Where do you think the WOT should be fought?

[ProudDem]

What issues would these be? Lol.

You should try reading the times, much more informative. Anyway i'm guessing you are typical big government, big brother Marylanders?

The WMDs allegations and how there were lots of doubts about that intelligence. I can't remember the other issues.

Oh, and I do read the "times"--the New York Times.

Ha ha ha ha. I live in the conservative state of Virginia.

 

[OCA]

I said this: I am part of a group that sends care packages to the troops. I have donated phone cards for them to use. I have sent them Valentines telling them I support them. I have gone to Walter Reed because I chose to go and see the injured soldiers and I cried with some of them.

OCA responds with: All the while behind their backs you fuck them, nice guy.

And this: Also that is the first time I mentioned that on this board, know why? Because if you have support for the troops you don't need to say a friggin word to anybody. You say I do this and I do that because inside you are gulty and know you do much more damage in your aiding and abetting of the enemy.

And this: Now how do you reconcile the twofaced support you have for the troops?

And you call that my going after OCA? Kathianne, you have a lack of ability to analyze facts.

Holy smokes! You think i'm attacking you? You haven't seen nothing yet.

Anyway to the twofacedness and backdoor screwing of the troops how do ye respond to these charges? Yes we understand you send care packages and such but you criticize their purpose and thereby endanger them.

 

[ProudDem]

Holy smokes! You think i'm attacking you? You haven't seen nothing yet.

Anyway to the twofacedness and backdoor screwing of the troops how do ye respond to these charges? Yes we understand you send care packages and such but you criticize their purpose and thereby endanger them.

Yawn.

I answered your question in the other thread.

 

[OCA]

The WMDs allegations and how there were lots of doubts about that intelligence. I can't remember the other issues.

Oh, and I do read the "times"--the New York Times.

Ha ha ha ha. I live in the conservative state of Virginia.

The N.Y. times is worse than the post! WMD was one but a handful of reasons(all valid) for going to war in Iraq, that one is played out by you guys. Would you like to see a huge list of Demos who agreed with Bush on the Iraqi possession of WMD before the invasion?

 

[OCA]

Yawn.

I answered your question in the other thread.

No you didn't. You zigged and zagged, but did not answer the charges, sending packages is one thing but aiding and abetting the enemy is quite different madam.

 

[ProudDem]

The N.Y. times is worse than the post! WMD was one but a handful of reasons(all valid) for going to war in Iraq, that one is played out by you guys. Would you like to see a huge list of Demos who agreed with Bush on the Iraqi possession of WMD before the invasion?

I was joking with you, knowing you would hate the NYT!

It doesn't matter anymore about the WMDs. Yes, I agree that dems thought they were there. I thought that there was a good chance they there. There aren't any, and it makes our intelligence community look pretty lame.

 

[OCA]

I was joking with you, knowing you would hate the NYT!

It doesn't matter anymore about the WMDs. Yes, I agree that dems thought they were there. I thought that there was a good chance they there. There aren't any, and it makes our intelligence community look pretty lame.

Well we all know he had them and has used them which is reason enough right there. Intelligence is not a 100% correct game.

 

[ProudDem]

No you didn't. You zigged and zagged, but did not answer the charges, sending packages is one thing but aiding and abetting the enemy is quite different madam.

Your definition of aiding and abetting the enemy isn't my definition. You can keep asserting that I am two-faced all you want. It doesn't make it so.

Do you think the troops that abused detainees have aided and abetted our enemies?

 

[ProudDem]

Well we all know he had them and has used them which is reason enough right there. Intelligence is not a 100% correct game.

Okay. We can agree to disagree.

 

[OCA]

Your definition of aiding and abetting the enemy isn't my definition. You can keep asserting that I am two-faced all you want. It doesn't make it so.

Do you think the troops that abused detainees have aided and abetted our enemies?

Nope. Good soldiers doing a good job with terrorist dogs, these same terrorist dogs who blow up innocent children. Now if you can compare the slaughter of innocent children to having a dog chew your ass.....well then we have a problem.

Lindsey England is being railroaded by the pc crowd.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Okay. We can agree to disagree.

No. It's an indisputable fact he has had them in the past. You can "disagree" with facts, whatever that means, but it seems nonsensical to do so.

 

[kurtsprincess]

That's not true. There is a great editorial in the Washington Post with which I agree. Please read it--the author is suggesting what we can do to inform Americans of what is happening in Iraq, both good and bad.

Fresh Eyes on Iraq

By Frank Wolf

Saturday, September 24, 2005; Page A23

Having just returned from my third trip to Iraq, I came away with three thoughts.

One, real progress is being made, despite the ongoing security concerns. Two, the Bush administration should pull together an independent and balanced group of respected individuals to go to Iraq to conduct a critical review of our efforts. Three, a necessary element of this review would be communicating to the American public what it would mean to our country if the Iraq mission failed.

The rest of it is here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400523.html

Thanks for the info.


Question: Why did you change your name?

 

[ProudDem]

Thanks for the info.


Question: Why did you change your name?

Kurtsprincess, I just didn't like it. I am a person who likes to be called by my name (my initials are aps).

I thought he provided very good thoughts on how we can keep us all better informed. People complain that the media is showing only the bad stuff--well, let's get people to state the good stuff too. Maybe then the majority of Americans would not think this war is a mistake.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Kurtsprincess, I just didn't like it. I am a person who likes to be called by my name (my initials are aps).

and here I was just getting used to calling you Proud!

I thought he provided very good thoughts on how we can keep us all better informed. People complain that the media is showing only the bad stuff--well, let's get people to state the good stuff too. Maybe then the majority of Americans would not think this war is a mistake.

While I agree that everyone needs to be well informed, I'm not sure putting together a panel to do the investigating and then reporting back to us will necessarily keep us all well informed. I would never rely on just one source of information to base my opinion on. I would, however, be happy to include another source.

Especially if this is the intention:

"The Bush administration needs to face the reality that a growing number of Americans are becoming skeptical of our efforts, partly because they do not have the benefit of seeing the entire picture. No one I talked to during my recent trip believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that they are concerned about. One general told me point-blank that the "center of gravity" for our success in Iraq is the American public.

For the United States to stay the course in Iraq the public needs to fully appreciate the progress that has been made, be able to trust that those directing the war have made an honest assessment of what has gone right and what has gone wrong, and understand the potentially cataclysmic consequences of walking away from Iraq before the job is done."

So, after reading this portion of the article you posted, how can you still say you don't support this war? I think his reference to our success hinging on the American public would have everything to do with the anti-war protestors.

 

[ProudDem]

and here I was just getting used to calling you Proud!



While I agree that everyone needs to be well informed, I'm not sure putting together a panel to do the investigating and then reporting back to us will necessarily keep us all well informed. I would never rely on just one source of information to base my opinion on. I would, however, be happy to include another source.

Especially if this is the intention:

"The Bush administration needs to face the reality that a growing number of Americans are becoming skeptical of our efforts, partly because they do not have the benefit of seeing the entire picture. No one I talked to during my recent trip believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that they are concerned about. One general told me point-blank that the "center of gravity" for our success in Iraq is the American public.

For the United States to stay the course in Iraq the public needs to fully appreciate the progress that has been made, be able to trust that those directing the war have made an honest assessment of what has gone right and what has gone wrong, and understand the potentially cataclysmic consequences of walking away from Iraq before the job is done."

So, after reading this portion of the article you posted, how can you still say you don't support this war? I think his reference to our success hinging on the American public would have everything to do with the anti-war protestors.

I don't want to NOT answer your question, but if I do, the attacks on my beliefs on this war will be rehashed. That doesn't interest me (to be attacked constantly). But I will say that our reasons for going in there have been proven to be wrong. I do not believe we should just pack up and leave now, but I do believe we should set a timetable for our troops to return. We need goals, and if we have no date to work towards, we will be there for longer than we need to be.

 

[Annie]

and here I was just getting used to calling you Proud!



While I agree that everyone needs to be well informed, I'm not sure putting together a panel to do the investigating and then reporting back to us will necessarily keep us all well informed. I would never rely on just one source of information to base my opinion on. I would, however, be happy to include another source.

Especially if this is the intention:

"The Bush administration needs to face the reality that a growing number of Americans are becoming skeptical of our efforts, partly because they do not have the benefit of seeing the entire picture. No one I talked to during my recent trip believes we will lose the war on the ground in Iraq; it's here at home that they are concerned about. One general told me point-blank that the "center of gravity" for our success in Iraq is the American public.

For the United States to stay the course in Iraq the public needs to fully appreciate the progress that has been made, be able to trust that those directing the war have made an honest assessment of what has gone right and what has gone wrong, and understand the potentially cataclysmic consequences of walking away from Iraq before the job is done."

So, after reading this portion of the article you posted, how can you still say you don't support this war? I think his reference to our success hinging on the American public would have everything to do with the anti-war protestors.

Good reply KP. I would say once again, that is one of the major failings of the administration, getting the word out:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25288&highlight=word

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't want to NOT answer your question, but if I do, the attacks on my beliefs on this war will be rehashed. That doesn't interest me (to be attacked constantly). But I will say that our reasons for going in there have been proven to be wrong. I do not believe we should just pack up and leave now, but I do believe we should set a timetable for our troops to return. We need goals, and if we have no date to work towards, we will be there for longer than we need to be.

No. They haven't been proven to be wrong. That's spin. No one can say WMD weren't effectively hidden or moved. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saddam was in obvious and direct violation of his cease fire agreement he entered into at the end of dessert storm. The 9/11 commision report itself admits there were connections between saddam and alquaeda, though adding the qualifier," it wasn't an OPERATIONAL relationship". To me that qualifier is nebulous and doesn't change much.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I don't want to NOT answer your question, but if I do, the attacks on my beliefs on this war will be rehashed. That doesn't interest me (to be attacked constantly). But I will say that our reasons for going in there have been proven to be wrong. I do not believe we should just pack up and leave now, but I do believe we should set a timetable for our troops to return. We need goals, and if we have no date to work towards, we will be there for longer than we need to be.

I believe there is a timetable, but it just hasn't been made public. If the timetable were made public, then that becomes the goal/mission, instead of finishing the current mission.

I'm confident that once our current mission is accomplished the timetable will be revealed.

 

[ProudDem]

No. They haven't been proven to be wrong. That's spin. No one can say WMD weren't effectively hidden or moved. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saddam was in obvious and direct violation of his cease fire agreement he entered into at the end of dessert storm. The 9/11 commision report itself admits there were connections between saddam and alquaeda, though adding the qualifier," it wasn't an OPERATIONAL relationship". To me that qualifier is nebulous and doesn't change much.

Several weeks ago, Colin Powell was on 20/20. Here is an article on that and what he said. I guess you have access to more information than he does. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Powell Says U.N. Speech a 'Blot' on Record
By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press

Thursday, September 8, 2005; 10:21 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record.

"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC-News.

The presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body in February 2003 lent considerable credibility to President Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove President Saddam Hussein.

In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate."

But, Powell said, "the intelligence system did not work well."

"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said.

"That devastated me," he said.

Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists.

He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

Still, Powell said that while he has always been a "reluctant warrior" he supported Bush on going to war the month after his U.N. speech. "When the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all those U.N. resolutions I am right there with him with the use of force," Powell said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801497.html

 

[Annie]

Several weeks ago, Colin Powell was on 20/20. Here is an article on that and what he said. I guess you have access to more information than he does. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Powell Says U.N. Speech a 'Blot' on Record
By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press

Thursday, September 8, 2005; 10:21 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record.

"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC-News.

The presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body in February 2003 lent considerable credibility to President Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove President Saddam Hussein.

In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate."

But, Powell said, "the intelligence system did not work well."

"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said.

"That devastated me," he said.

Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists.

He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

Still, Powell said that while he has always been a "reluctant warrior" he supported Bush on going to war the month after his U.N. speech. "When the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all those U.N. resolutions I am right there with him with the use of force," Powell said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801497.html

If this proves true historically, nothing different with him than GW. I fear that the intelligence is that wrong, but it looks like it was. It doesn't help that other countries were saying the same. In any case, it goes to prove none of the 'leadership' did it deliberately.