Page 25 of 43 FirstFirst ... 15202122232425262728293035 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 845
  1. #481  
    Nice, throw it out that Bush is a racist to see if it will stick and don't back it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    ATM. PLEASE CITE WHERE I SAID BUSH WAS RACIST
  2. #482  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Perfectly appropriate and paying homage to her. Just because it disagrees with your puppet president who sucked up to the "court the Black vote" party, tough noogies.
    Wow. And lefties wonder why they now have no control at any significant level of government. What's your message? Hate your political opponents and assign only vile motives to their every action? Sign me up for that platform.

    Bush was at the funeral because he is head of state and she was a national figure - we have a national holiday to honor her husband for God's sake. Was he not supposed to go?

    Take a step back and listen to yourself - you sound like a nut.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  3. #483  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Nice, throw it out that Bush is a racist to see if it will stick and don't back it up.
    AGAIN, WHERE DID I SAY THAT?
  4. #484  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    War is a big moneymaker... Why did we go to vietnam? So how was Germany and France profiting again? Were they profiting as a country or just a select few?

    When I say Americans are Profiting, I didn't mean to include the residents of LA or New Orleans, I meant the Rich.

    O yeah, I forgot about them... those poor souls risking their lives for the benefit of the Iraqi people and the world... Although I have a sneaky suspicion that maybe up to 10% of them might be there because of the huge paycheck$$$$
    You need to get off campus more

    We were in Vietnam to prop up an anti-communist government left behind when the French decided they really didn't want colonies after all.

    France and Germany have economies that were a) much more dependant upon Iraqi oil, and b) much more closely controlled by the government (especially in the energy sector).

    Our soldiers who are serving in Iraq all get extra bonus combat pay. Is it also your position that they are only in it for the money? Obviously Haliburton expects to profit as do it's employees. They also accept quite a lot of risk to do so. Other than crapping on them for the pure joy it must bring you, I really don't see what you mean to say here.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5. #485  
    I heard today on the radio that next week there is some new news on WMDs being release next week from the Gov. Whether it is confirming anything either way, we don't know at the moment.

    Hypothedically.....I wonder, what would someone like Howard Dean, Nancy, Reid, or Hillary would say if we did find a huge stock pile of WMDs Saddam buried under a lake somewhere? At first they said that they know that Saddam had WMDs, then they ignored their statements and said that Bush lied when he said the same thing at the same time, so would they ignore their statements about saying there never were WMDs and point to their original statments and say "See, We knew it all along"? Just babbling late at night....
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/10/2006 at 05:27 AM.
  6. #486  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I heard today on the radio that next week there is some new news on WMDs being release next week from the Gov. Whither it is confirming anything either way, we don't know at the moment.

    Hypothedically.....I wonder, what would someone like Howard Dean, Nancy, Reid, or Hillary would say if we did find a huge stock pile of WMDs Saddam buried under a lake somewhere? At first they said that they know that Saddam had WMDs, then they ignored their statements and said that Bush lied when he said the same thing at the same time, so would they ignore their statements about saying there never were WMDs and point to their original statments and say "See, We knew it all along"? Just babbling late at night....
    Actully, I think Hillary, posing for 2008, would say she knew all along. Dean, having lost all credibility long ago, would insist we planted them there. Pelosi would avoid the issue at all costs.
  7. #487  
    From the horse's mouth!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence

    (CNN) -- The Bush administration disregarded the expertise of the intelligence community, politicized the intelligence process and used unrepresentative data in making the case for war, a former CIA senior analyst alleged.

    In an article published on Friday in the journal Foreign Affairs, Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, called the relationship between U.S. intelligence and policymaking "broken."

    "In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made," Pillar wrote.

    Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, they supported sanctions and weapons inspections as means to contain the threat, he said.

    The Bush administration's decision to go to war indicates other motivations, Pillar wrote, namely a power shake-up in the Middle East and a hastened "spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region."

    The Bush administration "used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made," Pillar wrote. "It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

    Though Pillar himself was responsible for coordinating intelligence assessments on Iraq, "the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war," he wrote.
    Pillar: Intelligence was right

    Pillar said much of the intelligence on Iraq proved to have been correct.

    Prior to the March 2003 invasion, the intelligence community concluded that the road to democracy in Iraq would be "long, difficult and turbulent" and forecast power struggles between Shiites and Sunnis, Pillar said.

    Intelligence experts also predicted that an occupying force would be attacked "unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity" immediately after the fall of Hussein, he wrote.

    As to whether Iraq pursued nuclear weapons, intelligence reports had concluded Iraq was years away from developing them and was unlikely to use such weapons against the United States unless cornered, Pillar said.

    The biggest discrepancy between public statements by the Bush administration and judgments by the intelligence community centered on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, he said.

    "The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed."

    Rather, "the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the 'war on terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood," Pillar wrote.
    White House at odds with intelligence

    Pillar cited an August 2002 speech by Vice President **** Cheney that said "intelligence is an uncertain business" and that intelligence analysts had underestimated how close Iraq was to developing a nuclear weapon before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

    "His conclusion -- at odds with that of the intelligence community -- was that 'many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.'"

    After such remarks, the intelligence community was left "to register varying degrees of private protest," he said.

    Pillar also cited President Bush's claim, made in his 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq was purchasing uranium ore from an African country.

    "U.S. intelligence analysts had questioned the credibility of the report making this claim, had kept it out of their own unclassified products, and had advised the White House not to use it publicly," Pillar said.

    "But the administration put the claim into the speech anyway, referring to it as information from British sources in order to make the point without explicitly vouching for the intelligence."
    Reorganization criticized

    Pillar described a "poisonous atmosphere" in which intelligence officers, including himself, were accused by administration officials of trying to sabotage the president's policies.

    "This poisonous atmosphere reinforced the disinclination within the intelligence community to challenge the consensus view about Iraqi WMD programs; any such challenge would have served merely to reaffirm the presumptions of the accusers."

    Pillar also criticized the December 2004 reorganization of the intelligence community that made intelligence leaders serve at the pleasure of the president, saying they need more independence.

    Congress and the American people must get serious about "fixing intelligence," he said. "At stake are the soundness of U.S. foreign policymaking and the right of Americans to know the basis for decisions taken in the name of their security."

    Pillar, now on the faculty of Georgetown University's Security Studies Program, called for experienced intelligence officers to lead nonpartisan oversight of U.S. intelligence efforts as well as inquiries at the request of members of Congress.

    He also called for public discussion on how to improve the relationship between intelligence officials and policymakers, but said there is no clear fix.

    "The current ill will may not be reparable, and the perception of the intelligence community on the part of some policymakers -- that Langley is enemy territory -- is unlikely to change," Pillar wrote, referring to CIA headquarters.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #488  
    Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction.

    In my opinon that statement alone is enough to take action, not additional sanctions/resolutions that had obviously failed in the previous 10 years.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. #489  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction.

    In my opinon that statement alone is enough to take action, not additional sanctions/resolutions that had obviously failed in the previous 10 years.

    How had it failed? If the goal was to prevent WMD programs, what is the metric that it failed?
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #490  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    How had it failed? If the goal was to prevent WMD programs, what is the metric that it failed?
    From your cite

    Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction.

    We know for a fact that scuds were in his possesion that exceeded the range allowed by the UN resolutions (captured in the invasion), and, how many times were the no-fly zones violated, how about the oil for food scandal, the list goes on but I am sure you are aware of them all.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. #491  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    We were in Vietnam to prop up an anti-communist government left behind when the French decided they really didn't want colonies after all.

    France and Germany have economies that were a) much more dependant upon Iraqi oil, and b) much more closely controlled by the government (especially in the energy sector).
    knowone is more dependent on oil than America. Even if that oil is not coming to us, at least it's not going to europe. everything is relative. 5 years ago gas prices were at $1.00 a gallon, we didn't need Iraqi oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Our soldiers who are serving in Iraq all get extra bonus combat pay. Is it also your position that they are only in it for the money? Obviously Haliburton expects to profit as do it's employees. They also accept quite a lot of risk to do so. Other than crapping on them for the pure joy it must bring you, I really don't see what you mean to say here.
    Didn't mean to bag on the soldiers, buy how many of them do you think are there by choice? Probably a higher percentage than most people think but it's not 100% They are definitly not there for the money, but Haliburton employees and Haliburton are.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You need to get off campus more
    I been out for awhile, designed antennas for fast, high flying planes I am not suppose to know about named after Irish rock bands.

    I don't do government work anymore... since I don't agree with their foreign policy. The problems with Iraq (and Cuba) are personal to BUSH.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  12. #492  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    The problems with Iraq (and Cuba) are personal to BUSH.
    Remind me again when the trade embargo originated?(2/3/1962) And how many Presidents have sat in the chair since that time?(9)

    Cuba is HARDLY a Bush problem!
    Last edited by treo2die4; 02/10/2006 at 03:04 PM.
  13. #493  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Remind me again when the trade embargo originated? And how many Presidents have sat in the chair since that time?

    Cuba is HARDLY a Bush problem!
    Do you think the Trade embargo is doing a good to the people of Cuba? Why no trade embargo with China? They are Communists!!! They do more harm to more of their people and others that any other nation. China is a threat to Taiwan. Is Cuba a threat to Florida? Cuban policy buys votes in Florida... Guess for who? What is Jeb doing in Florida? No room for him in Texas... He's a big guy but texas is bigger.

    Hor long has Bush Sr. been a part of American foreign policy? That's all I want to say about that subject.

    I don't see Cuba as being a threat at all to the US. We sell them surplus food for cash... and that is mostly done for the benifit of the American farmer.
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  14. #494  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    From your cite

    Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction.

    We know for a fact that scuds were in his possesion that exceeded the range allowed by the UN resolutions (captured in the invasion), and, how many times were the no-fly zones violated, how about the oil for food scandal, the list goes on but I am sure you are aware of them all.
    You're stating that the policy failed to prevent the Hussein regime from amassing WMD. Yet there were NO wmd programs when the U.S. invaded that country. Therefore how can you say the policy failed to prevent the production of WMD?
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #495  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're stating that the policy failed to prevent the Hussein regime from amassing WMD. Yet there were NO wmd programs when the U.S. invaded that country. Therefore how can you say the policy failed to prevent the production of WMD?
    Every major player was under the impression he had or was very close to acquiring WMDs prior to the invasion. The UN resolution required him to prove to the UN inspectors that there were no WMDs, Saddam did not do that, resolution failed. Saddam was required to destroy all scuds that exceeded a set range per UN resolution, captured scuds exceeded set range, resolution failed. The UN resolution set very clear No-Fly zones, the Iraqi AF routinely flew into thoses zones, resolution failed. Shall I go on, or are you able to see the trend of UN resolutions that failed.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #496  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    Do you think the Trade embargo is doing a good to the people of Cuba? Why no trade embargo with China? They are Communists!!! They do more harm to more of their people and others that any other nation. China is a threat to Taiwan. Is Cuba a threat to Florida? Cuban policy buys votes in Florida... Guess for who? What is Jeb doing in Florida? No room for him in Texas... He's a big guy but texas is bigger.

    Hor long has Bush Sr. been a part of American foreign policy? That's all I want to say about that subject.

    I don't see Cuba as being a threat at all to the US. We sell them surplus food for cash... and that is mostly done for the benifit of the American farmer.
    I do not find Cuba to be a threat either. I'm merely pointing out to you Cuba is not a BUSH problem as it has been in existence more than 40 years. You're hatred for our sitting President is clouding your judgement.
  17. #497  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Every major player was under the impression he had or was very close to acquiring WMDs prior to the invasion. The UN resolution required him to prove to the UN inspectors that there were no WMDs, Saddam did not do that, resolution failed. Saddam was required to destroy all scuds that exceeded a set range per UN resolution, captured scuds exceeded set range, resolution failed. The UN resolution set very clear No-Fly zones, the Iraqi AF routinely flew into thoses zones, resolution failed. Shall I go on, or are you able to see the trend of UN resolutions that failed.
    You are referring to the following:
    "Although the Clinton administration and other countries' governments also believed that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, they supported sanctions and weapons inspections as means to contain the threat, he said."

    I contend that since no WMD weapons and no WMD programs were found to exist after the U.S. invasion and occupation then the sanctions and inspections most certainly did work.

    The reality of UN inspections is as follows:
    ""I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

    Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

    "I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to CNN from IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

    ElBaradei said he had been "pretty convinced" that Iraq had not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA dismantled in 1997.

    Days before the fighting began, Vice President **** Cheney weighed in with an opposing view.

    "We believe [Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong," Cheney said. "And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

    Now, more than a year later, ElBaradei said, "I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that supported Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so -- and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge."

    No evidence of a nuclear weapons program has been found so far.

    Blix, who recounts his search for weapons of mass destruction in his book "Disarming Iraq," said the Bush administration tended "to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin or mustard gas or anthrax."

    Blix specifically faulted Powell, who told the U.N. Security Council about what he said was a site that held chemical weapons and decontamination trucks.

    "Our inspectors had been there, and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things," Blix said. "And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks.""

    You see, this administration(neocons) simply wanted to invade Iraq. They made up reasons, hijacked our post 9-11 jingoism, and rode on in on the backs of our military people whose trust has been abused.
  18. #498  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    You're hatred for our sitting President is clouding your judgement.
    I am not to fond of him yes... Love is blind.

    The problem with Cuba is personal to Bush Sr. Who do you think "W" goes to for advice? Bush Sr. is the only ex president to receive daily CIA briefing in history.

    Here is a Document Dated Nov 29, 1963. It talks about Cuba and mentions George Bush. You do know that Bin Laden was trainded by the CIA right? Saddam was placed in power by who?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    .
    .
    .Treo Pro on Sprint Check out www.treotricks.com, Audio jack fix.
  19. #499  
    Quote Originally Posted by nonobeez
    I am not to fond of him yes... Love is blind.

    The problem with Cuba is personal to Bush Sr. Who do you think "W" goes to for advice?
    I don't think "w" goes to Sr. for advice.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #500  
    DaT, you keep going back to the article that says Clinton and other gov'ts believed he had WMDs, that is the same line I use to show why we needed to stop relying on UN resolutions. After 10 years they believed he had WMDs, not just Bush, but Clinton, and the rest of the major world players. There must have been something there for the world (to include Clinton) to believe they were there. I understand your desire to blame bush and say he was wrong, but look at the facts as they were known to the world pre-invasion (Clinton and other world leaders believed he had WMD) they wanted more sanctions and resolutions, the resolutions were not being adhered to (see examples above).
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"

Posting Permissions