Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macsrus, Aug 27, 2004.
Yes, "miscalculations" and "faulty intelligence." All Republican-speak for "lies."
switching iTunes to:
The Hives - Hate to Say I Told You So
Double speak, W gives honest response, and now it is something about lies?
As the congressional investigations showed, this is from decades of Intelligence failures, Including the CIA under george tenant, who recently resigned and was orignally a clinton nominee.
Speaking of lies,
....and the US election mud wrestling continues from both sides
that could be taken two ways...when i first saw it i thought you meant slingsnarrows were liars...
round 1 of 8,000 gigabutts of rounds!
I believe in the process, and the veting of ideas and facts, I believe we are all stronger for it.
I don't believe that I will, or anyone here will change someone else Ideology.
But it looks as though it will get entertaining though.
sorry, my brevity needs work, I meant to refer to lies and misdirection from the two johns.
from the article:
does that strike anyone else as a low-ball estimate?
from this ABC news piece:
So where does the buck stop? Ask yourselves if you would have given Clinton a pass had he invaded a country on faulty intelligence and miscalculation. Would you have accused him of wagging the dog? Oh wait many people did!
Who takes responsibility for the faulty intelligence? Is Tenet the only one? How about the Office of Special Plans? Anyone from there share some blame too? How about those who blindly listened to Achmed Chalabi without bothering to check any of the details of what he was saying? You may want to blame Clinton for this, or say that Bush shouldn't be blamed because Clinton and other democrats said they believed there were WMD in Iraq too, but Clinton was never positive enough about those weapons to order an invasion. Bush was. That's the difference. Bush bears the responsibility for that decision. He bears responsibility for appointing those who advise him, even Tenet. He had the chance to replace Tenet and he decided he trusted him enought to keep. Therefore Tenet became a Bush appointee.
I thought the conservative mantra was all about personal responsibility? You required it of Clinton. So why don't you require it from Bush?
Could it be because you want to win so bad you just don't care?
Bush and congress voted to invade after 911, Your logic is good, I believe clinton would have gone in with the same intel. after 911
Clinton would probably have made sure he took a proper alliance with him.
please define proper alliance
The product of a meaningful consensus of major states representing the UN. Not a rag-tag "coalition" of 38 Pacific atolls. Plus the UK.
bush "voted?" interesting take on our structure of gov't. and please point me to the congressional vote to invade.
It is possible that your first quote included Americans only and the second quote from abc included all casualties not just the "service men" that the first quote had limited itself to.
FYI refer to post #9
Not accurate. Congress voted to give the President the authority to make the decision about whether to invade and when and how. He made poor decisions on nearly on every level and the blame cannot be placed on anyone else no matter how hard he or you tries.
Like he did in Bosnia?....
I hate to say it..... But I agree with you on this one...
The reason Clinton got accused of "WAGGING THE DOG" is because he fired a couple cruise missles at 2 unlikely targets one of which a supposed chemical weapon facility... That turned out to be a Pharmaceutical company... During the height of his personal problems...
As to the rest of your post, I can see some logic in it...
Why must there always be some kind of partisan comparison?
Well Clinton would've...
Well Clinton did this which led to...
What kind of world do we live in where individuals not only shirk responsibility for their own errors by blaming others, but also go out of their way to help some Politician they have never met, do the same...
It should be obvious to everyone that mistakes have obviously been made. Some believe those began w/ the invasion of Iraq, others in various elements of it's execution and post-war occupation. Despite these disagreements, there have been mistakes.
The fact that Bush admitted such, is not something to be lauded, but something that should be expected...perhaps a while ago. Mistakes happened, and the American (and world) populace was aware of this fact, w/o Bush and Co. explicitly stating such...and imo, it is an error of leadership to not acknowledge this fact and come clean with your public acknowledging a basic fact.
There is also, of course, the issue of responsibility for mistakes that have happened...It is my opinion that Bush should take responsibility for these and accept the consequences...that is true leadership and the responsibility of the Office of President (imo). I, like many people, understand that errors happen, and would respect Bush more if he took responsibility for the errors under his watch, and probably forgive many of them.
There are a handful of errors of a more serious nature...which demand decisive action (by a leader)...I would fire Rumsfeld (as was w/ Tenet) for starters...
I mean, many people probably think I hate Bush because I am a Liberal...well, that is not always the case...I have my conservative leanings...I vote and respect Integrity...McCain (imo) has it, and I would vote for him over many a Democratic contender.
I dislike Bush not because of his politics, but because of his character...basically he is an a**hole. Duplicitous, deceitful, dishonest and lazy...the fact that he seems a basically affable and likeable guy does not matter when you are effectively shot in the back...
To take ownership of things...the good and the bad, those messes of your making and those of others is good leadership...to actually deal with things instead of wasting energy pointing fingers...it is also good character. Bush, imo has neither, so this tepid admission of the obvious only reinforces such and is why I will not be voting for him come November...
(BTW, if anyone decides to bring up (a) Kerry (b) Clinton (c) anyone else as an argument to what I have said...well F*** you!...this has nothing to do with any of them...they are not the President of the United States now...I am bloody fed up with character assasination and distortion by meaningless comparisons...)
I find it alarming that Bush comes to so many conclusions that the UN / Congress / the general public disagrees with. I know that a president isn't always going to make popular decisions, but when you have a bunch of people telling you "no," and you go off and do something anyway, that's just bad.
Or is it just plain arrogance.
These are the words I'd like to hear from a spokespersons lips.
"We screwed up."
There. That's it. That's all I need to be satisfied.