Susan Rice new Secretary of State? [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Jim in CT

11-21-2012, 05:27 PM

Big difference with a lifetime appointment.

Even Petreus who testified there were reports it did start as a protest? Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in. Other reports were that the militants had a few people go out front shouting to make it look like there was a protest.

Any way you cut it the reports don't indicate an administration cover up.

You seriously don't think a well armed militia couldn't scrounge up a mortar in 6 hours? Jesus Jim, the entire reason the CIA annex was there in the first place was a mission to curb the PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS.

The CIA annex wasn't attacked until 5am. It was only a mile away. The attackers clearly could have just followed them back there.

You still haven't read anything reported on this tragic event have you?

-spence

"Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in"

First, from what I recall (I could be wrong), the video outside the consulate showed no protest before the attack.

"Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in"

When did she say that? When did she say that the protest and the attack were distinct?

"Big difference with a lifetime appointment"

OK, spence. So how long of an appointment is satisfied with merely an impressive resume?

Secstate is a high profile position, and high up in line for succession to the Presidency. A swell-looking resume isn't enough. i'd also counter that her resume is no longer impressive. She made a horse's ass out of herself, and the Benghazi attack was most certainly not the first time her incompetence was shown.

Finally Spence, why do your liberal pals label criticism of Rice as "racist"? What's the evidence of that?

Jim in CT

11-21-2012, 05:32 PM

Big difference with a lifetime appointment.

Even Petreus who testified there were reports it did start as a protest? Rice said it appeared to have started as a spontaneous protest and then extremists quickly moved in. Other reports were that the militants had a few people go out front shouting to make it look like there was a protest.

Any way you cut it the reports don't indicate an administration cover up.

You seriously don't think a well armed militia couldn't scrounge up a mortar in 6 hours? Jesus Jim, the entire reason the CIA annex was there in the first place was a mission to curb the PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS.

The CIA annex wasn't attacked until 5am. It was only a mile away. The attackers clearly could have just followed them back there.

You still haven't read anything reported on this tragic event have you?

-spence

"the reports don't indicate an administration cover up"

Spence, have the reports divulged who denied the requests for extra security, and why? Stevens sent all kinds of supporting evidence for why he was requesting extra security. Not only did he not get extra security, he ended up with less security, as they removed 2 teams out of there, against the wishes of those whose lives were at stake.

"You still haven't read anything reported on this tragic event have you?"

Do us both a favor, and stop patronizing me. I've read plenty. Unlike you, I don't limit myself to sources that are fanatically pro-Obama.

This tragic event was easily preventable if our commander-in-chief didn't believe that his charming smileis are all it takes to make us safer. Just because you have a teenage infatuation with Obama (you remind me of my first girlfriend with New Kids On The Block), doesn't mean our enemies do.

Jim in CT

11-21-2012, 05:44 PM

[QUOTE=spence;970841I don't see anything credible that Obama has personally misled anyone.
.

-spence[/QUOTE]

No? How about the town hall debate, when a guy asked Obama who denied Stevens the extra security, and why?

Obama's response was something to the effect of "the diplomats are patriots and heroes, and they work for me".

That's not misleading? No? Did he answer the question?

striperman36

11-21-2012, 06:12 PM

floggin a dead horse does nothing but waste time and oxygen. Have at it Jim. no one's listening

Jim in CT

11-21-2012, 06:14 PM

I don't see anything credible that Obama has personally misled anyone.

-spence

Let's examine that...in the second debate, the town hall, a man asked Obama this question about tthe security staffing in Benghazi...

"Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama:

"Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again.

And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we're going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them."

Spence, was that answering the question that was asked? Was that even close to answering the question that was asked?

Obama was either deliberately misleading that man and everyone watching, or Obama is too stupid to understand the question that was asked. There is no third option.

you tell me, Spence. How is that not deliberate misleading on Obama's part?

justplugit

11-21-2012, 07:54 PM

Obama:
"And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we're going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them."

Not to worry, it's just "Folks" that are trying to kill us, they are not Terrorists,
just "Folks."
Show me the video of the Situation Room that night, ya know like the one
when the Seals got Bin Laden, and that should help clear up a lot of Bengazy
questions.

justplugit

11-21-2012, 07:57 PM

Obama:
"And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we're going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them."

Not to worry, it's just "Folks" that are trying to kill us, they are not Terrorists,
just "Folks."
Show me the video of the Situation Room that night of the attack, ya know like the one when the seals got Bin Laden, and that should help clear up a lot of Bengazi
questions.

Jim in CT

11-21-2012, 10:43 PM

Not to worry, it's just "Folks" that are trying to kill us, they are not Terrorists,
just "Folks."
Show me the video of the Situation Room that night, ya know like the one
when the Seals got Bin Laden, and that should help clear up a lot of Bengazy
questions.

Right, it's never terrorists. Obama won't call the Fort Hood massacre an act of terrorism, but rather, it was a case of "workplace violence", as if the shooter's agenda was similar to that of a disgruntled postal worker.

How do you ever win a war, when you refuse to admit who you are fighting against?

likwid

11-22-2012, 07:42 AM

Right, it's never terrorists. Obama won't call the Fort Hood massacre an act of terrorism, but rather, it was a case of "workplace violence", as if the shooter's agenda was similar to that of a disgruntled postal worker.

How do you ever win a war, when you refuse to admit who you are fighting against?

And one of the base commanders (Lt Gen Cone) said it wasn't an act of terrorism either. Why aren't you crying about him? Oh right, then it would prove you hate America!

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 08:53 AM

And one of the base commanders (Lt Gen Cone) said it wasn't an act of terrorism either. Why aren't you crying about him? Oh right, then it would prove you hate America!

Likwid, like the vast majority of Americans, I have no idea who Gen Cone is. If Gen Cone said that, he is also an idiot.

When the killer believes he is killing in the name of Islam, and he shouts "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he kills Americans, that is what makes him an Islamic terrorist.

Likwid, you are not going to get me with a simple Gotcha question. I'm not a glaring hypocrit. Every single person who says Ft Hood was not an act of Islamic terrorism, is an idiot. And sying he's an idiot, in no way "proves I hate America". Why would it imply I hate America? I have served America more than a person like you ever will.

Fair enough?

PaulS

11-22-2012, 10:01 AM

I'm not a glaring hypocrit.

Personally, I think your the biggest hypocrit on this site. Whenever you see something you don't like that you think is done by a liberal you start crying and attribute it to all liberals (Infact, John has had to repeatedly tell you to stop doing that). Yet when something is done by a conserv. and someone attributes it to a cons., you get your panties in a bunch.

The tone of the whole forum has changed since you have started posting.

spence

11-22-2012, 10:19 AM

Secstate is a high profile position, and high up in line for succession to the Presidency. A swell-looking resume isn't enough. i'd also counter that her resume is no longer impressive. She made a horse's ass out of herself, and the Benghazi attack was most certainly not the first time her incompetence was shown.

Finally Spence, why do your liberal pals label criticism of Rice as "racist"? What's the evidence of that?
Because I'd wager you really know absolutely nothing about Rice other than what FOX News made up about her involvement in the Benghazi coverage.

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

Code words.

-spence

spence

11-22-2012, 10:26 AM

Likwid, like the vast majority of Americans, I have no idea who Gen Cone is. If Gen Cone said that, he is also an idiot.

When the killer believes he is killing in the name of Islam, and he shouts "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he kills Americans, that is what makes him an Islamic terrorist.

Likwid, you are not going to get me with a simple Gotcha question. I'm not a glaring hypocrit. Every single person who says Ft Hood was not an act of Islamic terrorism, is an idiot. And sying he's an idiot, in no way "proves I hate America". Why would it imply I hate America? I have served America more than a person like you ever will.

Fair enough?
The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 11:04 AM

Piscator

11-22-2012, 11:09 AM

In the interest of Thanksgiving, I vote that this goes on the back burner till tomorrow (at least) :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 11:14 AM

Because I'd wager you really know absolutely nothing about Rice other than what FOX News made up about her involvement in the Benghazi coverage.

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

Code words.

-spence

Spence, I keep asking who denied the extra security, and why. If you claim that Foxnews is the only station harping on that, you are correct. Here is where you're wrong...you see that as a sign of bias on the part of Foxnews, I see it as a sign of bias on the part of the other networks, who are more than willing to ignore these 4 deaths, rather than ask challenging questions of Obama.

I also think it's immoral to withold support during a 6 hour firefight, when we had assets available that were far more than what was needed to get the situation under control. And the administration knew that in real time. We've discussed this, and you disagree.

I do not recall that you have ever defended the decision to deny Stevens the extra security he asked for. You have a patter here of being very selective in what you choose to respond to. If there's an easy answer that makes Obama look awesome, you're all over it. If it's something that makes him look incompetent, you choose not to respond. I've seen that time and time again, and many people here have called you on it.

spence

11-22-2012, 11:15 AM

Spence -

Earlier in this thread, you said Obama never misled anyone. I posted compelling evidence to the contrary. Can you respond, please?

If there's an ongoing investigation you don't jump out and make a conclusion just because you're being pressed in a debate.

You think this is compelling evidence??? :huh:

-spence

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 11:15 AM

The tone of the whole forum has changed since you have started posting.

Maybe because you didn't call folks racist until I came along. It's a ridiculous charge.

spence

11-22-2012, 11:16 AM

In the interest of Thanksgiving, I vote that this goes on the back burner till tomorrow (at least) :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No chance. It will die down anyway once these freaking people get out of my kitchen and I start cooking.

-spence

justplugit

11-22-2012, 11:33 AM

No chance. It will die down anyway once these freaking people get out of my kitchen and I start cooking.

-spence

You makin that Black Bean sauce?
Throw in some shrimp and I'll be over. :hihi:
Happy Thanksgiving!

striperman36

11-22-2012, 12:10 PM

I should come down and consume some Heady Topper. Let the haters pout today. I'm suprised someone hasn't jumped on a Liberal Thanksgiving plot today.

Where is Mitt anyway

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 12:12 PM

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

-spence

Spence, here is one analysis of Rice's tenure as US Ambassador to the UN...written by Richard Grenell, who served as the spokesman for no less than four US Ambassadors to the UN. Enjoy the reading...

"Susan Rice's miserable record at the UN...

Most reporters haven’t been following Ambassador Susan Rice’s performance at the United Nations since her appointment in January 2009. To many journalists, Rice’s misleading interviews on the five Sunday Shows the weekend after the 9/11/12 terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were one of the first times they had heard from her. To veteran foreign policy observers, Rice’s shameful performance that Sunday was one of many blunders over the last four years.

Rice’s refusal to answer questions about why she blamed the Benghazi violence on a YouTube video was met Wednesday with a feisty defense from President Obama saying don’t blame Rice because the White House sent her out to do the Sunday shows. The “stop picking on Susan” retort from the president looked like a big brother defending his little sister on the playground. It was an odd moment for a woman wanting to be America’s top diplomat.

Obama’s spirited warnings to Republicans to leave Rice alone appeared to be a sign that the White House is shielding Rice from answering further questions about her performance.

The case against Susan Rice has been building for years with little fanfare. Not surprising, the mainstream media reporters based at the UN have either ignored her mistakes or strategically covered them up.

The Washington Post’s UN reporter Colum Lynch even wrote a glowing profile of Rice on September 23 – a week after her Sunday shows debacle – where he didn’t mention the Libya controversy until the 13th paragraph (a Washington Post staffer told me that editors had to add language about the Libya controversy to the piece).

Rice’s diplomatic failures and silence in the face of outrageous UN antics have given the United States pathetic representation among the 193 members of the world body. UN members, not surprisingly, prefer a weak opponent. Rice is therefore popular with her colleagues. It may explain why she ignored Syria’s growing problems for months.

Speaking out and challenging the status quo is seldom cheered at the UN. Her slow and timid response left the United States at the mercy of Russia and China, who ultimately vetoed a watered down resolution an unprecedented three times.

Ironically, Rice was very critical of the US’s performance at the UN under President George W. Bush and vowed to build better relationships with every country. In her current stump speech Rice claims with a straight face that her goal has been accomplished, “We’ve repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We’ve ended needless American isolation on a wide range of issues. And as a consequence, we've gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.”

Rice has been consistently silent on other important issues and ineffective when she does engage. She skipped Security Council meetings when Israel needed defending and even failed to show up for the emergency session on the Gaza Flotilla incident.

Rice didn’t even show up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab Spring revolution last year. Rice stayed silent when Iran was elected to the U.N. women’s committee, she didn’t call out Libya when it was elected to the Human Rights Council, she was absent from the Haiti crisis meeting and was a no-show for the last open meeting scheduled before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood. When she actually does show up, she is a miserable failure.

Take the crucial issue of Iran. Rice spent the last several years undermining and grumbling about the Bush administration’s increasingly tough measures but has only been able to pass one resolution of her own – compared with the Bush team’s five.

Rice’s one and only Iran resolution was almost 30 months ago. And it passed with just 12 votes of support – the least support we have ever seen for a Security Council sanctions resolution on Iran. In fact, Rice lost more support with her one resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined. She may claim she has repaired relationships with other countries but the evidence shows she’s gotten less support than the team she ridicules.

Whether the issue is Sudan, Egypt, North Korea, Israel or Rwanda, Rice has been either missing in action or unable to deliver a quick and effective resolution.

The Rice record at the UN speaks for itself. Anyone looking objectively at what she has or hasn’t accomplished during her tenure will deduce she has failed to convince UN members to support US priority issues. Nominating Susan Rice for Secretary of State is a mistake not just because of her Sunday show deceptions but because her tenure as America’s representative to the UN has been unworthy of a promotion"

Spence, if the information here is accurate, it seems to be at odds with your declaration that she has had a rather stellar career.

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 12:17 PM

If there's an ongoing investigation you don't jump out and make a conclusion just because you're being pressed in a debate.

You think this is compelling evidence??? :huh:

-spence

That's the best you could come up with?

How was Obama being "pressed"? It was town hall debate, and the man asked a simple question. That's not being 'pressed', is it? God knows the moderator wasn't going to 'press' Obama.

Obama did not tell the gentleman, "gee, I know the answer to that question, but I can't answer because of an internal investigation". Spence, if that's the case, i agree it's a valid answer. But it's not what Obama said. You're going to greater lengths to excuse him, than he himself did. Can you appreciate that?

It's been 11 weeks, and we have no answers.

Spence that was weak...

scottw

11-22-2012, 07:09 PM

No chance. It will die down anyway once these freaking people get out of my kitchen and I start cooking.

-spence

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:...that was funny:)

Jim in CT

11-22-2012, 10:06 PM

The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

Answer - of course not.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

scottw

11-23-2012, 06:46 AM

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

only if he shaves the beard...I think the ACLU is defending him on that one :uhuh::rotf2:

Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

it is an odd obsession of his :)

PaulS

11-23-2012, 09:39 AM

Maybe because you didn't call folks racist until I came along. It's a ridiculous charge.

And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).

detbuch

11-23-2012, 10:05 AM

Wow. A discussion about Susan Rice's possible appointment has devolved into the predictable Bush did it too or did it worse or just did it. Who woulda thunk.

spence

11-23-2012, 10:21 AM

I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?
The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?
KSM was charged with terrorism.

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.
Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.
Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

The Dad Fisherman

11-23-2012, 01:17 PM

Another thing I was thankful for on Thanksgiving...Not Spending any time in the Political Forum......:hee:

Jim in CT

11-23-2012, 01:38 PM

The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.

KSM was charged with terrorism.

Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.

Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence

"KSM was charged with terrorism."

But why? If charging someone with terrorism makes it harder to convict them (compared to just charging them with murder), WHY charge KSM with terrirism?

"Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?"

Sure I have.

I posted Obama's dodge from the debate. You said Obama coukdn't answer, because of an ongoing investigation. Spence, did you even read Obama's response? Please show us where in that response, Obama said he couldn't answer because it might jeopardize an investigation?

"half baked conspiracy theory?"

Spence, is it a half-baked conspiracy theory that Stevens asked for extra security, and was denied? Am I making that up? Is that a Foxnews, right-wing conspiracy?

That's the most troubling part of this. And when Obama was asked about it at the debate, he absolutely misled America with his answer. You won't admit that, because you cannot admit that Obama would do something so sleazy. But the proof is right there in the transcript. You said Obama never misled anyone, but we have physical proof that he did.

Jim in CT

11-23-2012, 01:41 PM

And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).

"I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack "

So do I. And if you read this thread, you'll see that it was Likwid who brought that up, not me.

"It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq "

Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?

PaulS

11-23-2012, 04:27 PM

Wow. A discussion about Susan Rice's possible appointment has devolved into the predictable Bush did it too or did it worse or just did it. Who woulda thunk.

It shows the hipocrisy.

PaulS

11-23-2012, 04:29 PM

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971138
Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?[/QUOTE]

R. Clark said from day 1 Pres. Bush was saying - it's Iraq, we have to go after Iraq. They all voted on the evidence that was shown to them by the admin. If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?

I guess he wanted to finish what his father didn't do - get Hussain out of Iraq.

detbuch

11-23-2012, 05:29 PM

It shows the hipocrisy.

Are you suggesting that Jim in CT in order to discuss what he feels are reasons that Rice should not be made Secretary of State, has also to point out that Bush had supposedly done something similar or else he's being hypocritical? This would lead to over-lengthy awkward conversations where every speaker back and forth had to inject other previous examples to whatever he says everytime he says something. The discussion might dwell a long time on each speaker going back to point out other examples of previous Presidents and their SecStates before getting to the discussion at hand. Anyway, in most cases, those previous "problems" were already discussed at the time they occurred. Must they be rehashed over and over every time a new case is discussed or else it shows hypocrisy? Not to mention that Jim doesn't even equate the two circumstances so to him it is not hypocrisy. That would be you labeling him, as you do everytime you want to point out his supposed hypocrisy and labeling. Was it hypocritical of you to point out what you think Bush did to get us to invade Iraq, but did not point out how other presidents, including Democrats, manipulated us into war?

Or is this just a way to change the topic?

PaulS

11-23-2012, 05:58 PM

It shows the hypocrisy of criticizing the actions of a president while ignoring the actions of the only person(s) you can compare those actions to - previous presidents.

If someone doesn't want to discuss previous examples, they don't have to. If you want to bring up other pres, go right ahead. John will allow it. I didn't see any rules against it. I never realized you didn't like "over-lenghly awkward conversations".

detbuch

11-23-2012, 06:22 PM

It shows the hypocrisy of criticizing the actions of a president while ignoring the actions of the only person(s) you can compare those actions to - previous presidents.

So, were you being hypocritical when you pointed out what you thought Bush did to get us to invade Iraq, but you didn't point out how previous presidents, including Democrats manipulated us into war?

If someone doesn't want to discuss previous examples, they don't have to.

Nor is it necessarily hypocritical if you don't.

If you want to bring up other pres, go right ahead. John will allow it. I didn't see any rules against it.

Why would I want to discuss other presidents when they are not the topic of this thread?

I never realized you didn't like "over-lenghly awkward conversations".

Did I say I didn't like them? Hey, nice going though. In your own judgmental way you've managed to steer the conversation off of Rice. EEEK--I've let myself get caught up in another PaulS poo-poo. I apologize to all for extending this non-sense.

Jim in CT

11-23-2012, 07:02 PM

R. Clark said from day 1 Pres. Bush was saying - it's Iraq, we have to go after Iraq. They all voted on the evidence that was shown to them by the admin. If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?

I guess he wanted to finish what his father didn't do - get Hussain out of Iraq.

" If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?"

If Bush intenionally misled them, no one would condone that. Least of all me. But those people who say Bush made stuff up to finish what his father started, are about as rational as those who say Obama is a Muslim. Kooks on both sides. Obviously you have thrown your hat in with one of those groups, because to you, it's OK to falsely accuse the President of treason, presumably as long as the President is white and conservative. I don't know what other motive you have for making up jibberish about Bush. We don't need to make up stuff about Obama, there's more than enough real krazy stuff to point bring up.

Paul, you are now a psychatriast, you can read Bush's mind, and you know that he "wanted" to go to war.

I have never heard Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, claim that they were duped. I guess you have more insode scoop than they do. If they're not saying it, I can't imagine why you are claiming it.

Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton both said that they were sure Iraq had WMDs. They get a pass. That's not hypocrisy, Paul?

PaulS

11-24-2012, 11:51 AM

Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) – U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake."

"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."
[/COLOR]

You asked why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war. I told you a possible reason. Clark stated that right from the beginning he was saying that it was Iraq who was responsible for 9/11 - that is not reading his mind.

Jim in CT

11-24-2012, 04:25 PM

You asked why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war. I told you a possible reason. Clark stated that right from the beginning he was saying that it was Iraq who was responsible for 9/11 - that is not reading his mind.

Paul, John Kerry says he was misled, and that's it? He says it, so it's true?

I can find kooks who say Obama is a Muslim. Does that make it true?

I can find kooks who say 09/11 was an inside job. Does that make it true?

PaulS, if Bush willfully misled the Senate into voting for the war, I have one simple question for you. Why wasn't Bush impeached when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006?

Here's another...if Bush "wanted" to go to war, why did he give Saddam Hussein so many chances to avoid war? If Hussein had agreed to the terms of the UN resolution, the war would not have happened. The Bush administration gave Hussein several chances to comply. If Bush "wanted" to go to war, why give Hussein so many chances to avoid war?

Funny. One minute Bush is a dumb hick, right off the set of 'Hee Haw'. The next minute, he's a real-life Jack Bauer who manufactures evidence to fool almost the entire Senate, and he does it in such a way, that they cannot touch him for it. That's one sharp cookie.

Even Spence said, in this thread, that there is no evidence that Bush intentionally misled anyone. That's a pretty good indicator.

Paul, the Senate was not misled. They looked at the evidence, and made the wrong conclusion. That their conclusion was wrong, does not mean it was unethical. If Hussein repeatedly kicks out weapons inspectors, it's not lunacy to conclude that he's hiding something. It's that simple.

Did George Bush mislead Bill Clinton, who said several times that he believed Hussein had WMDs?

scottw

11-25-2012, 06:22 AM

Then do me a favor and ignore me and I'll ignore you. And I apologize to all for leading us to have to ignore another Debutch post (see I can insult you too).

you should read his posts...ignore(ance) is bliss, you might learn something...I read yours, can't say I've learned much from them because most of them are just rehashed talking points and insults, you do seem very cranky and you just say the same things over and over.... you never have anything nice to say either, try being nice :)

PaulS

11-25-2012, 11:45 AM

Thanks ScottW for the original thought (at least it wasn't the usual unattributed cut and paste). I'll have to go back and reread all your posts to see how someone who so frequently argues w/people and makes prob. more snarky and snide comments than anyone else here thinks others are cranky. :rotf2:

"Rehashed talking points" - from the king of the cut and paste?? That is funny:biglaugh:

PaulS

11-25-2012, 12:18 PM

Paul, John Kerry says he was misled, and that's it? He says it, so it's true? You said that Kerry never said he was mislead so I showed you that he did say it. Now your just dismissing it.

PaulS, if Bush willfully misled the Senate into voting for the war, I have one simple question for you. Why wasn't Bush impeached when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006?While there was a popular support for impeaching him I believe that the reason the Dems. didn't was that they saw how the backlash against the Clinton impeachment hurt the Rep. I also think Bush's approval ratings were so low at the time that they saw no "upside" in impeaching. His ratings weren't going to go any lower, so they prob. figured there was no upside for them. This was during a time when we were still at war so it was a real hot button issue.

dfsafa

scottw

11-25-2012, 01:18 PM

PaulS

11-25-2012, 01:52 PM

that was predictable :uhuh:

and your predictible:biglaugh:

spence

11-25-2012, 02:23 PM

Please don't get this thread closed, I have a few responses I'm behind on.

-spence

scottw

11-25-2012, 03:34 PM

Please don't get this thread closed, I have a few responses I'm behind on.

-spence

and a whole bunch that you just completely skipped, should we make a list for a homework assignment for you? :)

scottw

11-25-2012, 03:40 PM

and your predictible:biglaugh:

please listen to Spence, I'm always interested in what he has to say....and check your spelling..."and" was correct...1 out of 3

Jim in CT

11-25-2012, 05:06 PM

dfsafa

Paul, so now you are qualified to speculate on why they didn't impeach Bush.

They didn't impeach Bush, because he (unlike Bill Clinton) didn't commit an impeachable offense.

Yes, there were a lot of folks who wanted him impeached. Mouth-breathing, unquestioning, morinic simpletons, who believe everythiyng they hear when it comes from those who despise Bush.

Bush was wrong (as were a whole lot of Democrats in the senate, and Bill and Hilary Clinton, as well as the democrats' new hero, Colin Powell). Being wrong, is not the same as lying. If it were, you would be a textbook compulsive liar. Because yu are wrong almost every time.

Paul, let's see the evidence that Bush knowingly manufactured false evidence, without which the Senate would not have voted for war. You made that accusation, so please either back it up, or admit that it's about as valid a theory as saying Obama is a Muslim (which would be less disturbing that Obama's true religion, Black Liberation Theology)

Here's what happened. Many of the Dems in the Senate voted for the war because, like Bush, they believed there were probably WMDs. When there weren't, and when the war became very unpopular, those same Dems had to distance themselves from the now-unpopular war. The easiest way to do it? Blame Bush. That's how it all started, that was Ground Zero for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Paul, what do you think of US senators who lied about why they voted for the war, simply because public sentiment changed? Those flip-floppers are the ones who lied. Because they know they weren't 'duped'. But unlike Bush, most of them don't have the integrity to say "I made a mistake".

If there was any evidence that Bush lied, that 2006 Congress would have impeached him in a nanosecond. They hated Bush, because Bush beat them like a dog. That 2006 congress ( a huge victory for the dems) was elected with one mandate - get us the hell out of Iraq. And not only did Bush prevent them from getting out of Iraq, he forced them to go along with the Surge, which they said was doomed to fail, yet it worked like a charm. They had colossal egg on their faces, they got completely destroyed by the dumb hick Bush. They hated him for it, and they still hate him for it.

There's no way they would have decided not to impeach him, if they had a chance of doing so.

scottw

11-25-2012, 05:12 PM

oh brother...Spence, quick, say something about Susan Rice.....

Jim in CT

11-25-2012, 08:02 PM

oh brother...Spence, quick, say something about Susan Rice.....

I'll say somehting about her...she's precisely what I would expect from Obama, an incompetent liar who is invulnerable to criticism. She is invulnerable to criticism, because anyone who dares to criticize her is either a sexist or as racist. This is, of course, happening already. And when you flat-out accuse a titanic hero like John McCain of being a racist, you are revealing how pathetic you truly are.

And I love Obama's Rambo impression at the press conference (you wanna come after her, then you better come after ME!"). very dignified and presidential.

I hope she gets confirmed, i hope the GOP just lets him do everytihng he wants to do, so that the collapse will be that much more spectacular and undeniable in root cause.

scottw

11-26-2012, 03:21 AM

don't know about all of that but Obama did win and the Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and McCain can't complain about anything as he's a panderer extraordinaire, the same people that will pat him on the back and extoll the virtues of the "maverick" when he's being "reasonable" will viciously attack him at the first opportunity on something like this and call him a racist, shouldn't surprise anyone, there are many things that are currently unavoidable....4 more years of Obama is one, further implementation of Obamacare is another(although, I just read an article in The Hill detailing the many issues they're having setting up the exchanges which will cause major problems)....a day of reckoning is coming regarding Federal spending and they can't increase taxes enough to keep up with spending and there is no will to reduce spending and more Americans seem to become dependant on government with each passing day, I think many Americans have "checked out" in many ways.....there are unavoidable problems abroad both economically and militarily which will compound problems here....Obama has not only fundamentally changed America, he's effectively divided it and will continue to because that is the key to his success, with the majority of the media acting as a propoganda machine for him the Republicans only play into his hand when they oppose him on something like this.....

Jim in CT

11-26-2012, 06:43 AM

PaulS

11-26-2012, 10:56 AM

please listen to Spence, I'm always interested in what he has to say....and check your spelling..."and" was correct...1 out of 3

Predictable - you can't help yourself:rotf2:

PaulS

11-26-2012, 11:01 AM

Paul, so now you are qualified to speculate on why they didn't impeach Bush.

You're a joke. You ask why he wasn't impeached and then when I give you why I thought he wasn't, you insult me. Just as before when you state Kerry never said he was mislead. I copy a quote where he said he was and then you say it wasn't true. You ask me why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war and I told you why I thought and what R. Clark said and again you insult me.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

The Dad Fisherman

11-26-2012, 11:42 AM

Take a step back gentlemen....or we will tuck this one away in the archives. :hee:

lets keep it civil....

Jim in CT

11-26-2012, 11:58 AM

You're a joke. You ask why he wasn't impeached and then when I give you why I thought he wasn't, you insult me. Just as before when you state Kerry never said he was mislead. I copy a quote where he said he was and then you say it wasn't true. You ask me why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war and I told you why I thought and what R. Clark said and again you insult me.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.

Paul, I asked why he wasn't impeached. You didn't know the answer, so you invented a hypothetical that supported your previous (also false) conclusion that Bush clearly committed an impeachable offense.

You did indeed show a quote where Kerry said he was duped, and I credit you for that. Although, with no evidence, that seems about as valid a claim as Trump claiming that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

"If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question"

You're making up answers out of thin air, answers which, shockingly, support your conclusions.

Where is the evidence that Bush intenionally fabricated evidence, without which the Senate would have voted against the war? All of your theories are based on that assumption, that the senate was 'misled'. OK, let's see it.

And situations where Bush's conclusions were wrong, are not the same as intentional deception. I'm sure you agree there's a difference between an honest mistake and a lie.

The notion that Bush lied in order to give him a pretext to invade, just because he wanted to finish what Daddy started, is absurd. When you consider the irrefutable fact that Bush gave Saddam dozens of chances to avoid war by complying with the UN treaties, your entire premise falls apart. If you 'want' war with someone, you don't give them dozens of opportunities to avoid war.

If you want to say (with the benefit of hindsight) that Bush jumped the gun, you can make a compelling case for that. To say that Bush intentionally deceived the US Senate, the UN, and all the other nations that provided troops, is anothe rmatter.

Try not to get another thread shut down if you can, please.

Jim in CT

11-26-2012, 12:48 PM

Paul S -

"While there was a popular support for impeaching him I believe that the reason the Dems. didn't was that they saw how the backlash against the Clinton impeachment hurt the Rep"

OK. So the very best you could do, was to speculate that Bush wasn't impeached because the Democrats didn't want to deal with the fallout. Even if that's true (which it's not), you're admitting that the Democrats cared more about getting re-elected than they cared about seeking justice for getting suckered into war. Is that what you think of your Democratic elected officials?

PaulS

11-26-2012, 12:51 PM

I think most of the threads that get shut down are when people return the anger and hate that you post.

Here are 2 easily found posts that shows he mislead the American public. (The one about curveball is from wikipedia)

In October of 2002, a National Security Estimate summary called a President's Summary, was written specifically for George W. Bush. In that document, Bush was told that despite the buzz that Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."

This memo, however, did not stop Bush from announcing, three months later, in the State of the Union speech, that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes in order to build a nuclear weapon. Later that year, when then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley did a review of documents, and discovered the President's Summary, Karl Rove gathered White House aides together and explained that it would look bad if the American people knew that Bush had been advised that the aluminum tubes were probably harmless.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (Arabic: رافد أحمد علوان‎, Rāfid Aḥmad Alwān; born 1968), known by the Central Intelligence Agency cryptonym "Curveball", is an Iraqi citizen who defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program.[1] Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the Iraq Survey Group's final report published in 2004.[2][3]

Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service and the British Secret Intelligence Service questioning the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory.[1][4] On November 4, 2007, 60 Minutes revealed Curveball's real identity.[5] Former CIA official Tyler Drumheller summed up Curveball as "a guy trying to get his green card essentially, in Germany, and playing the system for what it was worth."[1]

PaulS

11-26-2012, 01:01 PM

And an interview with Lawrence Wilkerson about curveball

Colin Powell was lied to and ‘manipulated’ into supporting the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

The former Secretary of State was deliberately not told that information he used to make his famous speech justifying the war was bogus, a former colleague claimed.

Instead the George W Bush White House abused his good reputation to give the push for war much-needed credibility.

The claims were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s former chief of staff, in an angry and revealing interview.

He spoke out after the main source for Powell’s report justifying the Iraq invasion which he presented to the UN Security Council in February 2003 admitted he made the whole thing up.

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, or ‘Curveball’ as he was known by the CIA, said he let his imagination run wild with claims about Saddam Hussein and that he was doing it just to overthrow the regime.

When he saw Powell relaying the fabricated information to the UN he was stunned.

Speaking to America’s NBC, Wilkerson said he did not believe that when Powell gave his speech - which came just a month before the invasion - he knew the truth.

‘I never heard a single word of doubt expressed about what we were told were four separate sources which proved the existence of mobile biological labs,’ he said.

‘What I’ve found out since makes me very angry.

An Iraqi defector, codenamed Curveball, left, says he lied about Saddam Hussein's bioweapons programme in order to encourage the United States to declare war and topple the dictator.

‘I cannot come to any other conclusion that we were flat out lied to, especially when I have discovered that no U.S. people were present when Curveball was interrogated.

‘I have some serious doubts, I think there was some manipulation of this material and some outright lying.’ Asked if the office of former Vice President #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney manipulated Powell into giving a speech, he replied: ‘Absolutely. Absolutely.’ He added that Colin Powell had the credibility that none of the others had because he was a war sceptic surrounded by hawks.

‘The were using him,’ Wilkerson said.

Powell has said that he wants to know why the doubts about Curveball were not raised before he gave his speech, which was seen as a crucial factor in persuading other countries to support the invasion.

But Wilkerson said that in the end even if Powell did know it would have made little difference.

‘Had Curveball not even existed we still would have gone to war because George W Bush and #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney were determined to do so,’ he said.

The Dad Fisherman

11-26-2012, 01:29 PM

Try not to get another thread shut down if you can, please.

I'm Pretty sure I said GentleMEN....Plural

PaulS

11-26-2012, 01:39 PM

And I dont (I'll leave that misspelled for Scott) think the Dems. are any better than the Repubs. at "politicing".

Jim in CT

11-26-2012, 06:52 PM

And I dont (I'll leave that misspelled for Scott) think the Dems. are any better than the Repubs. at "politicing".

Paul, some guy saying that things were made up, is not proof. Again. I can find guys who say Obama was born in Kenya, I can find guys who say 09/11 was an inside job.

Paul, for every report you cite saying the tubes were for conventional weapons, I can cite one that says they were likely for nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

"The C.I.A agents said the tubes were destined to become the rotors in a gas centrifuge program to create enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. The CIA agents acknowledged there was another possible use for the tubes "

"
Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke on Fox News Sunday, saying "And as we saw in reporting just this morning, he is still trying to acquire, for example, some of the specialized aluminum tubing one needs to develop centrifuges that would give you an enrichment capability"

"
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."[8] "

Again, I have zero doubt you can make a case (especially with the benefit of hindsight) that Bush was wrong. Being wrong, i snot th esame as lying. To prove Bush lied, you need to show me that he knew the tubes could not have been used for nukes, but he claimed that they were. That's lying.

And one last time, if Bush wanted to go to war so bad that he was willing to lie, why did he give Saddam dozens of chances to avoid war by complying with the UN Sanctions? It doesn't pass the common sense smell test Paul, it just doesn't. If you can take off your tin foil hat for a moment, you'll see it makes no sense whatsoever, to give Saddam literally dozens on chances to avoid war, if your desire is to launch war.

Paul, analyzing intelligence is almost always an inexact science. The fact is this...back before the invasion, very few people were denying the claims of Bush (and Bill Clinton) that Saddam had WMDs.

Paul, did Bush mislead Bill Clinton as well?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction..."...Nancy Pelosi, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on weapons of mass destruction..." Clinton SecState Madeline Albright, 1999

So Paul, how do you explain the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Maedline Albright made these statements BEFORE Bush became president? Wait, I know...Bush kidnapped them, and replaced them with exact replicas, which were actually #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney in disguise?

"he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons"...Al Gore, 2002

read the quotes in that thread...Bill Clinton, Terd Kennedy, John Kerry, Robert Byrd...all stating with no ambiguity, that they believed Saddam either had, or was developing, WMDs.

Paul, sometimes the evidence leads rational people to the wrong conclusion.

At least Bush admitted he was wrong. That's more than Obama will do regarding Benghazi, where 4 Americans died, in large part due to the administration's refusal to grant Stevens' obviously legitimate request for extra security. Rather than admit he made a mistake, Obama concocts a cockamamie fantasy abouta youtube video. God forbid Obama admit that he got caught with his pants around his ankles, when there was a ton of evidence suggesting that terrorists were increasing activity in that area. That's precisely why they are bending over backwards to convince us that it wasn't terrorists. If it wasn't a terrorist plot that Stevens was afraid of when asking for extra security, then this administration didn't put Stevens at risk by rejecting his claim.

Bush admits he was wrong when he concluded that there were no WMDs. Obama admits no culpability for the fact that on his watch, an ambassador was murdered for the first time since Carter (coincidence?) was president.

Obama can't be responsible for random, unforseeable acts of violence. In this case, everyone on the ground in Libya thought imminent terrorist activity warranted extra security. The Obama administration figured they knew better. We all know how that worked out.

scottw

11-26-2012, 09:25 PM

I'd note that much of PaulS' most recent posts are "unattributed cut and paste"....albeit..."easily found"? unattributed cut and paste..yes.....located from MOTHERJONES and in an interview with Ed Schultz on MSNBC...just sayin', great sources .....we can figure out which is from Wiki by the little numbers Paul but thanks for mentioning it:)

Lawrence Wilkerson is great...Google him...talk about hate and anger and painting a group of people with a broad brush....he went on MSNBC with Ed Schultz and stated quite vociferously that the Republican party is mostly racists...Lawrence Wilkerson: 'My Party Is Full Of Racists' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaW92c2hqNs)

made a nice commercial for Obama prior to making that statement too
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, speaking on racism in the Republican party. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=DoVm2VgLgmo&NR=1)

sounds like a bit of a hack...just my opinion...I guess if you are doing the Ed show...you are most likely a hack:uhuh:

scottw

11-26-2012, 10:00 PM

pretty good article on the original subject...

"In the real world, portraying the smart, tough, and strong-willed Susan Rice as an “easy” target would be humorous -- except for what the president was implying: If Rice’s critics were not going after her on the merits, why were they doing so?

This was the dog whistle part, and it was both heard and heeded by Obama’s supporters in the Democratic Party and the media.

“It is a shame that anytime anything goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities,” said Rep. Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Democrat recently installed as the head of the Congressional Black Caucus. “There is a clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments being made by Sen. McCain and others.”

In USA Today, the headline over a column by DeWayne Wickham proclaimed, “McCain uses Susan Rice to re-launch war on women.”

Seizing on McCain’s contention that “this administration has either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a cover-up,” South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn maintained, “These are code words.”

“This is really down in the gutter,” MSNBC’s Ed Shultz added in a show stoking the “code words” angle. Richard Wolffe, another MSNBC commentator, called it a “witch hunt” against “people of color.” When asked point-blank if McCain was driven by racial prejudice, he replied that there “is no other way to look at it.”

There is, of course, another way to look at it: Republicans believe that Susan Rice’s excellent foreign policy qualifications were undermined by her hyper-partisanship. There was even a bit of presidential sleight of hand involved in singling out Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Those two men were joined in expressing reservations by two Republican senators whose names went unmentioned by Democrats: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Susan Collins of Maine."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Print Article (http://dyn.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/23/the_problem_with_susan_rice_116236-full.html)

ecduzitgood

11-26-2012, 10:12 PM

They say when a person falls in love there is are chemical reactions within their brain that alters the thought process. That is why people stay in abusive relationships. These chemical reactions of attraction block signals that would normally give the person reason to pause. They ignore the advice of others including family and friends who can see the person as they are without chemicals altering the thoughts.
I have a feeling it works the same for hate. How else can you explain the filters people have about Bush and the war.
I have defended Bush so I guess that makes me a guy who loves Bush.

scottw

11-26-2012, 11:40 PM

this Curveball dude is pretty interesting...after locating the easily found wiki attribution I was reading about him....

apparently as late as June 26, 2006, The Washington Post reported that "the CIA acknowledged that Curveball was a con artist who drove a taxi in Iraq and spun his engineering knowledge into a fantastic but plausible tale about secret bioweapons factories on wheels."

and initially...Germany's intelligence service (BND) classified him as a "blue" source, meaning the Germans would not permit U.S. access to him (red sources were allowed American contact).[8] Later evidence indicated that he was in fact pro-American, and that the Germans were guarding their source.[9] The Germans, however, did pass on information to the American intelligence agencies and the informant was given the codename "Curveball".

The Germans listened to his claims and debriefed him starting in December 1999,[12] continuing to September 2001. Although the Americans did not have "direct access" to Curveball,[13][14] information collected by the BND debriefing team was later passed on in part to the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States.[15

the defector had shown up for medical tests with a "blistering hangover",[19] and he "might be an alcoholic".[20]

finally ...In February 2011, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi admitted for the first time that he lied about his story regarding Iraq's secret biological weapons program.[6

Curveball is still living in Germany under strong protection of the German police. Danish TV filmed Rafid on the streets and recorded clips of conversation with him, before he surreptitiously called the police and had the TV-crew banned from his neighbourhood.

so this lying, sketchy, probably alcoholic, extortionist, manipualtive to the point that some of the largest intelligence agencies can't decipher truth from fiction taxi driver who caused a major conflict pretending to be someone that he couldn't possibly have been smart enough to have been is still living under the "strong protection of the German police" and apparently on the public dole and can simply make a call to the police and have inquiring minds banned from his neighborhood as recently as 2011.....very strange, he's practically a Kennedy but with a better driving record :uhuh:

shouldn't he be in jail or something????? :confused:

spence

11-27-2012, 07:37 AM

I think Paul Pillar said he best when he remarked that the intelligence community "bent in the wind" to provide the Iraqi intel, or perhaps better said directly by the Brits, the "facts were being fit around the policy".

I've never said Bush lied about Iraq and still believe he felt he was doing what was necessary to protect the American people...that's why he wasn't impeached...Bush's failure was to surround himself by ideologues hell bent on exploiting 9/11 to execute an agenda that politics had to date prevented.

We've discussed the opinions of Congress at length, there's no need to go into great detail there, but it's safe to say that Democratic members didn't support unilateral action and were heavily influenced by a "marketing" effort to support the policy.

The problem here is that the war machine is so big once it gets going there really is no stopping it...

It's interesting that as more info about Benghazi has been revealed the primary attack dogs are backing away. Let the investigation help determine a better security policy so we can prevent another tragedy, but now that the election is over there doesn't seem to be as much need for a scandal as there was a month ago :huh:

-spence

spence

11-27-2012, 07:41 AM

and a whole bunch that you just completely skipped, should we make a list for a homework assignment for you? :)

I'm sure to miss some, I'm traveling 3 days a week until X-Mas. The Obama recovery sure has me busy :hihi:

-spence

Jim in CT

11-27-2012, 08:37 AM

it's safe to say that Democratic members didn't support unilateral action and were heavily influenced by a "marketing" effort to support the policy.

-spence

I'm curious as to why you feel that is 'safe to say', since none of the Democrats who voted for the war, were saying that, at the time. So you must have a deep, unique insight into what happened. Senators Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Diana Feinstein all voted for the war. To my knowledge, none of them claimed they were coerced, not until the war became politically popular.

When the public supported the war, those Democrats voted in favor of it. When the war became unpopular, those same folks, all of a sudden, claimed that they were never "really" in favor of the war.

Spence, if what you say is true, those senators are in gross deriliction of their duty, as they are supposed to lead. If they thought the war was wrong, they are supposed to vote that way, like Ted Kennedy did.

If what I say is true, they are a bunch of lying flip-flopers, who wuill say whatever happens to be opopular at the moment.

I think you are being very fair to Bush. As to the Democrats in the senate who voted for the war...how can you respect them, if they only voted for the war (sending kids to a horrible death) because of 'marketing pressure'? If what you say is true, how can you respect those folks? After all, there were plenty of Democrats who had sufficient conviction of their beliefs to oppose the war. Sounds to me like yuo are claiming that all of those folks I mentioned, showed a total lack of conviction and leadership.

I happen to agree with you. I'm just surprised to hear you say it.

spence

11-27-2012, 09:15 AM

I'm curious as to why you feel that is 'safe to say', since none of the Democrats who voted for the war, were saying that, at the time. So you must have a deep, unique insight into what happened. Senators Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Diana Feinstein all voted for the war. To my knowledge, none of them claimed they were coerced, not until the war became politically popular.
Well, I simply read what they actually said...not the out of context snippets virally circling the web in people's inboxes.

Everybody thought Iraq was a problem but there certainly wasn't a Dem position favoring the near unilateral action that resulted. Clinton especially made this point very clear.

Bush had to show the threat as well as immediacy. When you have the Vice President on TV claiming al Qaeda connections, Rice talking about mushroom clouds and stories about nuke development being planted in the New York Times you're going to scare a lot of people.

Remember back then a vast majority of American's though Saddam was in on 9/11.

We now have access to pretty much everything Congress had and it's the same BS intel that a bias towards war produced. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy. I'm not aware of specific people and specific lies, but when you're looking to justify something it's a lot easier to lean a little one way vs the other.

Congress as well voted before the UN resolution which Bush abandoned after it was looking like the inspections wouldn't turn up sufficient evidence.

If anything, the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council.

Lie? Not so much...

-spence

Jim in CT

11-27-2012, 09:51 AM

Well, I simply read what they actually said...not the out of context snippets virally circling the web in people's inboxes.

Everybody thought Iraq was a problem but there certainly wasn't a Dem position favoring the near unilateral action that resulted. Clinton especially made this point very clear.

Bush had to show the threat as well as immediacy. When you have the Vice President on TV claiming al Qaeda connections, Rice talking about mushroom clouds and stories about nuke development being planted in the New York Times you're going to scare a lot of people.

Remember back then a vast majority of American's though Saddam was in on 9/11.

We now have access to pretty much everything Congress had and it's the same BS intel that a bias towards war produced. The facts were indeed being fit around the policy. I'm not aware of specific people and specific lies, but when you're looking to justify something it's a lot easier to lean a little one way vs the other.

Congress as well voted before the UN resolution which Bush abandoned after it was looking like the inspections wouldn't turn up sufficient evidence.

If anything, the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council.

Lie? Not so much...

-spence

"the position of prominent Dems like Clinton or Kerry is in alignment with the UN Security Council."

When the public supported Bush, I didn't hear those senators speaking out against the war. When public opinion turned against the war - BINGO - all of a sudden, those folks never really supoprted the war, rather they were duped by Bush's lies. What a coincidence!

Maybe those folks didn't like the near-unilateral approach. Neither did Bush. That's why Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN.

Bush admits he was wrong. Most of the Democrats who voted for the war will never admit that...rather, they were misled by Bush's lies.

Again, I feel you're being 100% fair to Bush. I just think you're bending over backwards to paint the Democrats who supported the war, in a favorable light.

I can't say it any simpler than this...those Democrats I mentioned supported the war when it was popular. When public opinion turned against the war, all of a sudden those Senators changed their tune. Either the timing is a coincidence, or they are being less than honest about not originally supporting the war.

Spence, you keep harping on the fact that they didn't like the near-unilateral way we did it. Maybe they didn't like it, but they voted for it. And two of them (Biden and Hilary) got significant promotions after that, while Bush is demonized. Seems a wee bit inconsistent. Bush was president, and the responsibility lies with him, so he deserves much criticism. But if the war was fundamentally immoral (as many liberals claim), I don't see why the senators who authorized it, get a pass.

I don't think we're that far apart on this one.

scottw

11-27-2012, 03:34 PM

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971587

I don't think we're that far apart on this one.[/QUOTE]

there's harmony in the foxhole !!!!!! :love:

The Dad Fisherman

11-27-2012, 03:41 PM

http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hell-freezes-over-350.jpg

Jim in CT

11-27-2012, 09:41 PM

http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hell-freezes-over-350.jpg

TDF and Scott, no surprise that I think Spence is incredibly wrong on just about everything, and I'm sure he feels the same. But Spence was fair (and not towing the liberal line) in his words about Bush. I give credit to him for not simply towing his party's line, I respect anyone who can demonstrate the ability to think for himself.

I have my opinions, obviously. But I'm fair-minded and consistent. I also likely agree with him on gay marriage and gun control. I'm not a parrot for the right-wing fringe.

PaulS

11-28-2012, 08:14 AM

TDF and Scott, no surprise that I think Spence is incredibly wrong on just about everything, and I'm sure he feels the same. But Spence was fair (and not towing the liberal line) in his words about Bush. I give credit to him for not simply towing his party's line, I respect anyone who can demonstrate the ability to think for himself.

I have my opinions, obviously. But I'm fair-minded and consistent. I also likely agree with him on gay marriage and gun control. I'm not a parrot for the right-wing fringe.

You make me laugh.

spence

11-28-2012, 08:23 AM

When the public supported Bush, I didn't hear those senators speaking out against the war. When public opinion turned against the war - BINGO - all of a sudden, those folks never really supoprted the war, rather they were duped by Bush's lies. What a coincidence!
Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.

Maybe those folks didn't like the near-unilateral approach. Neither did Bush. That's why Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN.
I don't believe many in Bush's inner circle wanted to involve the UN as it would have been an impediment to removing Saddam. They had to know the case against him wasn't as good as they were making it out to be...even President Bush was reported as remarking (in Woodward's book) "that's all we've got?".

Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization.

Bush admits he was wrong. Most of the Democrats who voted for the war will never admit that...rather, they were misled by Bush's lies.
From what I've read many have said given what they know now they wouldn't have voted for the authorization. This is a pretty rational position.

Again, I feel you're being 100% fair to Bush. I just think you're bending over backwards to paint the Democrats who supported the war, in a favorable light.
I think many have deep regret that they didn't push harder. Hindsight is a bitch...

I can't say it any simpler than this...those Democrats I mentioned supported the war when it was popular. When public opinion turned against the war, all of a sudden those Senators changed their tune. Either the timing is a coincidence, or they are being less than honest about not originally supporting the war.
Then you could say the same thing about the entire country. America was overwhelmingly behind the war when we believed the Administration's case and support eroded when it became clear that we were pushed into it.

Spence, you keep harping on the fact that they didn't like the near-unilateral way we did it. Maybe they didn't like it, but they voted for it. And two of them (Biden and Hilary) got significant promotions after that, while Bush is demonized. Seems a wee bit inconsistent. Bush was president, and the responsibility lies with him, so he deserves much criticism. But if the war was fundamentally immoral (as many liberals claim), I don't see why the senators who authorized it, get a pass.

If anything was immoral it was the hawks in the Administration vigorously trying to find a way to justify war rather than vigorously trying to work to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

There's a big difference between Moveon.org and Senators Clinton and Kerry. You can't lump them all together.

-spence

ecduzitgood

11-28-2012, 08:35 AM

I don't believe Bush lied. Please convince me.
How many resolutions did Saddam break before we took action? How many places did the inspectors get barred from inspecting?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

•Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

•Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

•Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

•Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

•Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

•Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

•Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

•Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

•Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

•Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

•Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

•Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

•Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

•Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

•Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

•"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

•Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

•Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

•"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

•"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

•Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

•Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

•Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

•Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

•Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

•Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

•"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

•Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

•Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

•Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

•"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

•"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

•Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

•"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

•Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

•"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

•Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

•"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

•Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

•"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

•Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

•Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

•Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

•Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

•Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination

Jim in CT

11-28-2012, 09:47 AM

Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.

I don't believe many in Bush's inner circle wanted to involve the UN as it would have been an impediment to removing Saddam. They had to know the case against him wasn't as good as they were making it out to be...even President Bush was reported as remarking (in Woodward's book) "that's all we've got?".

Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization.

From what I've read many have said given what they know now they wouldn't have voted for the authorization. This is a pretty rational position.

I think many have deep regret that they didn't push harder. Hindsight is a bitch...

Then you could say the same thing about the entire country. America was overwhelmingly behind the war when we believed the Administration's case and support eroded when it became clear that we were pushed into it.

If anything was immoral it was the hawks in the Administration vigorously trying to find a way to justify war rather than vigorously trying to work to avoid it unless absolutely necessary.

There's a big difference between Moveon.org and Senators Clinton and Kerry. You can't lump them all together.

-spence

"Or you could say they were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis. "

You can say that if you wish. But it's not what they said at the time. What they said at the time was, Saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped. In this same thread, I supplied quotes from those very same Democrats. Read them. But I must warn you, you won't like it.

Spence, if you have to ignore the actual facts and invent your own, doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is something flawed about what you believe?

"Powell was sent to the UN to get support for the Congressional authorization."

Spence, are you feeling all right today? If Powell was seeking COngressional approval, why didn't he simply address Congress? Why go all the way to New York, instead of walking across the street to the Capital Building? Who did Powell address at the UN - Congress?

Iraq was not a unilateral situation, by the way. I worked with soldiers from many different countries.

Jim in CT

11-28-2012, 10:08 AM

Or you could say they (Democrats) were giving the President the benefit of doubt in a time of national crisis.

-spence

Spence, this, right here, is a pivotal moment for you.

In the above statement, you are saying that prominent Democrats didn't genuinely believe that Saddam had WMDs. but rather, they were just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (as if they did that all the time, but we'll save that for another day).

Here is what those prominent Democrats actually said. you tell me if what they are saying is that they are just giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, of if they really believe what they are saying...

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

"We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program" - Bill Clinton, 1998

"respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's WMD program" - Senator John Kerry, 1998 (before Bush was president)

"Saddam has been engaged in the development of WMDs..." - Nancy Pelosi, 1998 (before Bush was Presisdent)

"there is no doubt that Saddam has reinvigorated his weapons programs" - Sen Bob Graham, D-FL, 2001

"Saddam...is building WMDs and the means of delivering them..." - Sen Carl Levin, D-MI, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons..." - Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam is seeking and developing WMDs" - Ted Kennedy, 2002

"we are confident that Saddam retains some stockpiles of chemical and bioogical weapons..." - Sen Robert Byrd, 2002

"there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons..." Sen Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, 2002

"it is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam will continue to increase his capacity of biological and chemical weapons" - Hilary Clinton, 2002

and finally...

"we are in posession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam has a developing capacity for the production of WMDs...the threat of Saddam Hussein with WMDs is real" - John Kerry, 2003

OK Spence, you tell me. Does it sound to you like these prominent Democrats were merely giving Bush the benefit of the doubt (unusual, since some of those quotes are from before Bush was elected). Or, does it sound to you, like it sounds to everyone else here, that these folks are personally convinced that there was a threat?

Your response will be a defining moment for you. I'm rooting for you to put down the Kool Aid, and simply admit that these Democrats believed at the time, that Saddam had (or was pursuing) WMDs.

spence

11-28-2012, 11:09 AM

Jim in CT

11-28-2012, 01:00 PM

Jim, nobody doubts Saddam at one time had WMD. Nobody doubts that Saddam wanted to have WMD.

But that's not to say that that thought if he did have it it was such a threat to justify war.

On that they certainly gave Bush the benefit of doubt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) Those Dems voted in favor of war. Therefore, how can I possibly be mistaken to assume that they thought the threat was serious enough to justify war?

(2) did you read any of the quotes in the link? Here are some relevent ones...

"if we have to use force, our purpose is clear...we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program"- Bill Clinton

"we urge you to take necessary actions...including air and missile strikes...to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD program"- letter signed by John Kerry

"I will be voting to give the President the authority to use force to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands are a real and grave threat to our security".- John Kerry

OK, Spence. You're still going to say that the Dems didn't really feel that the use of force was justified, that they were just giving in to Bush's demands? That's what you infer from those quotes?

Come on, Spence.

ecduzitgood

11-28-2012, 01:06 PM

(1) Those Dems voted in favor of war. Therefore, how can I possibly be mistaken to assume that they thought the threat was serious enough to justify war?

(2) did you read any of the quotes in the link? Here are some relevent ones...

"if we have to use force, our purpose is clear...we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's WMD program"- Bill Clinton

"we urge you to take necessary actions...including air and missile strikes...to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD program"- letter signed by John Kerry

"I will be voting to give the President the authority to use force to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMDs in his hands are a real and grave threat to our security".- John Kerry

OK, Spence. You're still going to say that the Dems didn't really feel that the use of force was justified, that they were just giving in to Bush's demands? That's what you infer from those quotes?

Come on, Spence.

The effects of loving a party more than a country.

spence

11-28-2012, 03:10 PM

You can say that if you wish. But it's not what they said at the time. What they said at the time was, Saddam has WMDs and needs to be stopped. In this same thread, I supplied quotes from those very same Democrats. Read them. But I must warn you, you won't like it.
I've read all of them and provided valuable context years ago, use the search button.

So many quotes attributed to Dems are from 1998 when we were talking about airstrikes. The post 9/11 quotes are based off of the same misinformation campaign presented to the public to justify the actions. Many of them when you read the full transcript are also taken out of context.

Use the search button.

Spence, if you have to ignore the actual facts and invent your own, doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is something flawed about what you believe?
Actually, I think my read on the situation is pretty nuts on.

Spence, are you feeling all right today? If Powell was seeking COngressional approval, why didn't he simply address Congress? Why go all the way to New York, instead of walking across the street to the Capital Building? Who did Powell address at the UN - Congress?

No, it's called getting votes, this is how Congress works. You placate members of Congress who may be on the fence by telling them we're going to the UN and get a resolution, we're going to do this right etc...

Iraq was not a unilateral situation, by the way. I worked with soldiers from many different countries.
I said nearly unilateral. The first Gulf war had a real coalition. The second was primarily a collaboration between the US and the UK who knew we didn't have a solid story. There were some other troops involved if I recally not substantial endorsements as they didn't have the public support.

ecduzitgood

11-28-2012, 03:32 PM

Spence "The UK knew we didn't have a solid story" where did this come from?
You mention going to the UN for resolutions, well how many should Saddam have violated before action was taken if 16 weren't enough?

scottw

11-29-2012, 07:13 AM

I just watched a Nov 26th clip from Morning Joe with Joe Klein who was on to provide the administration's talking points on Bengazi....it ends with an incredulous Joe Scarborough asking..."has the President invited you to play golf, because you are just gobbling up the talking points like a Thanksgiving Turkey"...what is sad is that they seem to find this all amusing...Spence's characterization that this is simply a contrived political attack by enemies(political) of Obama is not only inaccurate but completely dismissive of very serious issues not to mention the shameful way that anyone who has asks the questions has been characterized.... but that is the world that we live in currently....and for the next 4 years....

Time Magazine's Joe Klein Claims Susan Rice's Benghazi Talking Points 'Were Absolutely Accurate' | MRCTV (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/time-magazines-joe-klein-claims-susan-rices-benghazi-talking-points-were-absolutely-accurate)

I watched the 27th as well where Scarborough asks aloud if Kelin was "on something" the day previous :uhuh:

Spence, you've more than earned a round of golf with the Prez. :)

Ecdu...you are just asking for more gobbling....

scottw

11-29-2012, 07:42 AM

anyone paying attention to Egypt?..the guy that we graciously helped raise his stature over there in negotiating a cease fire because he apparently speaks terrorist, has just assumed dictatorial powers(which I don't think the Administration has condemned to date) ...good thing that Muslim Brotherhood is "moderate".....Hamas is being rearmed by Iran and I guess Israel is just waiting for the next attack....very "productive" :uhuh:

hey, this is a lot like the fiscal cliff negotiations, the Pres. and Sente assume more power, more money gets dumped on the problem and the Republicans sit around waiting for the next attack...nothing gets solved :) you just delay the inevitable...which will be really ugly:uhuh:

here's a question regarding Rice and Bengazi...noone seems to be sure why she was chosen to deliver the administration talking points on Bengazi as it's claimed she had little knowledge beyond what was written for her...is it possible that she was chosen specifically because she is black and a woman and any criticism could be easily dismissed as racist and sexist attacks?...as was and is being done....

Jim in CT

11-29-2012, 11:34 AM

here's a question regarding Rice and Bengazi...noone seems to be sure why she was chosen to deliver the administration talking points on Bengazi as it's claimed she had little knowledge beyond what was written for her...is it possible that she was chosen specifically because she is black and a woman and any criticism could be easily dismissed as racist and sexist attacks?...as was and is being done....

That's my thinking too. Going on the Sunday morning talk shows and spreading cockamamie about an attack, is not something the ambassador to the UN usually does. So either it was to give the administration a reason to use the race card against anyone who dares to ask a question, or she is the only one who was willing to say it was because of the video, which everyone knew was false by that time.

It's very unlikely she'll be the next SecState. Even moderate Lindsay Graham (who voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor) sald after meeting with Rice, he was more disturbed than before he met her. And he's not anyone's idea of a right-wing attack dog.

scottw

11-30-2012, 07:47 AM

great article on Rice this morning in the WSJ...

Bayefsky and Mukasey: The Susan Rice Troubles Beyond Benghazi - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324469304578145881558310020.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)

points out that the president demanded of his and Rice's critics , U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts."

but of course, he has a much lower standard for his supporters and appointees which is disturbingly common for this president on most issues...like...civility.....:uhuh:

"The president has said that Ms. Rice should not be criticized because she "had nothing to do with Benghazi" and so couldn't have known better when she gave her false account. According to Mr. Obama (and to her), she simply repeated talking points provided by an amorphous and anonymous "intelligence community."

But Ms. Rice did know at least a couple of things. She knew that she had nothing to do with Benghazi. She knew that after the attack the president insisted that U.S. leaders not "shoot first and aim later" but rather "make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts." She knew that the video story line was questionable, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and administration officials had already suggested publicly that the attack was al Qaeda-related. And she knew that the president had a political interest in asserting that al Qaeda wasn't successfully attacking senior American officials but was instead "on the run," as he maintained on the campaign trail.

Senators might therefore ask Ms. Rice why she was put forward to speak about Benghazi, and what part her personal ambition might have played in her willingness to assume the role known during the Cold War as "useful idiot." "