|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by BP:
that's where we disagree. i believe that cheney and/or bush helped to mold intelligence to support their case for war and intentionally brushed aside or ignored the clues that the intelligence was flawed. i also think they knew the intelligence wouldn't hold up under the intense scruitiny it eventually got, but by that time we would already be in a position of no return.
and i'm not saying they did this out of spite. i think they did it because they truly beleived that a US presence in the middle east was necessary to impact the growing threat of terror and to redirect attacks on US soil. taking the war to the terrorists - we're basically giving them the fight they want but over there. i'm just very very very upset about how they went about it. no need to pull the wool over our eyes.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by BP:
i believe that cheney and/or bush helped to mold intelligence to support their case for war and intentionally brushed aside or ignored the clues that the intelligence was flawed.
I wonder how they molded this intelligence as CEO of Haliburton and governor of Texas, respectively. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,677
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,677 |
Originally posted by Davo:
...and I care what you think I know. 
oohhh, tough guy! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Davo:
I wonder how they molded this intelligence as CEO of Haliburton and governor of Texas, respectively.
Yes, BP, please inform us dolts how intel that remained fairly static on Iraq since the mid to late 90's was manipulated by those two...
I'm in the mood for a good work of fiction.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Originally posted by BP:
that's where we disagree. i believe that cheney and/or bush helped to mold intelligence to support their case for war and intentionally brushed aside or ignored the clues that the intelligence was flawed.
I could see this point, except for the fact that the entire worlds intel said the exact same thing. And its now been proven that even though Saddam didn't have the ability, he wanted everyone to THINK he did. We were fooled, but him fooling us only resorted in our attack.
Originally posted by BP:
she is being over dramatic about her cause and isn't realistic about our options as far as pulling out.
She lost more and more credit the more she spoke. If you listen to some of the things she says, she has become a MoveOn.org talking point memo.
She's begun to book a speaking tour, as well. This to me proves she has another motive than "avenging her sons death". How long before she writes a book about it all, do you think?
BP, I enjoy the good discussions you and I tend to have. Let's keep this civil (not directed only at you, heh), and perhaps we can all learn a bit more about why the other side feels the way they do...
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
I could see this point, except for the fact that the entire worlds intel said the exact same thing. And its now been proven that even though Saddam didn't have the ability, he wanted everyone to THINK he did. We were fooled, but him fooling us only resorted in our attack.
i honestly don't recall any intelligence other than ours (subtract UK) supporting the case that iraq was developing nukes and was close to having one, had proven ties to al qaeda, or had confirmed stock piles of wmds. we stated all of those as fact and even went as far as to say we knew where they were in our presentation to the UN and could back it up once we went in. from my recollection other nations were basing their statements off of what we said/gave to them. in addition the evidence imo didn't support the case that iraq was an clear and imminent danger - meaning they could attack us in a yr or less. saddam always stated that if we attacked him then they would destroy us (lol!) but it was never the other way around.
i do agree that saddam was posturing the same as kim jong, al asad, and ahmadinejad are and have been. but to me that's like a 4 ft guy with no toes saying he can dunk on yao ming. nothing but talk.
edit: again we've been through all of this before and hindsight is 20/20 as you all say, but if you look back to our discussions in 2002 and early 2003 BEFORE WE WENT INTO IRAQ and you'll see i for one was saying the same thing back then about intelligence not supporting the immenent threat scenario or the top 3 reasons for going into iraq. most of you were saying "we don't know for sure".
Last edited by BP; 08/18/05 08:32 PM.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Swazo:
1.Bosnia wasn't a unilateral movement that we went at alone. NATO with the US military in a main role went in and took care of business with a good plan. Case closed.
1. Are you implying that Iraq is unilateral? To claim such is to ignore the facts.
Originally posted by Swazo:
2. The factory getting blown up that had been out of the hands of actual terrorist is a reflection of the very poor intel, which is likely related to the budget cuts Clinton made. Also, it was in Afghanistan where the failed missile attacks on OBL took place which is another example of the very poor intel. Now do you see why it IS important to have a good grasp on who is attacking you and why?
Originally posted by Swazo:
President Bush Sr. is to blame for terrorist actions against Americans.
1. Bush Sr. placed our military in Saudi Arabia, which is what directly led to the 9/11 attacks.
2. That's a laugh. At least you're not listing talking points like some people. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to make those claims. I've never seen Bush Sr. as an attack target for the left.
Originally posted by Swazo:
IMO, Clinton and Dubbya are dealing with what was left for them for them from Bush Sr not getting re-elected to clean up after himself.
3. So it is Clinton's fault. Had he not run for president, and if the Democrats hadn't opposed him, Bush 41 would have been re-elected and terrorism would have been wiped out.
This brings a tear to my eye, admission that Bill Clinton and the Democrats are to blame for terrorism.
1. Nope, just pointing out that WE didn't invade Bosnia like you implied.
2. Why did OBL issue a fatwa against the US and start attacking our embassies, the USS Cole and of course the 9/11 attacks? The primary reason is our military in Saudi Arabia. It's Bush Sr's relationship with the Saudi royal family that enabled him to place our military there. So, he's to blame for why we are openly attacked in the manor we are today, as it is directly from his actions. You keep assuming that I'm a Democrat or a liberal, which I am not.
3. No, Bush Sr. made a huge mess that he could not clean up before his first and only term. I'm sure he didn't expect not to be reelected, but that's his fault for being so arrogant. Clinton made the mistake of cutting the military's budget while having to clean up Bush Sr's mess. After the BJ BS, he couldn't make any move with our military without being accused of trying to take the attention away from that crap, like that movie Wag the dog or whatever. With action in Somalia and Bosnia, the US was getting tired of being the "world's police" so missile attacks was as much as they could muster at the time. The world was a different place for Americans before the 9/11 attacks, so getting support for another military venture would've been impossible at the time. You fail to see any wrong doing by people of your political party, and you act like the Democrats are soley to blame for everything.
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by Swazo:
President Bush Sr. is to blame for terrorist actions against Americans.
1. Bush Sr. placed our military in Saudi Arabia, which is what directly led to the 9/11 attacks.
I don't know about that... Bin Laden's been pretty pissed with America since we left him high & dry in Afghanistan in the late 80's. If anyone can be blamed for that it's probably Reagan. But IMO using today's reality as a basis of judgement for cold war actions is largely irrelevant. But of course it's relevant to Bin Laden, which I guess is all that matters.
Actually, the US blindly funneled billions through Pakistan's ISI to the mujahideen up until the Soviet withdrawl. We played the role of a quartermaster until the very end of that conflict.
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Swazo:
The primary reason is our military in Saudi Arabia. It's Bush Sr's relationship with the Saudi royal family that enabled him to place our military there.
I'd call that an ally that helped us fight the Gulf War. Aren't you always worried about the U.S. having enough allies?
Originally posted by Swazo:
So, he's to blame for why we are openly attacked in the manor we are today, as it is directly from his actions.
Sounds like you need to read the first 100 or so pages of the 9/11 Commission Report. They outline why OBL/terrorists want to kill us, and you will find that your assertion that OBL wants to kill us only because our troops were in Saudia Arabia is false.
But again, I must congratulate you and thank you. You speak something other than talking points, and give us something new to refute. I get tired of hearing the same things, and saying the same things over and over. Your nonsense is rather refreshing.
Originally posted by Swazo:
You keep assuming that I'm a Democrat or a liberal, which I am not.
I never said you were either. But my guess is that you have a bad case of Viss1-itis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
OBL would come up with just about anything to attack us, but to flat out GIVE them a reason is foolish. Bush Sr did just that. If you'd read what OBL has said, you might understand what his reasons are for his jihad. But rather than doing so, you just accept a partially released document that tells you what to think.
BTW, why hasn't Dubbya put more effort into finding OBL? He's more worried about righting the wrongs of his father. If SR had followed through with taking Saddam out, like his military advisors wanted to, then we wouldn't be in the shoes we are today. We could have pulled our military out of Saudi Arabia once that threat was gone, as we wouldn't have had the need to keep a military foot hold in the region.
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone
|
|
|
|
|
