Haven't we heard this before?

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><span style="color:red;">Haven't we heard this somewhere before?</span></h1></center>

I haven't slept as well as I usually do since out Great and Fearless Leader gave an address this last Tuesday that wasn't so much about securing Iraq as it was about dragging Iran and Syria into this whole ugly mess. Now, I'm not normally an anxiety ridden person. You can't be in my profession, that of registered nurse, and lead a normal life.

But I just woke up with this leaden feeling in my belly (<i>No, it wasn't the Taco Bell and egg-salad I had last night</i>), and the words of Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, echoing in my ears as he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday.

<blockquote>"Oh gosh, you sillies. Of course President Bush doesn't have any plans to attack Iran. Except...you know...as a <b>LAST RESORT</b>. </blockquote>

Now whereinthehell have we heard that before.
<span class="body-bold"></span>
<blockquote>"...<span class="body-bold">the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort.</span>" - Scott McClellan, 11/12 /02 White House Press Briefing</blockquote>

This coming long after Chimpy McPresident and his merry band had decided to Iraq was to be plucked like an over-ripe fruit.

Given this Presidents past history, I could only wonder why someone in Congress didn't fall all over themselves trying to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry in the House to get the ball rolling on impeaching these crazy bastards before they do something we all will regret more than we already regret invading Iraq. How could they not see the rocks this President, and his administration, are steering this ship of state towards.

This administration reminds of nothing so much as a bunch of monkeys playing with a box of matches in a fuel refinery. One spark, at any moment, and the whole thing will explode in a conflagration that will engulf, not just the region, but quite possibly the entire world as well. One that will make the last world war look like a Sunday school outing in comparison, and one from which the United states will not emerge unscathed or victorious.

When Seymour Hersch wrote his article about US forces moving into Iran back in April of 2006, he and anyone who agreed with his analysis, were dismissed as being alarmists and in need of some psychotherapy. But the reality is staring us in the face...Here...Now. This President is locked into some sick, messianic vision, and he is determined to see that vision through to the end regardless of the cost in blood and treasure...Regardless of the consequences to this nation or the world. That Congress is not dropping their partisan squabbling in order to check this President and his administration is a mystery. Better we have the president and his administration declared <i>non compos mentis</i> and a constitutional crisis than an expanded war in the Middle East and likely beyond.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
wow what a surprise. That the President might have a plan to take out another member of the axis of evil and one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.

I mean how much more evil can he get then actually making the world safer by taking out the terrorists that want us dead and the states that sponsor them like he promised after 911.

I bet he even has plans for *Gasp* North Korea as well! That evil fiend. What has North Korea ever done other than threaten and kill people.

We have to stop this, we cant let the President take out the nations threatening their neighbors with genocide. I mean who does he think he is acting to prevent mass murder before it happens. He has really crossed a line now.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
wow what a surprise. That the President might have a plan to take out another member of the axis of evil and one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.

I mean how much more evil can he get then actually making the world safer by taking out the terrorists that want us dead and the states that sponsor them like he promised after 911.

I bet he even has plans for *Gasp* North Korea as well! That evil fiend. What has North Korea ever done other than threaten and kill people.

We have to stop this, we cant let the President take out the nations threatening their neighbors with genocide. I mean who does he think he is acting to prevent mass murder before it happens. He has really crossed a line now.
Plans to invade Iraq have existed since at least 91. Plans to take out N Korea have existed since the 50s, and Iran the 80s.

President Bush must be a really powerful guy to have done all that.:rolleyes:
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Plans to invade Iraq have existed since at least 91. Plans to take out N Korea have existed since the 50s, and Iran the 80s.

President Bush must be a really powerful guy to have done all that.:rolleyes:
To be fair, I think that is what Avatar was saying. The government and DOD go on, with relatively minor adjustments to those elected and their terms.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
To be fair, I think that is what Avatar was saying. The government and DOD go on, with relatively minor adjustments to those elected and their terms.
I simply seem to think having plans to deal with hostile regimes seems more like common sense than any sort of evil plot. If we didnt have any plans im sure we would be hearing how Bush is incompetant for not thinking up multiple contingencies.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I simply seem to think having plans to deal with hostile regimes seems more like common sense than any sort of evil plot. If we didnt have any plans im sure we would be hearing how Bush is incompetant for not thinking up multiple contingencies.
We do have them, and as I stated before, most are decades old, and exist as National contingencies, not the whims of individual Presidents.

The "Bush had a plan to invade Iraq" as justification to call him a warmongerer is just misrepresentation of fact. Number one, the plan existed before Bush's first term as Governor of Texas. Second, of course he had a plan before we invaded Iraq. That's the normal sequence of events for an invasion.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I was agreeing with avatar.;)
Won't be the first time I misinterpreted. :redface: It would be great if it's the last, but I wouldn't count on that.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
wow what a surprise. That the President might have a plan to take out another member of the axis of evil and one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world.

I mean how much more evil can he get then actually making the world safer by taking out the terrorists that want us dead and the states that sponsor them like he promised after 911.

I bet he even has plans for *Gasp* North Korea as well! That evil fiend. What has North Korea ever done other than threaten and kill people.

We have to stop this, we cant let the President take out the nations threatening their neighbors with genocide. I mean who does he think he is acting to prevent mass murder before it happens. He has really crossed a line now.
Getting tired of defending the indefensible, are you? Well, you can't be blamed for such fatigue. One can only reach for so long before they resort to meaningless platitudes and futile attempts at sarcasm as you have done here. Go take some Advil, have a scotch and soda, don't strain yourself any further.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Plans to invade Iraq have existed since at least 91. Plans to take out N Korea have existed since the 50s, and Iran the 80s.

President Bush must be a really powerful guy to have done all that.:rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it was Chimpy McPresident , and his merry band, who decided to exercise those plans to invade Iraq under a false flag. :rolleyes:
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
We do have them, and as I stated before, most are decades old, and exist as National contingencies, not the whims of individual Presidents.

The "Bush had a plan to invade Iraq" as justification to call him a warmongerer is just misrepresentation of fact. Number one, the plan existed before Bush's first term as Governor of Texas. Second, of course he had a plan before we invaded Iraq. That's the normal sequence of events for an invasion.
Unfortunately, Chimpy ignored those plans, as he and his band of thugs thought they had a better one and could do it on the cheap.

Need I remind you of this?

<center><a href=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm><img src=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/image.jpg></a></center>
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Unfortunately, Chimpy ignored those plans, as he and his band of thugs thought they had a better one and could do it on the cheap.

Need I remind you of this?

<center><a href=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm><img src=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/image.jpg></a></center>
The plans were constantly being reviewed and updated. I find the fact that the military under Bush's direction didn't use the same plan they might have ten years previous under Clinton's direction irrelevant to the fact you and those like you have continually attempted to dishonestly accuse Bush of "inventing" something that already existed.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
The plans were constantly being reviewed and updated. I find the fact that the military under Bush's direction didn't use the same plan they might have ten years previous under Clinton's direction irrelevant to the fact you and those like you have continually attempted to dishonestly accuse Bush of "inventing" something that already existed.
The simple fact of the matter is that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, <i>et al</i> completely disregarded the plans and advice of seasoned commanders, skilled diplomats and experts on the region, regarding the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. And while Chimpy and Co didn't invent anything, they did willfully ignore those plans that already existed both for the invasion and its aftermath.

They tried to wage this war on the cheap, in terms of both man-power and money. They launched the war on a tissue of lies and any planning for the occupation, on their part, was non-existent. So trying to place the blame for the fiasco in Iraq anywhere other than where it belongs is mere sophistry. And that blame can be laid, foursquare, upon President Bush and his administration.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
The simple fact of the matter is that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, <i>et al</i> completely disregarded the plans and advice of seasoned commanders, skilled diplomats and experts on the region, regarding the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Right, NOW their "seasoned commanders, skilled diplomats, and experts on the region", but if it fit YOUR agenda, they'd all be worthless pieces of excrement.

And while Chimpy and Co didn't invent anything, they did willfully ignore those plans that already existed both for the invasion and its aftermath.
Which as Gunny has TRIED to point out to you, were totally outdated, and applied to a totally different Iraq.

They tried to wage this war on the cheap, in terms of both man-power and money.
Excuse me, "on the cheap", what is this, some kind of new catch phrase of the left?

To hear you folks talk, this war is costing billions, and thats relegated to being called "cheap"?

They launched the war on a tissue of lies and any planning for the occupation, on their part, was non-existent.
Both LIES on YOUR part. This war was "launched" no differently, and with the BLESSING of Congress, than any other War the United States has been involved in.

As to the planning of the occupation, there was a plan, NOT set in concrete, cause the Coalition, didn't know what the face of Iraq would look like after it was defeated on the battle field. To say otherwise is ANOTHER lie.

So trying to place the blame for the fiasco in Iraq anywhere other than where it belongs is mere sophistry. And that blame can be laid, foursquare, upon President Bush and his administration.
Opinions vary.............
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Getting tired of defending the indefensible, are you? Well, you can't be blamed for such fatigue. One can only reach for so long before they resort to meaningless platitudes and futile attempts at sarcasm as you have done here. Go take some Advil, have a scotch and soda, don't strain yourself any further.
I guess you would be tired of defending the indefensible, but you seem to continue doing it. I don't see what exactly is so indefensible about common sense. Which was exactly my point.

But obviously you can't really support your complaints.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The simple fact of the matter is that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, <i>et al</i> completely disregarded the plans and advice of seasoned commanders, skilled diplomats and experts on the region, regarding the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. And while Chimpy and Co didn't invent anything, they did willfully ignore those plans that already existed both for the invasion and its aftermath.

They tried to wage this war on the cheap, in terms of both man-power and money. They launched the war on a tissue of lies and any planning for the occupation, on their part, was non-existent. So trying to place the blame for the fiasco in Iraq anywhere other than where it belongs is mere sophistry. And that blame can be laid, foursquare, upon President Bush and his administration.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to place the blame where it belongs -- on Saddam Hussein -- would we? That wouldn't suit your political agenda.

He could be sitting pretty, looking for under the table deals with France and Russia to import nukes right now if he'd just shut his mouth and gone along with the program HE AGREED to. After all, he had nothing to hide, right? So what's the point to pretending to be hiding something if you aren't?

The military invasion of Iraq was pretty-much a flawless operation.

The occupation of Iraq has been hampered by trying to combat an enemy following no rules with our hands tied behind our backs. Blaming this administration for that is just stupid.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Yeah, we wouldn't want to place the blame where it belongs -- on Saddam Hussein -- would we? That wouldn't suit your political agenda.

He could be sitting pretty, looking for under the table deals with France and Russia to import nukes right now if he'd just shut his mouth and gone along with the program HE AGREED to. After all, he had nothing to hide, right? So what's the point to pretending to be hiding something if you aren't?

The military invasion of Iraq was pretty-much a flawless operation.

The occupation of Iraq has been hampered by trying to combat an enemy following no rules with our hands tied behind our backs. Blaming this administration for that is just stupid.
All the evidence, before and after the invasion, indicated that Saddam had complied with the program he agreed to. UN inspectors in the run up to the invasion found no evidence of the weapons programs claimed by Chimpy and Co, and would likely have found none, even had they not been ordered out of Iraq by the Bush administration. That was borne out by the utter lack of any credible evidence reconstituted weapons programs after the invasion.

Indeed, the invasion was a flawless operation, except that there were not enough troops to secure Iraqi Army facilities as they passed them by. As a result, the Iraqi irregulars were able to loot these facilities to supply their nascent insurgency. Chimpy and Rummy ignored General Shinseki's, and others, warning that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required to not only win the war, but to secure the peace.

And yes, the hands of our troops were tied, but not in the way you are asserting. They were tied by the Administration who failed to send in the numbers of troops required to secure the peace and seal the borders. Our troops were hampered by administrators in Iraq who were appointed more for their political ties than the core competencies needed to rebuild Iraq and secure the peace.

Failing to hold the Administration accountable for these, and their many other failures and frauds in Iraq, is disingenuous..at best. At worst, it is willful ignorance of the kind most commonly found in the families of alcoholics where the enablers deny the reality at hand in order to maintain the peace and their own delicate internal equilibrium which reality constantly threatens to shatter.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
All the evidence, before and after the invasion, indicated that Saddam had complied with the program he agreed to. UN inspectors in the run up to the invasion found no evidence of the weapons programs claimed by Chimpy and Co, and would likely have found none, even had they not been ordered out of Iraq by the Bush administration. That was borne out by the utter lack of any credible evidence reconstituted weapons programs after the invasion.

Indeed, the invasion was a flawless operation, except that there were not enough troops to secure Iraqi Army facilities as they passed them by. As a result, the Iraqi irregulars were able to loot these facilities to supply their nascent insurgency. Chimpy and Rummy ignored General Shinseki's, and others, warning that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required to not only win the war, but to secure the peace.

And yes, the hands of our troops were tied, but not in the way you are asserting. They were tied by the Administration who failed to send in the numbers of troops required to secure the peace and seal the borders. Our troops were hampered by administrators in Iraq who were appointed more for their political ties than the core competencies needed to rebuild Iraq and secure the peace.

Failing to hold the Administration accountable for these, and their many other failures and frauds in Iraq, is disingenuous..at best. At worst, it is willful ignorance of the kind most commonly found in the families of alcoholics where the enablers deny the reality at hand in order to maintain the peace and their own delicate internal equilibrium which reality constantly threatens to shatter.
It's a good thing that the global "intelligence" agencies had nothing to do with
the decision to go to war and how to fight it or we might be in some real trouble. :rolleyes:
 

eots

no fly list
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
28,995
Reaction score
2,097
Points
205
Location
IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
all the manipulated Intel said Saddam had wmbs all the real Intel said he didn't the invasion was planned years earlier in the pnac plan ,and 911 was the false flag operation used to put the plan into action ,911 was an inside job
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top