A question for neocons on this board

[AllieBaba]

hahah, you are a funny guy. is this were i act all outraged and point out that i belong to no party and announce a neg rep?

i am actually agreeing with you about the deliberately flawed intelligence or however you put it.

si modo made it sound like clinton was the one who is responsible for the iraq disaster:

Which is true.....Sitting around saying one or another is the biggest transgressor is like trying to absolve the wheel man to a string of armed robberies, merely because he didn't point a gun in anyone's face.

well, and if one of the robbers executes 5 hostages, shoots three cops and 2 children, will the wheel man get charged with this slaughter too?

not by me.

You apparently don't pay much attention to the laws of this country.

It doesn't matter if you pull the trigger or not. If you were part and parcel of planning and executing the crime, if you deliberately played a part in it, and if people died because of you, you can get the chair too. Or at least a really long sentence, comparable to the sentence of the trigger man.

Ask Patty Hearst.

 

[Si modo]

Who's they? Several administrations have messed with the control of intelligence gathering, Clinton (and his lacky, Gore) certainly making the most changes in recent history. The subsequent loopholes created led to one of the greatest disasters in intelligence - Iraq.

Don't you folks get tired of hearing Democrats blame everything on Bush?

But you still blame Bush's failures on Clinton/Gore.

If there were problems in the intelligence community prior to 9/11, then Bush had 8 months to correct them. Far more time than most of the Obama haters to give him before the "he owns this economy" talk.

Paranoia does not suit you. Facts are, Clinton did put restrictions on the IC that did not exist under a previous administration. Facts are that I mentioned several administrations have messed with the controls and you read that as my assigning all the blame on one administration? How very bizarre of you.

 

[CurveLight]

See, I know that's wrong, but it's your assertion, and as such, you need to support it. When assertions are provided without supporting information they stand as bullshit until supported. The burden of support is on you.

Answered. Read the thread. But, as you are apparently lazy, the special circumstances were national security during a time where national security was an acute situation (in a nutshell).

It appears you try to overcompensate for a lack of knowledge by insulting people so let me help you out. Let's say I'm the laziest, dumbest, most ignorant smelly dog turd the earth could ever produce. Now we have that out of the way let's stick to the subject, okay?

You claim we were justified invading iraq based on the same bullshit reasons the Cheney Admin gave. Do you know why that is a problem? The neocons already stated in Sept 2000 they wanted to invade iraq whether or not Saddam was there. However, Saddam's presence was enough to try and sell the invasion. I would give you the page number from the manifesto spelling this out but as you have so kindly told everyone, you are the King of Neocon Knowledge.

So please explain how those bullshit intel reports justify an invasion when the Neocons had already stated it doesn't matter if there is a material threat from Iraq?

I claimed we were justified in invading Iraq based on the intelligence at that time. Are folks so uninterested in government that they failed to read the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence? It came out in 2004.

You are dodging backing up your claim that war is the tool of choice in the neocon philosophy. But, I understand why you dodge that.

I have not dodged anything. I've already shown the first self description places military in the first order. Here is the html version of their manifesto.
Why Another Defense Review

I asked what the special circumstances were regarding iraq and you respond with "acute national security." Are you ******* serious? That's the excuse given by any government when they cannot provide reasons. Cheney started drumming up War with Iraq a year after 9E, long before that report was published, and Bush had no choice. (bush himself is not nor ever was a neocon....he just had to what Cheney said). We also know in Oct 02' Rumsfeld was itemizing things that could go wrong during the Iraq invasion. Number 13 was WMD would not be found.

You know why you're the worst kind of participant on this (or any other) forum? You wish to be respected as a sincere conversationalist but you don't want to do any of the work. You give a paris hilton quality adumbration then when your ignorance is revealed you simply try to insult others and hope their anger makes them forget you really don't know what you're talking about.

The best part? None of us have to waste our time on you.

 

[CurveLight]

WHO? Who are these "neoconservatives" you keep referring to? Can you provide links to them claiming to be neoconservatives?

Of COURSE not, because it's a made-up term, which comes from a real, stolen term, and applied to someone you don't like.

You all used to hate the Jews. That's no longer PC, so you have transferred that hatred to republicans, bastardized the word, and just randomly chosen "traits" of the modern neocon.

It's sort of like calling conservatives "liberals". They aren't liberals, they have none of the traits of a liberal, but if you keep doing it long enough, eventually the definition changes and the despicable traits of liberals are being attributed to conservatives, who are still conservatives, but via magical transferrence have suddently taken on the traits and title of "liberal".

It's ******* insanity.

I already posted a link to their main homepage. Does it need to be done again? Maybe this will help:

"A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile governments, advancing democratic and economic freedom, ..."
Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

Anyone else notice the first referenced pillar of greater military force?

Neoconservatives have a homepage?

Lol.

Are you laughing it off? What is the purpose of this response?

 

[Si modo]

It appears you try to overcompensate for a lack of knowledge by insulting people so let me help you out. Let's say I'm the laziest, dumbest, most ignorant smelly dog turd the earth could ever produce. Now we have that out of the way let's stick to the subject, okay?

You claim we were justified invading iraq based on the same bullshit reasons the Cheney Admin gave. Do you know why that is a problem? The neocons already stated in Sept 2000 they wanted to invade iraq whether or not Saddam was there. However, Saddam's presence was enough to try and sell the invasion. I would give you the page number from the manifesto spelling this out but as you have so kindly told everyone, you are the King of Neocon Knowledge.

So please explain how those bullshit intel reports justify an invasion when the Neocons had already stated it doesn't matter if there is a material threat from Iraq?

I claimed we were justified in invading Iraq based on the intelligence at that time. Are folks so uninterested in government that they failed to read the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence? It came out in 2004.

You are dodging backing up your claim that war is the tool of choice in the neocon philosophy. But, I understand why you dodge that.

I have not dodged anything. I've already shown the first self description places military in the first order. Here is the html version of their manifesto.
Why Another Defense Review....

Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to support your claim that war is the solution of choice in the neocon philosophy, thus your claim still stands as bullshit.

.... I asked what the special circumstances were regarding iraq and you respond with "acute national security." Are you ******* serious? That's the excuse given by any government when they cannot provide reasons. Cheney started drumming up War with Iraq a year after 9E, long before that report was published, and Bush had no choice. (bush himself is not nor ever was a neocon....he just had to what Cheney said). We also know in Oct 02' Rumsfeld was itemizing things that could go wrong during the Iraq invasion. Number 13 was WMD would not be found. ....

Yes, I am "******* serious". Read the Senate reports.

.... You know why you're the worst kind of participant on this (or any other) forum? ....

Ah, the irrelevant ad hominem starts. Forgive me if I ignore the irrelevance of a logical fallacy.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Which is true.....Sitting around saying one or another is the biggest transgressor is like trying to absolve the wheel man to a string of armed robberies, merely because he didn't point a gun in anyone's face.

well, and if one of the robbers executes 5 hostages, shoots three cops and 2 children, will the wheel man get charged with this slaughter too?

not by me.

You apparently don't pay much attention to the laws of this country.

It doesn't matter if you pull the trigger or not. If you were part and parcel of planning and executing the crime, if you deliberately played a part in it, and if people died because of you, you can get the chair too. Or at least a really long sentence, comparable to the sentence of the trigger man.

Ask Patty Hearst.

not by me, i wrote. see at the end. and i really don't pay attention to your laws. those were analogies. i of course blame the bush admin for the iraq war of choice, not the clinton admin for allegedly paving the way. if we play this i will soon arrive at poppy bush, then at rummy shaking saddam's hand. that is fun.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Who's they? Several administrations have messed with the control of intelligence gathering, Clinton (and his lacky, Gore) certainly making the most changes in recent history. The subsequent loopholes created led to one of the greatest disasters in intelligence - Iraq.

Don't you folks get tired of hearing Democrats blame everything on Bush?

But you still blame Bush's failures on Clinton/Gore.

If there were problems in the intelligence community prior to 9/11, then Bush had 8 months to correct them. Far more time than most of the Obama haters give him before the "he owns this economy" talk.

Bubba was an accessory....Of that there is no doubt.

If he had reversed the course set by BushI viz. Iraq, you might have a point...But he didn't and you don't.

Oh yes of course - my mistake. Bush gets more time to correct an internal problem over which he has absolute control???? How silly of me not to recognize that.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

 

[Si modo]

Don't you folks get tired of hearing Democrats blame everything on Bush?

But you still blame Bush's failures on Clinton/Gore.

If there were problems in the intelligence community prior to 9/11, then Bush had 8 months to correct them. Far more time than most of the Obama haters give him before the "he owns this economy" talk.

Bubba was an accessory....Of that there is no doubt.

If he had reversed the course set by BushI viz. Iraq, you might have a point...But he didn't and you don't.

Oh yes of course - my mistake. Bush gets more time to correct an internal problem over which he has absolute control???? How silly of me not to recognize that.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

 

[CurveLight]

I believe you are asking for the opposite of vague, so I'll go with that. Here is a piece on just one of those failures. If restrictions on the types of human assets allowed had not been in place, for example, this 'cocktail napkin' information could have been easily verified.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't **** with them.

The "intelligence" was flawed because they wanted it to be....Any supposed fix to what went wrong, being done by the people who rigged the information in the first place, can only be held in the most dubious of lights.

Who's they? Several administrations have messed with the control of intelligence gathering, Clinton (and his lacky, Gore) certainly making the most changes in recent history. The subsequent loopholes created led to one of the greatest disasters in intelligence - Iraq.

On that one example I provided, the verification would have been by default. But, the only verification was disallowed. Major loophole and major enabling of abuses.

There was no information failure.

"He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not."
CBS News Mobile A Spy Speaks Out

 

[Ravi]

Bubba was an accessory....Of that there is no doubt.

If he had reversed the course set by BushI viz. Iraq, you might have a point...But he didn't and you don't.

Oh yes of course - my mistake. Bush gets more time to correct an internal problem over which he has absolute control???? How silly of me not to recognize that.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

 

[CurveLight]

I claimed we were justified in invading Iraq based on the intelligence at that time. Are folks so uninterested in government that they failed to read the Congressional report on pre-war intelligence? It came out in 2004.

You are dodging backing up your claim that war is the tool of choice in the neocon philosophy. But, I understand why you dodge that.

I have not dodged anything. I've already shown the first self description places military in the first order. Here is the html version of their manifesto.
Why Another Defense Review....

Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to support your claim that war is the solution of choice in the neocon philosophy, thus your claim still stands as bullshit.

.... I asked what the special circumstances were regarding iraq and you respond with "acute national security." Are you ******* serious? That's the excuse given by any government when they cannot provide reasons. Cheney started drumming up War with Iraq a year after 9E, long before that report was published, and Bush had no choice. (bush himself is not nor ever was a neocon....he just had to what Cheney said). We also know in Oct 02' Rumsfeld was itemizing things that could go wrong during the Iraq invasion. Number 13 was WMD would not be found. ....

Yes, I am "******* serious". Read the Senate reports.

.... You know why you're the worst kind of participant on this (or any other) forum? ....

Ah, the irrelevant ad hominem starts. Forgive me if I ignore the irrelevance of a logical fallacy.

Ummmm.....you totally ignored the document from the PNAC I posted then say I haven't back up the obviousness of the fact the military solution isn't the Neocon's tool of choice? This is why I didn't bother with excerpts because it doesn't matter how many links or evidence is provided. You will simply repeat the tactic of ignoring links then say "you haven't backed up your claims."

But preach on about logic brother, preach on!

 

[Si modo]

Oh yes of course - my mistake. Bush gets more time to correct an internal problem over which he has absolute control???? How silly of me not to recognize that.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Where have I apologized for Bush? Where did I say Clinton invaded Iraq? Where did I say GHWB invaded Iraq? Where did I assign full culpability to Clinton? Are you hallucinating again?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Bubba was an accessory....Of that there is no doubt.

If he had reversed the course set by BushI viz. Iraq, you might have a point...But he didn't and you don't.

Oh yes of course - my mistake. Bush gets more time to correct an internal problem over which he has absolute control???? How silly of me not to recognize that.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

haha, i see Dude blaming several administrations, you on the other hand try to pass the buck, you self proclaimed neo-con. writing is fundamental, why o why are you so misunderstood. must be all the morons in the world, but nothing to do with you.

 

[Oddball]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Bubba kept in place the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones over the airspace of another sovereign nation (Iraq) that BushI started. Those are defacto acts of war, you partisan hack-in-the-box lamebrain.

 

[Ravi]

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Where have I apologized for Bush? Where did I say Clinton invaded Iraq? Where did I say GHWB invaded Iraq? Where did I assign full culpability to Clinton? Are you hallucinating again?

That's not what I said. I see I struck a nerve.

 

[Si modo]

I have not dodged anything. I've already shown the first self description places military in the first order. Here is the html version of their manifesto.
Why Another Defense Review....

Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to support your claim that war is the solution of choice in the neocon philosophy, thus your claim still stands as bullshit.

Yes, I am "******* serious". Read the Senate reports.

.... You know why you're the worst kind of participant on this (or any other) forum? ....

Ah, the irrelevant ad hominem starts. Forgive me if I ignore the irrelevance of a logical fallacy.

Ummmm.....you totally ignored the document from the PNAC I posted then say I haven't back up the obviousness of the fact the military solution isn't the Neocon's tool of choice? This is why I didn't bother with excerpts because it doesn't matter how many links or evidence is provided. You will simply repeat the tactic of ignoring links then say "you haven't backed up your claims."

But preach on about logic brother, preach on!

Once again, you're conflating having a strong military with war being the solution of choice, the latter which is your assertion that has yet to be supported; thus it still stands as bullshit..

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh yes of course - my mistake. Bush gets more time to correct an internal problem over which he has absolute control???? How silly of me not to recognize that.

Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.

Wow. I see Dude an I blaming several administrations and paranoid hacks thinking the blame is being assigned to one. Reading is fundamental.

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Yeah pretty clear to me that Ravi got it right on this one. Many may or may not have peripherally contributed - one administration turned the machine on high and sent the troops.

Each should accept responsibility for their own individual failures - but trying to call it all even-steven is certainly not merited by the evidence imho - reading comprehension insults aside.

 

[JakeStarkey]

si modo, please defend your position. Saying you don't agree doesn't mean anything other than that you have given in. Please, defend your position.

 

[Ravi]

No, what you are doing is being an apologist for Bush. Bush invaded Iraq for stupid reasons. Clinton didn't. HW didn't. Bush did. The blame is his but obviously you don't subscribe to the personal responsibility theory, therefore you must look past Bush and excuse his stupidity by assigning culpability where it doesn't exist.

Bubba kept in place the economic sanctions and unilaterally imposed no fly zones over the airspace of another sovereign nation (Iraq) that BushI started. Those are defacto acts of war, you partisan hack-in-the-box lamebrain.

and...and...and...it worked, it kept Saddam powerless. And Clinton, again for the stupid, did not invade Iraq. That was George W. Bush.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GWB sent the troops in, not his father and not Clinton. This salient fact undermines all of si modo's dithering on the subject. He can't defend his position at all.