Bush Busted On Pre-scripted Battle Banter (Video)

[Crazy Cooter]

I've taken my Bush-bashing offsite (at least for now):
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I've seen this earlier...gives me great pleasure. I feel like a Saudi Prince!!   


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

I've taken my Bush-bashing offsite (at least for now):
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

Maybe it's the mocho-American attitude I have, but I prefer this Flash file when it had the chick in a bikini.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That one made me feel misogynistic. This one is way more appropriate.


mrC

[JackTucky]

If "this" equals:
- Sent our country to war with Iraq using faulty intelligence, leading to the needless deaths of almost 2000 American soldiers.
- Refused to acknowledge real intelligence leading up to 9/11.
mrC

Care to tell us what your FOR?  We know your against Bush.  Problem is, he won.  TRY and deal.  Please.  Sometimes your funny. I like the funny c more.  But since I don't care for the political C at all, that's not really that much.
 

Art

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Care to tell us what your FOR?

Well, duh?  I'm FOR being AGAINST Bush. Maybe I haven't made it obvious enough. I will try harder.   



mrC

[Sephroth57]

your moms nabbanter

[JackTucky]

Well, duh?  I'm FOR being AGAINST Bush. Maybe I haven't made it obvious enough. I will try harder.   
mrC

Oh, I get it now.

I'm FOR not listening to C being for being against Bush.

Art

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm FOR not listening to C being for being against Bush.

Seriously, in all honesty, you just don't want to hear anything disparaging about Bush, most likely because you can't defend his actions. I just don't get this mentality.

This thread, in particular, exposes an aspect of his administrations behavior that should roundly be considered deplorable. There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant. Scripting an event and using American armed service-people as props is wrong, whether it'd be a Democrat or Republican in charge.

Furthermore, I am FOR a lot of things:

- Catching Osama Bin Laden
- Continued operations and reconstruction in Afghanistan
- Pursuit of Al-Qaeda
- U.S. Troops leaving Iraq
- Following the 'Powell Doctrine' for foreign affairs
- Outright condemnation of 'Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive war
- Ending the Global War on Terror as we know it
- Beginning a Global War on Poverty
- Multilateral talks w/ North Korea
- More concentrated multi-lateral effort on a Israeli/Palestinian solution
- Tougher diplomacy with the Saudis
- Giving the reconstruction contracts to local Iraqi firms
- Investigation of no-bid contracts for Halliburton
- Repealing the Patriot Act
- Renewed debate on a re-tooled plan to take it's place
- Medal of Freedom for Bunny Greenhouse
- Reneging the Medal of Freedom for George Tenet and Paul Bremmer
- Transparent voting systems, with auditable paper trails
- Revisiting McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws
- Truly open-ended presidential debates
- Stricter libel/slander laws
- Encouragement of Independent media
- De-corporatization of current media establishment
- Broader Anti-Trust laws
- Enforcing the Geneva Conventions
- Ending corporate welfare
- Universal healthcare
- Higher minimum wage
- Repealing the Bankruptcy law
- More funding for education
- Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
- Protecting and improving Social Security, without privatization
- Closing loopholes for offshoring
- Adding incentives for corporations who stay in country
- Banning tax-havens for the wealthy
- Securing our ports and borders
- Protecting a women's right to choose
- Abortion prevention through proper sex education
- Death penalty
- Stem cell research
- Aids prevention / research funding
- Legalizing prostitution and marijuana
- Strict seperation of Church and State
- Removal of tax exemption status for politically active churches
- Discouragement of Nuclear proliferation
- Funding and researching for securing errant Russian nuclear materials
- Energy conservation
- Global Warming research
- American participation in Kyoto Protocol
- Funding for alternative fuel research, subsidized by oil industry, etc.
- Tougher environmental protections
- Higher penalties for corporate environmental violators
- Accountability in Government
- Bi-cameral representation
- Protection of the filibuster
- Protection of the 60-vote majority threshold
- Line-item veto power at the executive level

Some of these things I have clear ideas on how to implement, others I'm still researching and debating. All of these, however, are (pretty much) being completely ignored by the current administration. Every single one.

Which is why I'm against Bush. He's anathema to every single thing I believe in. Every day he's in office, he does more damage to my interests than any amount of positive effort I could counter with. Never has there been a more destructive character in charge of the gov't than George W. Bush. He makes his father look like the second coming of Jesus Christ. Eroding his support is an absolute necessity in order to then push positive changes through. Nothing will happen while the Republicans control the congressional and executive branches of government.

As his supporters are helped to understand the failure of Conservatism in modern America, so shall other, more practical solutions arise.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

blah blah blah blah...
are you still reading this?
...blah blah blah

The longer your posts are, the less you actually say.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The longer your posts are, the less you actually say.

It's not my fault you're retarded. Blame the doctor that dropped you.

Oh btw, thanks for proving that Bush's victory in the 2004 election was illegitimate, with your earlier post. Because if I follow your "logic" regarding one's enthusiasm for their candidate and said candidates propensity for losing, then it only follows that - given the huge discrepancy in the exit polls for the Ohio vote, the state that swung the election - Bush actually lost and the exit polls were right. Since, the ONLY explanation that has been given for the disparity in the numbers was that Republican voters were less enthusiastic about reporting their vote for Bush and Dems are MORE enthusiastic.

By your logic, that's a lie and Bush stole the vote. I love it when you try to make an argument, at best, you always end up shooting yourself in the foot.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

It's not my fault you're retarded. Blame the doctor that dropped you.

Nice.

[DrewKaree]

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy   I can't WAIT to read the rationalization on THIS point!

Perhaps people would take your points seriously if you weren't guilty of what you charge others of, and your myopic desires prevent you from seeing the truth of that, even when pointed out by people who agree with you. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy   I can't WAIT to read the rationalization on THIS point!

I want to hear you defend the use of troops as political props - for the continued promotion of a war based on false premises and faulty intelligence - first. You know, your smug attitude does nothing to diminish my point. Apparently you're OK with mindlessly swallowing propaganda, let me hear WHY your ok with it?

You keep asking me to defend myself to you, yet, why should I, when you haven't even stated your position.

EDIT: Furthermore, did you even WATCH the video?



mrC

[DrewKaree]

I want to hear you defend the use of troops as political props - for the continued promotion of a war based on false premises and faulty intelligence - first.

First, false premises and faulty intelligence don't belong in the same sentence for your constant harpings.  Either you wish to stick with "BUSH LIED!" or you wish to admit EVERYONE IN THE WORLD had faulty intelligence, including your hero. 

Second, you continue to throw out these little bombs - false premises, criminal act, lies - and speak as if everyone in the world believes exactly as you do, when they DON'T.  You'll naturally point to whatever poll you can pull out of your ass to defend what you see as agreeing with your position, but the reality is that logical and rational people have no reason to believe Bush lied when speaking of what you view as his ONLY reason for going to war.  People (again, logical and rational - hate to have to qualify it, but I know it's necessary with you) aren't so insipidly stupid as to cast aside the fact that NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS THAT AREN'T CALLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have had the same intelligence or believed the exact same thing the U.S. intel spoke of.

Third, your continued refusal to grasp the intel concept go hand in hand with what I said about your high-minded claim of "integrity, intellect, and relevance".  You're simply yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater at every chance you get. 

I've laid out how I feel about ALL of these photo-ops, you somehow got your panties up in a wad before stating that I was right in my assessment of them, and I'm supposed to explain my feelings on THIS photo-op in some way that will address how YOU view it to be?  You're playing stupid on purpose, because you and I both know I don't see your initial assessment of the situation the same, therefore I COULD NEVER SE YOUR SECOND ASSESSMENT THE SAME EITHER.  There won't BE an answer for your questions, because your questions are wrong to begin with.

You're asking me to explain to you why 1+1 DOESN'T equal 5 because you feel like I'VE been lied to.  It simply makes no sense.

My comment about your claim of a criminal act is in direct relation to the charges you level against another here, and are specific to the words you said.  You have no point to diminish in my eyes, because you have NO POINT!  You started with a flawed premise and ran with it.  I've laid out my feelings on photo-ops, you agree, yet (again, this has to do with the "integrity and intellectual hard work" you claim to champion) you call it mindlessly swallowing propaganda and state that I'm ok with it.  I guess since you agreed with me earlier, we both mindlessly swallow propaganda and are ok with it.  I'm just honest enough to call it ALL propaganda, whereas to you, only the stuff you disagree with is propaganda I guess, right?

See, your dumbass argument works both ways

You keep asking me to defend myself to you, yet, why should I, when you haven't even stated your position.

How thick or lazy are you?  I've stated it.  Did you look?  In case you missed it, I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS A PHOTO-OP - STAGED OR NOT - AND WILL CONTINUE NOT TO CARE ABOUT BLATANT PHOTO-OPS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF TIME, AD INFINITUM.....PLUS 1!

I DON'T CARE!  That's my position on it.  I've stated it before in this very thread, and I just re-stated it since you were just "testing the waters of intellectual laziness".  I keep asking you to defend your inane statements regarding your views of others when your very words demonstrate you to be guilty of the EXACT SAME THING!  Try to pay attention.  I didn't ask you to defend your position, I asked you to defend yourself from the charges you leveled against yourself without knowing it.

I'd rather watch the butt-zit video than watch the tired caterwauling you provide us with one more time.  Yes, I watched it.  Please tell me that somehow you are able to figure out after re-reading my opinion on the situation again (it's a few paragraphs up above, in case you can't be bothered again) that your video isn't going to make one whit of difference.  You can't be THAT dense that you believe you've got "the smoking gun" that'll make me see your beliefs aren't the Grand Canyon leap of faith I've already said above that I think they are. 

I'm not even arguing your ridiculous point of whether this was staged or not.  I could care less if there's evidence that proves you so wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt that you should be sentenced to death for lying so blatantly....or not.  Pay attention to what's going on.  The argument you have envisioned in your mind isn't what's going on here.

[DrewKaree]

So again....I'll remove my snide banter (can't remove the rolling of the eyes, that's simply asking too much) and I'll phrase it in the form of a question, Alex:

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Either you wish to stick with "BUSH LIED!" or you wish to admit EVERYONE IN THE WORLD had faulty intelligence, including your hero.

Not a reasonable supposition, Drew.

Anyhow, I have a feeling we're going to find out soon enough how that 'intelligence' came to be. The Plame case seems to have broadened into an investigation of the Niger forgeries and the stovepiping of intel through Cheney's office. But we'll have to wait and see, I'm hopeful justice will be done, but not naive enough to believe it'll truly happen. Irregardless, I believe, honestly and wholeheartedly, that the Bush administration (Bush Lied is a nifty slogan, but it doesn't cover the scope of the crime) manipulated intelligence that they knew was false, and presented it to Congress, the American people and the world and Congress and several other nations acted on this intelligence against (what was once) the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Who bears more responsibility here? Congress for acting without questioning (certainly), or the regime that shoved this fetid intel down everyone's throats? You're tiny mind can't even get around the simple concept of accountability, let alone degrees of accountability.
 

so insipidly stupid as to cast aside the fact that NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS THAT AREN'T CALLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have had the same intelligence or believed the exact same thing the U.S. intel spoke of.

NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS weren't pushing that intel as reason enough to go to war Drew. Iraq is a U.S. led operation. Sorry, try again. No more apologia.

Third, your continued refusal to grasp the intel concept

Turn off the right-wing radio, and try researching the Niger forgeries. 16 words baby. Wasn't France that said, wasn't Germany, wasn't Russia, wasn't Paraguay, wasn't Zimbabwe...it was the Good Ole' U.S. of A, lead by one George W. Bush. So bite me, and don't lecture ME about not grasping intel. You're the lame apologist trying to pin it on the rest of the world.

I'm just honest enough to call it ALL propaganda, whereas to you, only the stuff you disagree with is propaganda I guess, right?

Bullsh!t. You haven't proven that, with any other administration, it rises to the level apparent in the video. Maybe it has, and there just isn't proof...but here before you *IS* proof of a disgusting level of propaganda, and somehow everyone is supposed to lie on the tracks and "NOT CARE" just like you. Good on you Drew, you have proven already, that you don't care...you win that argument.

I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS A PHOTO-OP - STAGED OR NOT - AND WILL CONTINUE NOT TO CARE ABOUT BLATANT PHOTO-OPS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF TIME, AD INFINITUM.....PLUS 1!

Yet, how odd? You're ranting so I can barely read your post through all your spittle. Don't post if you don't care.

God I can't wait for the death throes of Conservatism to stop...it's disturbing to watch it slowly suffocate on it's own twisted reasoning. 


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Irregardless, I believe, honestly and wholeheartedly, that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence that they knew was false, and presented it to Congress, the American people and the world and Congress and several other nations acted on this intelligence against (what was once) the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Yeah, we manipulated our intelligence, knowing they'd believe us.  It just so happened to be intelligence that agreed with what their own intelligence was telling them.

See?  You and I won't ever get to common ground precisely because you believe every nation was somehow coerced by this crafty administration through some shell game that replaced their intelligence with.....the same thing, only with a "United States" header on top of the paperwork. 

You could care less how illogical it could sound.  Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!  You read "spittle" into something you were so ignorant to, it simply HAD to be blared in order to get it into your head.  Obviously, the tactic worked, because you seem to have grasped it. 

Might we expect you to stoop to our level since you've gotten your answers?  Or is this just another "drop a turd in the punchbowl" move you're perfecting with your outlandish statements you view as "fact"?

So YET AGAIN....ONE MORE TIME!

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?

Do you view this as a criminal act because you think he lied, and if lying under oath about a hummer is a criminal act, a staged publicity event should be also?  Please continue...oops, my bad....start.....to explain how some staged publicity event devolves into a criminal act in your mind.

I know, it probably is somewhere along the lines of what your definition of a lie is, but I'd like to hear your excuse, since I've fulfilled your request.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You started with a flawed premise and ran with it.

Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it's flawed.

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?   

Allow me to put this to rest...

So your argument is that I have no grounds to claim that it *SHOULD* be illegal? Right? And you're upset because I won't accept "well, everyone does it"....WTF, are you 5 years old? How can you rub so few brain cells together and still be alive? Furthermore, how, in your very twisted world, are the two things even similar, one - arguing that, in a democracy, using propaganda and subsequently LYING about it should be illegal, and two - that *that* somehow amounts to the same level of 'intellectual laziness' as saying, "Well everyone does it!" ?

Drew, sorry, but a spade is a spade and you are NOT as smart as you think you are. You sir, are in fact, a mental midget...a stunted, midget, so small that other mental midgets point at you and laugh. Then they feel sorry for you and give you small bits of food, before sending you back to the bridge you sleep under. It's impossible to avoid ad hominem when your posts are filled with the sort of HUGE disconnects you think you've ingeniously "figgered out" in mine.

Anyhow, back to filling that void between your ears with good, solid facts. Not only SHOULD it be illegal, there's an argument to be made, that it MIGHT, in fact, already be illegal. Since the Commander-in-Chief is essentially covered under the Military Code of Conduct.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice...

907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Wiggle room here is that, were these 'false statements'? What is 'propaganda' if not designed with the intent to deceive? He used the armed forces to push agenda issues on the American public and then lied about it being staged. It's one thing to hold a rally, it's an entirely different animal when you sink to the levels visible in the linked video.

Listen, this may be too much for your fragile mind to grasp, as I'm sure your lord and master Glenn Beck has yet to cover it, but the "Truth in Broadcasting Act" is winding it's way - RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT - through Congress. It seeks "to prevent the government from selling pre-packaged government-created news as the real thing." Now why would they want to do that?? EVERYBODY DOES IT! Furthermore, why, if propaganda shan't be illegal, did we see "last month, congressional auditors conclude that the Education Department had engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind Act?" Hmmmmm? If it's sooooooo unreasonable to argue that this level of misleading propaganda should be illegal, why did former CIA intelligence analyst Larry Johnson have this to say (?):

"Covert action refers to behind-the-scenes efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to plant stories, manipulate information and shape public opinion. In other words, you write stories that reporters will publish as their own, you create media events that tout a particular theme, and you demonize your opponent. Traditionally, this activity was directed against foreign governments."

[...]

"Revelations during the past week about the Plame affair make it clear that the Bush administration used covert action against its own citizens."

[...]

"The evidence of the White House effort to manipulate and shape U.S. public opinion is now overwhelming. Just last week, President Bush appeared in a pathetic scripted "dialogue" with hand-selected U.S. troops. We also know that male escort Jeff Gannon Guckert was granted special access to White House press briefings and that pundits like Armstrong Williams sold themselves to the White House. The Bush administration had an organized campaign to manipulate the U.S. media to get its message out."

There are laws covering forgery, libel, slander, and certain acts of covert propaganda...how is it unreasonable to conclude that the type of propaganda witness in the Bush Iraq Teleconference should also, be illegal? (and may, in fact, actually BE ILLEGAL)

Anyhow, feel free to hide your tail between your legs, and/or change the goal posts. Or, better yet, respond with another, oh so American, and completely (not) honorable "I DON'T CARE." I'm not going to spend any more time trying to educate you. Your stubborn and lazy. If you aren't posting complete COPY N' PASTE jobs from whatever wingnut site you frequent, your writing inanities worthy of Marquis de Sade during his last days. It's a waste of my time directing these responses to your sad gotcha' games.

To simplify, PR and propaganda are NOT the same thing. Furthermore, there are levels of propaganda that are beyond the pale and should be illegal. A staged Photo-op is NOT the same as a pre-scripted AND staged question and answer session, promoted as 'spontaneous and unscripted', using the American armed forces as props, during a time of war. And, hey, if none of that makes any sense to you, then just remember....9/11 changed everything! BOO! Go back to bed.




mrC

EDIT: Word fix.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, we manipulated our intelligence, knowing they'd believe us.  It just so happened to be intelligence that agreed with what their own intelligence was telling them.

YES they DID. AND some of it did agree. But the Bush junta went one step beyond that with the intel, claims of nuclear weapons (then later Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities). Then they went one step beyond all those other nations - ever still... WAR!

You can't seem to separate the fact that, although several other nations (which you haven't named) may have had certain intel (which you haven't pointed to) that was similar, the Bush administration (in collaboration with the British PM) had other bits, "sexed up" to help work over their respective citizenries in order to garner public (and congressional) support for a war. You HONESTLY do not believe the claims of "mushroom clouds" and "massive stockpiles of WMD" had anything to do with pushing America into this war?

See?  You and I won't ever get to common ground precisely because you believe every nation was somehow coerced by this crafty administration through some shell game that replaced their intelligence with.....the same thing, only with a "United States" header on top of the paperwork. 

No. We won't. The rest of the world didn't go to war with Iraq, Drew. Essentially the U.S. and Britain did. I believe the United States, before Bush, was respected enough around the world that they had faith we knew what we were doing. I'm positive that they won't feel that way again...and sadly, our intel may actually be correct (or not manufactured) the next time. This act of "crying wolf" *will* come back to haunt us.

You could care less how illogical it could sound.

It's not illogical Drew, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. You think it's naive and insane that I'd conclude that faulty intelligence was knowingly propagated in an effort to sell an ill-conceived war?

Ok...I think that; after NO WMD's were found, after every single person who questioned this administration in the run-up to the war was sacked, silenced and/or ignored (Shinseki, Zinni, Plame, Wilson, Richard Clark, U.N. Inspectors in Iraq, Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA), it's naive that you can still believe we weren't knowingly misled into war.

I mean, what the hell would you need to convince you? I can't imagine you want to think your leaders are capable of creating such horrid misdirection (I wouldn't have believed it until they started to push for Iraq), yet, on one hand....you can't help but argue that they do anything but. Why the disconnect? You've got a tape in front of you of some of the most blatant propaganda I've seen this side of the CCCP and the best you can muster is a dig at Feingold? 

Your light years from being able to except that the niger forgeries were knowingly bunk, and that Cheney and Bush got the war they wanted, even though they knew they had to be 'creative' in how they got it.


mrC

EDIT: Small grammar fix.

[DrewKaree]

I'm just honest enough to call it ALL propaganda, whereas to you, only the stuff you disagree with is propaganda I guess, right?

Bullsh!t. You haven't proven that, with any other administration, it rises to the level apparent in the video. Maybe it has, and there just isn't proof...but here before you *IS* proof of a disgusting level of propaganda, and somehow everyone is supposed to lie on the tracks and "NOT CARE" just like you. Good on you Drew, you have proven already, that you don't care...you win that argument.

Anybody with half a brain knew this stuff has been staged for years.

The 'Mission Accomplished' banner, his and Cheney's phony "town hall meetings" before and after the election, where all the people are screened, asked to sign loyalty oaths to even get in, then pre-scripted "questions" are fielded from the crowd. This is the Potemkin Administration.

It's just nice to finally see the media decide they've had enough. They've known about this crap for years, but couldn't be bothered to report it.

Now you're talking about "levels"   Much as you'd wish it to be true, it's never been said by me that anyone's supposed to "lie on the tracks and NOT CARE".  It'd just be nice if you got your panties in a wad when publicity stunts are done by both parties, instead of giving us your selective examples.  Couldn't be bothered to report it?  What, do you rub shoulders with the hoity toity folks and are privy to inside information that no one else can get, or did they....well, yes, I believe they HAVE reported it. 

Good Lord man, you can agree that it happens, but heaven forbid you actually realize that BECAUSE it does, this is a non-issue unless your selectiveness is due to some agenda, and I should give you reams of documents that'll lead you to reiterating "sure, it happens on both sides"

Well, on the plus side, you're starting to admit numerous other nations saw that intelligence as reason enough to BACK that war and SUPPORT that war.  Used to be not too long ago, you were telling us the U.S. was rushing to war alone, with no support.  There's hope for you yet.  Well, unless one of your "feelings" about what's going to finally drag this administration down and lead to its ouster FINALLY comes true for you. 

I should see if Vegas has a line on you so I can throw some money down on your "feelings".  The Powerball Lottery wouldn't have paid so handsomely. 

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?

Allow me to put this to rest...

So your argument is that I have no grounds to claim that it *SHOULD* be illegal? Right?

No.  My position is as stated.  There's no need for you to read into what you believe I'm looking for, I've laid it out for you.  Stop playing the Howard Dean "hide the salami" game. 

blah blah blah
mindless attacks from a "compassionate" person
blah blah blah

It's amazing that you invariably resort to tactics you whine incessantly about, yet crow about how intellectual your arguments are.  Chad and Seph seem to have started the "your mom" movement.  Are you gonna pull that out too?  Lord and master Glenn Beck?  Do you REALIZE how ridiculous you sound with this crap?  Ya know, it'd be REALLY easy for me to sit here and pick the scabs of your personal issues again until you pleaded "knock it off" but I've tried to keep 99% of our conversations civil.  Why is it when you're at the end of your rope and can't think of anything, you lose all sense of civility and resort to paragraphs of "you suck and you're stupid and you're ugly too"?  Let us know when you're back to the intelligent part of your argument so everyone knows you're done name calling and throwing sand in the sandbox and can join back in the conversation.  Right now your petulance and small-mindedness is tiresome to have to try to draw some meaning or point from.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It'd just be nice if you got your panties in a wad when publicity stunts are done by both parties, instead of giving us your selective examples.

Drew, again, exactly as I said in my initial response to you...it'd sure be nice if you provided an example of something rising to the level present in this case, regarding something as severe as the promotion of an ongoing war effort. If it exists, I haven't seen it. You're assuming I'm only after this case because it's Bush, rather than because it's the most aggregious act of propoganda I've ever witnessed in America, in my lifetime. I can't take you seriously if you're not going to provide evidence.

paragraphs of "you suck and you're stupid and you're ugly too"

(love the paraphrase, I still think mental midget is better)

VS.

"Your continued refusal to grasp the intel concept go hand in hand with what I said about your high-minded claim of "integrity, intellect, and relevance"...How thick or lazy are you?...your dumbass argument works both ways...You're playing stupid on purpose...People (again, logical and rational - hate to have to qualify it, but I know it's necessary with you) aren't so insipidly stupid

Drew........seriously, kiss my pale, hairy arse. No, seriously. You're no better. Just stop acting like you are. It's sad and pathetic. In fact, you ASK for it. I deliver. if you don't want a flame war, don't start one. You'd think you'd have learned by now. But it gets you going, keeps you tingly. You are me and I am you.

I engage in about as much civility as I'm given. My meter goes from 1 to 10 (ok, maybe 5 to 10). You asked for 11. Don't use my responses to Dartful as a barometer, he actually deserves a more severe lashing than I actually give him. When then best he can be bothered to muster is a grunt, or maybe a turdball or two lobbed into a thread, the least I can do is have fun at his expense.

You on the other hand, only tend to pop in when you need a fix. So, meet your pusherman.

I'm your mamma, i'm your daddy
I'm that curmudgeon in the alley
I'm your doctor, when in need
want some coke, have some weed
you know me, i'm your friend
your main boy, thick and thin
I'm your pusherman
I'm your pusherman



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Right now your petulance and small-mindedness is tiresome to have to try to draw some meaning or point from.

Shorter Drew: "WAAAAAAH! You quoted substantive evidence supporting your argument, so I'm going to focus on the hurtful remarks, because I'm incredibly thin-skinned for a guy that throws the first punch."

Anyhow, any particular reason you fantasize about me in panties so often? I wear the ruffled granny-panties if that helps your minds-eye.

Look, if I wouldn't have included the heated invective, you would have just found some other way to avoid addressing the supportive stuff, and I wouldn't have had the fun venting. I've played teddy bear before and you always, invariably, find some other clever way to dodge. Oh, and like I prophesied, goal posts...moved.

Well, unless one of your "feelings" about what's going to finally drag this administration down and lead to its ouster FINALLY comes true for you.

mrC

[ChadTower]

NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS weren't pushing that intel as reason enough to go to war Drew. Iraq is a U.S. led operation. Sorry, try again. No more apologia.

Who does the President go to for approval to declare war?  Which body of government?  When he did that, how did that body respond?  They took a vote, yes?  What was the result of that vote?  Did they agree or disagree that the intel was sufficient to declare war on Iraq?

Do numerous other nations have a legal voice in the actions of the United States government?

When the President puts forth a proposition of declaration of war, and it is approved by the body to which it was presented, how should the responsibility be split? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

When the President puts forth a proposition of declaration of war, and it is approved by the body to which it was presented, how should the responsibility be split? 

This is a very good question. I really do think there are levels of responsibility here. I think Kerry should be held responsible for his vote, Hillary for her current hawkish stance, etc...but I just can't see the sense in affording them to the same amount of derision as the people who put the whole thing together and sold it to the world as an immediate danger. To use Drew's analogy, the Bush regime has committed the ultimate act of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Am I really supposed to spread equal blame on those that chose to run?

Congress, the U.N., our allies...they made their decision ultimately based on the refined case for War, as it was manufactured by the leaders of United States of America. If they were presented with doctored evidence and additional intelligence that was knowingly falsified, how can they be equally to blame for trusting in the United States? Isn't that the way the world was supposed to work? Can't it be surmised that this current administration took advantage of that trust?

And now, those that supported and continue to support the war, point their fingers at *them* and say, "See they thought so too!", as if that's a reasonable argument for continuing the debacle in Iraq, or better yet, as if that somehow justifies it in the first place. Doesn't seem like an honest assessment to me.

At the end of the day, how would our country ever function if Congress never had any trust in a sitting President? Sure, I, personally never bought the Iraqi bill of goods, was never convinced they were a threat, and saw the War in Iraq as a horrible distraction from the real War against Al Qaeda. I certainly would have loved to see our Congress men and women question that evidence in more detail before OK'ing this debacle, for I fear that this rush to war, and the collapse of the case for such has undermined this relationship for decades to come.

What happens the next time a president presents the case that some regime is ready to attack us with the imminent threat of "mushrooms clouds on the horizon?" Will Congress balk, will the world be less sympathetic and cooperative? Surely, and at our own peril if the intel is correct.

Lastly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that had anyone else been elected president in 2000, they would have tried to present a case for War against Iraq, after we had been attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. That is speculation based on several observations.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, other member of AEI and WHIG...they had a hard-on for Iraq LONG before 9/11, for numerous reasons, and it seems to me that it isn't a huge logical leap to suggest that - in an attempt to bolster the case against Iraq - they would have conveniently overlooked evidence contrary to that goal. Nor is it hard for me to imagine them being SO absolutely confident they would find WMD, based on a pre-determined rationalizations, they may have even gone so far as to knowingly pass along bogus intel that supported their theory, in the hopes that, after we were greeted with "flowers and candy", the ends would justify the means. 9/11 provided them an opportunity to shoe horn their desires for war against Iraq, for Pax Americana, and for a footprint in a Middle Eastern oil-rich country, so they took advantage of the world's trust in America to do it. Well, everyone admits there were no WMD. Everyone admits that the intel was flawed, some of it forged, and all of it wrong. And so far for a majority of Americans, along with the rest of the world, the ends do not justify the means.




mrC

P.S. See Drew, Chad presented a respectful, well thought out response...and I responded in kind. I don't expect him to agree with me, nor do I wish to convince him of anything in particular. I am merely stating a point of view based on my own observation of data, as we discuss the topic at hand. He and I have had our heated exchanges, but here, he didn't attack me personally, nor did he insult my point of view.

[ChadTower]

[quote author=What happens the next time a president presents the case that some regime is ready to attack us with the imminent threat of "mushrooms clouds on the horizon?" Will Congress balk, will the world be less sympathetic and cooperative? Surely, and at our own peril if the intel is correct.

It probably won't happen again.  Firstly, this is the first preemptive military action the US has taken.  When you are first to strike there is always the risk of being wrong.  Since the reason we were striking was tiny, mobile weapons, it is still impossible to know if they really had those weapons.  It is very possible the weapons did not exist, but it is equally possible that those weapons are still in hiding or are someplace like Syria now.  Our attack wasn't exactly a sneak attack, giving them ample weeks to hide any evidence that may have existed.  It cannot be completely discounted that some of that evidence could have been correct.  It was certainly manipulated but there is no way to scientifically prove those weapons were never there.

We can, however, prove that they were, with existing evidence.  We know he had chemical weapons at one point.  We have evidence that they possessed them and were willing to use them on their own civilians.

Given a new type of national threat (nonNational and fanatic) that has struck on US soil, a new type of military response was required.  Rather than sit back and wait to be attacked again, and then have to beg other countries to go after the attackers, our country chose to eliminate those threats before being attacked.  It is an extreme departure from US history and a major change in geopolitics.

If this administration had done what it said it was going to do then we wouldn't have all this garbage.  The case was simple.  Go in, get the weapons, leave.  In the process we had to remove Hussein, messy but doable.  Unfortunately, when they didn't find the weapons, they went into spin mode and "liberated" Iraq.  Now, rather than having gone in to protect National Security, we are in to build a new nation.  A nation that doesn't want us and will likely stand against us as soon as we leave... which is why we're not leaving.

The US took a major gamble on a new preemptive doctrine and it failed.

Bush bears much of the responsibility, far more than any other individual, but every Congressman who voted to go to war also bears responsibility.

[Havok]

NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS weren't pushing that intel as reason enough to go to war Drew. Iraq is a U.S. led operation. Sorry, try again. No more apologia.

Who does the President go to for approval to declare war?

[ChadTower]

Keep in mind, that they were voting based on the "facts" that were presented to them...

Anyone who votes blindly without at least some level of critical thought and outside corroboration is an idiot and incapable of proper service.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The US took a major gamble on a new preemptive doctrine and it failed.

Bush bears much of the responsibility, far more than any other individual, but every Congressman who voted to go to war also bears responsibility.

In total agreement with this point. But where we go from here, and how we each care to address that "gamble", is entirely another debate.

It was certainly manipulated but there is no way to scientifically prove those weapons were never there.

I think, for me (again, I know there is no way to convince people otherwise, at this point)...the larger issue is that, while it cannot be proven they were never there (impossible to prove a negative), it can be proven that there wasn't enough "just cause" or "imminent threat" for war, even if weapons had been used on his own people. That doesn't follow as a threat to the United States. Plenty of countries had engaged in even larger acts of genocide, and there is no march to invade and "liberate" them, nor are they seen as a threat. The fact remains, that Saddam had made no outward attempt to attack our country, nor reconstitute his WMD programs. It was widely accepted before the war, that Iraq's military capabilities had been quite succesfully neutered by sanctions, that Saddam was entirely contained, and that he was not linked to the 9/11 attack in any way shape or form.

Even one step further, I think it could be proven (not sure if it will) that intelligence was doctored in order to ferment the war. Now, I know this call for retrograde accountability bothers you a bit, but I think it's necessary in order to prove, to the American public at large, the continued worthiness of the expenditure of lives and capital in the continued war in Iraq, lest we keep sending our kids over there to die, while continually engendering more terrorists.

I guess I see no benefit to a war without end, and the only means of stopping American involvement in the war (at this point) seems to be to disprove the false premise it is entirely based on.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I guess I see no benefit to a war without end, and the only means of stopping American involvement in the war (at this point) seems to be to disprove the false premise it is entirely based on.

There isn't a benefit, but the consequences of leaving Iraq without a functioning gov't would probably be graver to us than what we are doing.

Without what we've done there to establish a legal gov't, what would have popped up in its place would have been civil war, then a new dictatorship, one with almost 100% certainty to be aggressively hostile to the US.  Probably rightfully so, too, since they would have been put through years of hell as a result of our actions.  That would have led to hostilities that cost far more in US lives than have been spent in Iraq to this point.

Setting them up the way we have really doesn't benefit us, but it does prevent something from popping up that really is a large threat.

Plus, if you consider it a benefit, we have a massive legal military presence in the most US-hostile region in the world.  Iran is neutered so long as we are present in Iraq.

[Dartful Dodger]

There isn't a benefit, but the consequences of leaving Iraq without a functioning gov't would probably be graver to us than what we are doing.

He wont understand this concept.  His hero, Clinton wouldn't have gotten a free ride of US/world peace without Reagan's participation in the cold war.  Clinton had one problem, a hand full of guys tried to blow up the world trade center, but Clinton didn't want to rock the boat, so he just kept the US out of it.

[ChadTower]

Was the bombing of the USS Cole during Clinton too?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There isn't a benefit, but the consequences of leaving Iraq without a functioning gov't would probably be graver to us than what we are doing.

I'm not even sure it's possible while American boots are on the ground there. Any gov't in Iraq needs to be seen as legitimate by both Sunnis and Shia. Kurds were getting their way, either way. Right now, I don't think the majority of either group fully respects the situation.

Without what we've done there to establish a legal gov't, what would have popped up in its place would have been civil war, then a new dictatorship, one with almost 100% certainty to be aggressively hostile to the US.

I think the march is on towards several of those ends anyhow, or is at least more likely with a prolonged American presence, or at the *very least* with the current administration in charge of the effort. They have proven time and again that they are incompetent.

Probably rightfully so, too, since they would have been put through years of hell as a result of our actions.  That would have led to hostilities that cost far more in US lives than have been spent in Iraq to this point.

I think the damage is already done, unfortunately. As my view is we should never have been there in the first place, I can't rationalize the costs (lives/tax dollars) of staying any longer.

Plus, if you consider it a benefit, we have a massive legal military presence in the most US-hostile region in the world.  Iran is neutered so long as we are present in Iraq.

Since 9/11 is has become more clear to me that the real threat isn't state entities, which have a lot to lose in direct conflicts with the United States, but rather the new threat is obviously, amorphous groups planning individual acts of terrorism. Honestly, what would Iran have to gain by threatening us with nukes? They know they couldn't win. They've barely got a grasp on theocracy as it is. If fact, leaving well enough alone, it's *was* highly likely we'd have seen a home-grown democracy within the next several decades. Increased hostilities between the U.S. and Iran would only act to galvanize support for the religious fundamentalist factions there, strengthening the theocrats...and silencing the democratic opposition.

To me, the Iraq War has done serious damage to our interests in the Middle East, staying longer only adds to the damage.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He wont understand this concept.

Do you even know where Iraq is on a map?

Clinton had one problem, a hand full of guys tried to blow up the world trade center, but Clinton didn't want to rock the boat, so he just kept the US out of it.

Clinton is my "hero", he was just a much better president than the current one and came much closer to killing Osama Bin Laden with several cruise missiles than the entire Bush regime has with 150,000 U.S. troops, dozens of military aircraft, vehicles, and other resources, and at a minor fraction of the cost.

Also, just so were are clear...SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK US. ..........ok?


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Clinton is my "hero", he was just a much better president than the current one..
...and at a minor fraction of the cost.

3000+ innocent people is high price to pay for being weak.

Bush is my president, and he is a much better president than your "hero" Clinton.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

3000+ innocent people is high price to pay for being weak.

I'd say it's a high price to pay for ignoring a memo that states, "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The U.S.". Then again Clinton's team did it's best to warn the Bushistas, even after proving the threat by thwarting the millennium bomber...it's not his fault they ignored his warnings.

So what say you when the death toll in Iraq tops the death toll from 9/11? (We're at about 2000 kids right now) Then what say you when the son of someone we've killed over in Iraq comes and blows up the Mall of America in retaliation?

Kinda of a high price to pay for being both ignorant and stubborn.

and he is a much better president than your "hero" Clinton.

If by "much better" you mean much better at spending our tax money, and much better at cultivating a culture of corruption in Washington, then yes...you are correct.


mrC

EDIT: Word fix.

[ChadTower]

They both suck... Bush has had a much, much harder time with the events that have occurred during his watch, while Clinton rode an economic bubble and zero national threat for 8 years.

It is of course impossible to prove, but I suspect Clinton wouldn't be doing much better right now were he president.

It's going to be awfully hard to view Clinton as much of a president once the Chinese start pointing more of those US technology guided long range missles directly at the US.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's going to be awfully hard to view Clinton as much of a president once the Chinese start pointing more of those US technology guided long range missles directly at the US.

Heh. I'd say the same thing about Bush and North Korea. I am much more comfortable with China having them (read: not much) than I am with that maniac in NK.

China losses big if they blow us up...Bush has made us their biggest debtor, with over half (52%) of all U.S. Treasury debt is now held by overseas owners, China being the second largest owner (next to Japan). Thanks to the Iraq War.


mrC

[ChadTower]

China would trade that debt for the land in North America in a heartbeat.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

China would trade that debt for the land in North America in a heartbeat.

I'm sure that if there was a land bridge, we'd all be speaking Chinese right now. But that ocean surely narrows the options. Nukes are the most efficient, but then again, they'd be dead...and our land would be useless to them. So, I'd say we're going to probably be a Chinese Corporation before we're ever conquered militarily, and they may get that land yet, without firing a single shot!   


mrC