Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Honey, all hell was breaking loose here a little while ago.

I am so mad that I missed it...but Alias was on, so...

[dissention]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
I agree with Strand in that GW had more than enough reason, irregardless of the WMD argument, to take Iraq to task. You cannot let bullies run rampant, and in my opinion, that is exactly what SH was doing.

We're running rampant, though.

The fact is that one country does not and should not have the power to act however they want and exert military strenght on any country it chooses. We were wrong to invade Iraq and we're still wrong today.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
If you are talking about stretching the truth - I think it is wrong to mislead people - but I think that there were more than enough other reasons to take SH to task (as posted above) - so I still think it was the right thing to do.

Tell that to the other dozen police states on this globe. What made iraq the one that needed help??? It makes no sense. Was it the violence endured under Saddam? No. Was it because invading Iraq could greatly benefit us? Maybe...

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
What I agreed with(Jason's post) is that Bush didn't overstate the reasons for going to war per se himself, he was using intelligence given to him much in the same way Clinton did when he carried out bombing raids etc on Iraq. I never said the truth was being stretched, I said that saying Bush was telling a flat out lie was inaccurate.


Joe

Do you HONESTLY believe that he didn't know the intelligence was fake????

My sympathies.

[jwd]

dissention:
You obviously never watched the show, pal, and you most certainly never watched his show on HBO. The show is about political incorrectness, which in itself is part of the "liberal agenda." It was a dig at a liberal cause. Also, Maher ALWAYS had conservatives on his program who were then challenged by liberal guests about certain areas of politics. He has Ann Coulter on quite frequently, Dennis Miller, many Republican reps and congressmen, former Republican cabinet members, etc. It would have been a pretty dull show if all of the guests agreed with him because they loved to spread the "liberal propaganda."

Well actually yes I used to watch the show on ABC. He had conservatives on just like O'Reilly has liberals on. Difference was it that it was always three to one liberals to conservatives. Yea that's balanced! I think he paid his audience to clap every time a liberal idea was proposed. What bull!!


Joe

[jwd]

dissention:
Do you HONESTLY believe that he didn't know the intelligence was fake????

My sympathies.

Do YOU honestly believe he knew the intelligence was fake? My sympathies likewise.


Joe

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
Tell that to the other dozen police states on this globe. What made iraq the one that needed help??? It makes no sense. Was it the violence endured under Saddam? No. Was it because invading Iraq could greatly benefit us? Maybe...

Tell me about it. After reading some of Alex's posts, I'm pissed that we didn't "liberate" Cuba. No oil there though.

Irony.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Do YOU honestly believe he knew the intelligence was fake? My sympathies likewise.


Joe

In a word, yes. Especially the uranium intelligence. No sympathy. I base this belief on two things. First, Ambassador Joe Wilson went to Niger at the request of the CIA to check out the intelligence. It turned out to be false. When Wilson heard that the administration was going to use the intelligence anyway, he again let the administration know it was false. Stunned that they planned to use it anyway as part of the case for war in Iraq, Wilson went public with his account. He then received a phone call from neocon lapdog jounalist Ralph Novak, who let him know that his wife was "fair game." Novak then published the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover agent with the CIA for many years, thereby endangering her life, as well as the life of anyone she ever came into contact with. Whoever leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Novak is guilty of a felony.
The second is the new intelligence coming from Paul O'Neill's book and other sources that the Iraqi invasion was being planned within days of Bush taking the oath of office, with the administration grasping at any seemingly relevant intelligence they could get their hands on to sell the war to the American public.

[estranged4life]

Thank the Almighty for my Neutral/Sometimes Moderate/and always Independent political views (I don't vote for straight Independent in elections but for WHO I think is best qualified/suited for the job at hand.)

Just think my poor Moderate Democrat wife has to contend with my views on a daily basis...Tsk, tsk, tsk

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index...rrorreport.inc

New Army war college report blasts Bush on war on terrorism
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by visiting professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point." It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaida terrorist network.

"(T)he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly ... its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."


Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to former senator Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, that he published work critical of the Clinton administration.

His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and don't necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon, or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the director of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al-Qaida. But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.

In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars ... because their strategic ends outran their available means."

He scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "(T)he potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."

The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly non-controversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marines Corps, a position that appears to be gathering support in Congress. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
He lied under oath and Bush violated the laws of the Geneva Convention. Which, I ask you, is more disturbing???

Obstruction is just wrong - period. If you do not agree, then how can you fault W for doing the same (as you assert) in the DUI matter.

Also, here is the website for the laws of the Geneva convention relating to POW's. I suggest W has broken no laws with respect to AQ or in any other way in that AQ is not a country.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
He didn't until a few months ago, doll. I'm still waiting for his apology to the American people.

Wrong. He has lambasted W for being a free and big spender pretty much since the first few months of this administration.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
We're running rampant, though.

The fact is that one country does not and should not have the power to act however they want and exert military strenght on any country it chooses. We were wrong to invade Iraq and we're still wrong today.

IT was not one country - it was several!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Obstruction is just wrong - period. If you do not agree, then how can you fault W for doing the same (as you assert) in the DUI matter.

Also, here is the website for the laws of the Geneva convention relating to POW's. I suggest W has broken no laws with respect to AQ or in any other way in that AQ is not a country.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Hey, I never said obstruction was right; don't put words in my mouth. You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors.

The fact is that it is illegal to invade another country, seize their assets, and then sell them off to whoever we want. It is illegal.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
IT was not one country - it was several!!!

Oh yeah, I forgot, we had the support of so many countries. And by golly, look at all the support we have now!!!