Dems Give Terrorists Reason To Fight On

[Gunny]

Are you dyslexic Gunny?

Our presence in Iraq if FUELING terrorism and increasing the threat to our national security!

What part of this is slipping by you?

I don't know .... what part ofa rhetorical question slipped by YOU?

Our presence in Iraq may be fueling terrorism there, but claiming it is increasing the threat to our national security is just more partisan hackery and baseless speculation.

 

[Annie]

I don't know .... what part ofa rhetorical question slipped by YOU?

Our presence in Iraq may be fueling terrorism there, but claiming it is increasing the threat to our national security is just more partisan hackery and baseless speculation.

Very true as for the second part, not so clear on the first.

 

[Rosotar]

I disagree with your premise. The 'opt out dates' are fueling the confidence of our enemies.

It's not "my" premise Kathianne. It is the official conclusion of The Iraq Survey Group and 16 different spy agencies which are supervised by our own C.I.A.

 

[Annie]

It's not "my" premise Kathianne. It is the official conclusion of The Iraq Survey Group and 16 different spy agencies which are supervised by our own C.I.A.

And George Tenet was where? He's now the Dems poster boy, haven't you gotten the memo?

 

[Rosotar]

Seems George Tenet spent nearly the hour of Meet the Press this morning saying that Bush and Cheney suck, but were only following the information provided by the CIA and other departments.

That's why we need to put George Tenet on the stand under oath and ask him how the C.I.A. came to give the White House such "flawed" information. He might have a bit more to say about Pearle and Feith, and their Office of Special Plans and Dick Cheney's suspicious, unprecedented trips to C.I.A. headquarters in the run-up to the invasion.

We just might learn that the White House and Congress was only allowed to see those portions of the intelligence that supported the administration's predertermined decision to go to war in Iraq.

This would provide the perfect cover should the president ever be accused of lying to Congress.

Hey look!

It seems to be working!

 

[Annie]

That's why we need to put George Tenet on the stand under oath and ask him how the C.I.A. came to give the White House such "flawed" information. He might have a bit more to say about Pearle and Feith, and their Office of Special Plans and Dick Cheney's suspicious, unprecedented trips to C.I.A. headquarters in the run-up to the invasion.

We just might learn that the White House and Congress was only allowed to see those portions of the intelligence that supported the administration's predertermined decision to go to war in Iraq.

This would provide the perfect cover should the president ever be accused of lying to Congress.

Hey look!

It seems to be working!

If Bush and Cheney were misled, so were Congress. All should be impeached? We're now impeaching for making the best call with information given, but those charged with doing so?

 

[Gunny]

If Bush and Cheney were misled, so were Congress. All should be impeached? We're now impeaching for making the best call with information given, but those charged with doing so?

It's the same as the decade-lonc chant "Bush didn't finish the job." It was a lie to begin with, but then when a President goes to finish the job they've been bitching about for a decade, suddenly he's a war criminal and you haven't heard "Bush didn't finish the job" since, them pretending it never happened.

It's called damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you're a Republican, you can do no right with left-wing extremists.

 

[maineman]

I don't think that invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 was the right thing to do...and I would not have thought so regardless of the party in power.

 

[jillian]

It's the same as the decade-lonc chant "Bush didn't finish the job." It was a lie to begin with, but then when a President goes to finish the job they've been bitching about for a decade, suddenly he's a war criminal and you haven't heard "Bush didn't finish the job" since, them pretending it never happened.

It's called damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you're a Republican, you can do no right with left-wing extremists.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to separate the dupers (Bush/Cheney) from the duped.

Once again, it's not just extremists who think the admin went to war against Iraq for no reason. What we do with that might be up for discussion, but there can't be any question at this point that Bush/Cheney ignored every piece of intel that didn't point toward Iraq, relied on an unreliable informant with no substantiation and set out on a campaign to discredit anyone who stood in their way.

 

[Annie]

I don't think that invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 was the right thing to do...and I would not have thought so regardless of the party in power.

Ah, I feel your pain, but you admit, it was made with the best info at the time, for both the admin. and Congress?

 

[maineman]

Ah, I feel your pain, but you admit, it was made with the best info at the time, for both the admin. and Congress?

absolutely not...it was made with cherrypicked intell that was chosen to justify a course of action that the administration had decided upon even BEFORE 9/11.

And let's not EVER forget that a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST the use of force resolution.

 

[Annie]

absolutely not...it was made with cherrypicked intell that was chosen to justify a course of action that the administration had decided upon even BEFORE 9/11.

And let's not EVER forget that a MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted AGAINST the use of force resolution.

Right, just enough to make it look strong at the time. Give me a break. This was at the time the Dems thought looking strong on terrorism was a good thing, I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt, they believed it.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think that invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 was the right thing to do...and I would not have thought so regardless of the party in power.

I don't think invading Iraq was a response to 9/11, and I wouldn't consider that the right thing to do myself.

 

[maineman]

I don't think invading Iraq was a response to 9/11, and I wouldn't consider that the right thing to do myself.

Why, when we had the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, would the invasion of Iraq been anything that needed to be done prior to containing the clear and present threat presented by those perpetrators?

 

[Annie]

Why, when we had the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, would the invasion of Iraq been anything that needed to be done prior to containing the clear and present threat presented by those perpetrators?

Google Bill Clinton's reasons. Seriously, both parties saw the threats here, if he was playing chicken, it was only a matter of time.

 

[maineman]

Google Bill Clinton's reasons. Seriously, both parties saw the threats here, if he was playing chicken, it was only a matter of time.

Clinton never had any reasons for INVADING Iraq.

And seriously...quit running away from the FACT that a MAJORITY of congressional democrats did NOT think we should go to war against Iraq.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to separate the dupers (Bush/Cheney) from the duped.

Once again, it's not just extremists who think the admin went to war against Iraq for no reason. What we do with that might be up for discussion, but there can't be any question at this point that Bush/Cheney ignored every piece of intel that didn't point toward Iraq, relied on an unreliable informant with no substantiation and set out on a campaign to discredit anyone who stood in their way.

It pretty much is the extremists who think we invaded Iraq for no reason. There were plenty of reasons, and they existed long before Bush held office.

Having been privvy to a lot of the intel regarding Iraq throughout the 90s, I can say that the intel Bush used pretty much mirrored what we had. And, having been privvy to said intel long before Bush took office, I can say that pretty-much lets me out of the "duped" category.

The question then becomes why Bush ignored the predictions of sectarian violence and a power vaccuum being created between Saudi Arabi and Iran. The only two players not in the game that were considered possibles are Syria and Turkey.

The answer to that is pretty obvious. Bush is a politician and politicans are driven by idealism, not necessarily reality. His blind, American arrogance led him to believe we would be welcomed as liberators and a people who have no real concept of democracy would drop everything and embrace it with open arms.

If we're going to try all politicans for treason for thinking like THAT, you may as well line them ALL up.

 

[Gunny]

Why, when we had the perpetrators of 9/11 still on the loose, would the invasion of Iraq been anything that needed to be done prior to containing the clear and present threat presented by those perpetrators?

You're asking ME? I stated on more than one occasion that I would not have made that decision. It is tactically unsound to divide ones forces on two fronts unneccessarily.

 

[Annie]

Clinton never had any reasons for INVADING Iraq.

And seriously...quit running away from the FACT that a MAJORITY of congressional democrats did NOT think we should go to war against Iraq.

at the time, it did not take a 'majority' of democrats to do so. Nor would it now. No running away, just truth.

 

[maineman]

at the time, it did not take a 'majority' of democrats to do so. Nor would it now. No running away, just truth.

at the time, the republicans were in power...at the time, the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for the war....but once it turned to shit, they want to put the blame on the minority of democrats who voted with them. Like it or not...this is Bush's war...this is the republican party's war, and the democrats tried to stop it.