets sense Omnibus

It is really that simple
expanded oil and gas extraction
continue the GWB tax rate
Allow CLEAN coal to be mined and used
use Tarp as it was intended
eliminate the failed stimulus
have a REAL budget each year sense Omnibus?

Where probably close to 2007 levels or even better (the last GOP budget with 5% UE. REAL jobs)

what does Obama-care add (or added) is still to be seen

It is that simple

The 5 why are an excellent tool to delving into the bagger mind and getting to the root cause

Not sure what thr "bagger" has to do with the facts
why is it we have a 1 trillion dollar defict each year?
because BHO added 500 billion to GWB last base line in 2009 and revenue has been slow to recover due of lack of real job growth
What does that have to do with "baggers"
Why is it GM (UAW) is still doing business?
GWB
Tax payer
They never survive 2008 without that help
Why have they not paid us back? (GM)
it would BK the UAW right away if GM had a mass sell of the under performing stock. they still owes us billions
Why are we still millions of jobs short of 2008 levels?
Lack of leadershhip in Washington. we should be expanding drilling/extraction/refinement of Natural gas as well as oil in the US to include the completion of the pipe line from Canada to the US
Clean coal
Expansion of nuke power
fix the broke tax code, that does not include raising taxes on any-one except closing loop holes
make it simple and make it compete with other countries

Why do you ignore this? Why do you think "baggers" have any-thing to do with this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everyone of JRK's comments are easily eviscerated, and have been many times, before, so we won't worry about that now.

JRK, why won't Bush travel to Europe?

 

[asterism]

GWB won't travel overseas because he know if he goes to certain parts of Europe never will he come home. If the secret service interferes, they go into that country's prison system for a long time.

Hogwash leftist myth

Silly reactionary cauterwauling. The senior Bushies responsible for Iraq don't travel to certain venues. They never will in the future. They won't come home. Even the neo-con JRK knows this is true.

Leftist: everybody beyond Barry Goldwater.

Bullshit:

Bush not at risk of arrest in Europe, experts say
By Jeff Stein
European law enforcement officials and other experts say the chances of George W. Bush being arrested on war crimes charges in Switzerland--or anyplace else on the continent--are almost nil.

...

Likewise, Armando Spataro, the Milan prosecutor who won kidnapping convictions against CIA agents involved in the 2003 rendition of an al Qaeda suspect, said an indictment of Bush was possible only “in theory.”

“According to our system, one (or more) of the following circumstances must be present to issue an arrest warrant,” Spataro said. “One, danger that a person could repeat the same serious crime; two, a danger he could became a fugitive; and three, a danger he could destroy or tamper with evidence.”

Because Bush is out of office and constitutionally prohibited from occupying the presidency again, the conditions for prosecuting him--in Italy, at least--are absent, Spataro suggested.

...

“The difference is that Bush has not been indicted anywhere--unlike most of the officers wanted in the human rights cases. Until that happens, I don't think this will change Bush's ability to travel.”

SpyTalk - Bush not at risk of arrest in Europe, experts say

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why Bush cancelled his Geneva appearance in 2011? Because he was not at risk? And other experts in the piece from Spytalk above do ay Bush is at risk.

The fact remains that Bushies responsible for the war do not travel to certain venues for very good reasons.

 

[asterism]

That's why Bush cancelled his Geneva appearance in 2011? Because he was not at risk? And other experts in the piece from Spytalk above do ay Bush is at risk.

The fact remains that Bushies responsible for the war do not travel to certain venues for very good reasons.

And Karl Rove has been indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity....

Just wait 24 business hours...

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why Bush cancelled his Geneva appearance in 2011? Because he was not at risk? And other experts in the piece from Spytalk above do say Bush is at risk.

The fact remains that Bushies responsible for the war do not travel to certain venues for very good reasons.

And Karl Rove has been indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity.... Just wait 24 business hours...

False analogy. Good catch. Anyone who ties the together is indeed

 

[JRK]

That's why Bush cancelled his Geneva appearance in 2011? Because he was not at risk? And other experts in the piece from Spytalk above do ay Bush is at risk.

The fact remains that Bushies responsible for the war do not travel to certain venues for very good reasons.

And Karl Rove has been indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's identity....

Just wait 24 business hours...

Jake is on my ignore list just for this reason
I guess next BHO will be arrested for killing civilians with drones?
Murdering UBL
lets see, lying about Beghazi maybe?

If the the swiss want to arrest GWB then the UN (Hans Blix) gets the same
The US justice dept mandated that the way those terrorist where treated (water boarding, treated as a dog, etc...) was not to be defined torture in 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?ref=waterboarding&_r=0

So what is it the Sweds had to say about Saddam? when he gassed his own people?
What about UBL and the killing of 1000s?
Jake has a serious issue with his moral center. He loves to attack GWB and his faimly but inores the real ones of evil
and again, do we now worry about BHO being arrested for drone attacks on civilians?

 

[BlindBoo]

So where is the UN Resolution authorizing military force in Iraq in 2003? Considering that the SCR 1441 was still in effect and that the USA had agreed to that resolution.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Afghanistan is a different war. The Governement of Afghanistan was harboring the group of terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. Preisdent Bush had nearly universal support to go after them and bring them to justice. That support didn't start to wain until he and his administration morphed the emotion of the American people into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why Bush cancelled his Geneva appearance in 2011? Because he was not at risk? And other experts in the piece from Spytalk above do say Bush is at risk.

The fact remains that Bushies responsible for the war do not travel to certain venues for very good reasons.

Jake is on my ignore list just for this reason I guess next BHO will be arrested for killing civilians with drones? Murdering UBL lets see, lying about Beghazi maybe? If the the swiss want to arrest GWB then the UN (Hans Blix) gets the same . . . So what is it the Sweds had to say about Saddam? when he gassed his own people? QUOTE]

None of which relieves Bush from being charged with War Crimes.

 

[JRK]

So where is the UN Resolution authorizing military force in Iraq in 2003? Considering that the SCR 1441 was still in effect and that the USA had agreed to that resolution.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Afghanistan is a different war. The Governement of Afghanistan was harboring the group of terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. Preisdent Bush had nearly universal support to go after them and bring them to justice. That support didn't start to wain until he and his administration morphed the emotion of the American people into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

ot sure if you understand how our govt works
please read
U.S. Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Military Force Against Iraq

 

[BlindBoo]

So where is the UN Resolution authorizing military force in Iraq in 2003? Considering that the SCR 1441 was still in effect and that the USA had agreed to that resolution.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Afghanistan is a different war. The Governement of Afghanistan was harboring the group of terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. Preisdent Bush had nearly universal support to go after them and bring them to justice. That support didn't start to wain until he and his administration morphed the emotion of the American people into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

ot sure if you understand how our govt works
please read
U.S. Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Military Force Against Iraq

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why Bush cancelled his Geneva appearance in 2011? Because he was not at risk? And other experts in the piece from Spytalk above do say Bush is at risk.

The fact remains that Bushies responsible for the war do not travel to certain venues for very good reasons.

Jake is on my ignore list just for this reason

Nah, I am not because you so often whine to me directly.

None of your arguments relieve Bush from being charged with War Crimes.

 

[JRK]

So where is the UN Resolution authorizing military force in Iraq in 2003? Considering that the SCR 1441 was still in effect and that the USA had agreed to that resolution.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Afghanistan is a different war. The Governement of Afghanistan was harboring the group of terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. Preisdent Bush had nearly universal support to go after them and bring them to justice. That support didn't start to wain until he and his administration morphed the emotion of the American people into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

ot sure if you understand how our govt works
please read
U.S. Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Military Force Against Iraq

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.


The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.


The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.


The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.




Biological weapons


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.


In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.





Missiles


I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.


The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.



this is THE smoking gun
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

 

[Pete7469]

I guess you missed the no child and medicare D part
that 150 billion is 50% GOP
no-one (politician) owns any of the 08 crash, it was a free market event filled with fraud
what part did I re write?

I guess you missed the part where Bush's wars were put on the credit card.

I guess you missed the part where AQ in fact had no link to Iraq, and the part where that wasn't even the Bush admin's reasoning for invading Iraq.

Try as you might, you're not going to succeed at rewriting history. Americans remember who got us into this mess.

They're also going to remember who made the mess worse. Of course that's the part of history your side is already trying to re-write.

 

[asterism]

So where is the UN Resolution authorizing military force in Iraq in 2003? Considering that the SCR 1441 was still in effect and that the USA had agreed to that resolution.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's U.N. presentation - Mar. 7, 2003

Afghanistan is a different war. The Governement of Afghanistan was harboring the group of terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. Preisdent Bush had nearly universal support to go after them and bring them to justice. That support didn't start to wain until he and his administration morphed the emotion of the American people into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

ot sure if you understand how our govt works
please read
U.S. Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Military Force Against Iraq

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

 

[BlindBoo]

ot sure if you understand how our govt works
please read
U.S. Congress Authorizes Bush to Use Military Force Against Iraq

From your link:

"Before employing military force in Iraq, the resolution requires that the president first determine that continued diplomatic efforts "or other peaceful means alone," will not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

There was no continued threat to the worlds remaining super power from Iraq. The UN's diplomatic effort was underway and by Blix's final report showed that it was well on it's way to confirming Iraq had complied with the demands of the UN.

The UN's "diplomatic effort" was merely cover for the Oil for Food operation.

ODS HOME PAGE

 

[Pete7469]

nice try velveeta, but american kids are still dying in afghanistan for nothing, gitmo is still open, and al qaeda is stronger than ever.

obozo may have pulled most of our troops out of Iraq, but he did not listen to the russian warnings about the boston bombers. Incompetence comes in all colors and party labels.

The bed wetters really stretch to give their messiah credit for ending the OIF war, when all he did was follow the Bush timeline. As unpopular as the war became, no sane Americans believed running away in the fashion the left championed was the proper solution.

Afghanistan is a complete goat fuck now. When I left in 2009 after 2 years I could see how things on the ground deteriorated. There was a vacuum of leadership from the top, and people were placed in jobs based on their political loyalty, over their competence.

Indeed AQ is significantly stronger, more so than they could have dreamed of. They've destabilized most of the middle east, they have sleeper operatives on our soil that can't even seem to be tracked when our "intelligence" agency is told about them, and they can attack our embassies without retaliation.

This isn't even about party anymore. It's about stupidity, incompetence, and a focused effort to harm this country.

Right .vs wrong, is right vs. left.

I have little doubt the left wants this country knocked down several notches. The "moderate" republicrooks are just along for the ride, and to try and make a few bucks. They'll work with whomever fullfils that end alone.

The "right" are people who have advanced fiscal sanity and want to empower individual citizens over corrupt buearucracies yet we are demonized as extremists, and of course racists by the bed wetters.