T1B

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... geNumber=1

"Look at al Qaeda's plans," said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "They're very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective.

"If you're looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving," he said.

mvscal wrote:Did somebody say we were finished?

Plenty of failing yet to be done. All this suckitude we have produced thusfar is to lull the enemy to sleep.

WAR ROPE-A-DOPE!!!!

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:Did somebody say we were finished?

Plenty of failing yet to be done. All this suckitude we have produced thusfar is to lull the enemy to sleep.

WAR ROPE-A-DOPE!!!!

Well when you're president of the country you can tell the citizenry.

"Well, we were attacked, but they're whole strategy is to troll us into a response, so we won't respond ... it's worked so well since 1979".


Hell I'd vote for you.

Tom In VA wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:Did somebody say we were finished?

Plenty of failing yet to be done. All this suckitude we have produced thusfar is to lull the enemy to sleep.

WAR ROPE-A-DOPE!!!!

Well when you're president of the country you can tell the citizenry.

"Well, we were attacked, but they're whole strategy is to troll us into a response, so we won't respond ... it's worked so well since 1979".


Hell I'd vote for you.

Probably better than "these guys attacked us, so its finally time to attack some other dudes."

Sorry you can't rightly defend the guy you voted for. Would you take back your vote?

Well when you're president of the country you can tell the citizenry.

Not if you're Bush, you can't. IB has dildos that are vastly more articulate.

Then again, she has buzzing buttplugs that can hold forth on Hueristic Methodology...

Funny PSU rack.



Bizzaro. Yes I would have loved to see Al Gore in charge during all of this. It really is a shame to see treasonous democrats like Pelosi and Reid, giving up on a mission, that many of the men who are volunteering to accomplish believe in and want to press forward.

Gore, would have surrendered the moment the second plane hit and we'd all be better off.

It depends on your perspective. I, for one, don't accept Cheney's "the Dems are giving up" stuff.

There are patriots who are legitimately questioning our involvement in Iraq.

Is Kissinger a traitor because he recently has called the Iraq war "unwinnable" militarily?

Here's the source for that:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/a ... aq_070401/

What a scumbag Hank is, though. He said the same (privately) about Viet Nam, while publicly excoriating Dems for "giving up", as Cheney is doing as we speak.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4683174.html

Basically, once you start the whole "the dems are giving up" song and dance, you're no longer doing anything but spinning.

And then, we have McCain joining in...his recent efforts to cast the war in a better light are blowing up in his face:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mcc ... 41393.html

I said Pelosi and Reid.

Pelosi for treading very close to working outside Constitutional contraints and visiting a known enemy .... Syria.

Reid. For wanting to stop supporting the troops.





The Dems do want to give up. Spin that more please. It's funny.

Other elected representatives - Republicans, some of them - have visited Syria recently.

Reps. Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert Aderholt, all republicans, are with Pelosi on this trip.

The other part of this is that Bush is not criticizing Pelosi for visiting an enemy, he's simply saying that he doesn't think it will be productive.

What Dem wants to "give up", Tom? Please be more specific.

Tom In VA wrote:I said Pelosi and Reid.

Pelosi for treading very close to working outside Constitutional contraints and visiting a known enemy .... Syria.

Yeah, diplomacy is treason.

There are Republicans in her group as well, btw.

Reid. For wanting to stop supporting the troops.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. If you're saying that Reid wants to defund the war, funny, but isn't that precisely what the Republicans are saying Democrats should do if they oppose the war?

The '06 elections were quite clearly a referendum on the Iraq War (even mvscal's sig suggests that). Yet Bush has basically thumbed his nose at the will of the people and announced plans to ratchet things up a notch, or several. It'll take a Presidential election to change policy on Iraq, I guess.

If I were a Democratic member of Congress, it would be very tempting right about now to give Bush exactly what he wants, then let the chips fall where they may. The only problem with that is that our kids are still dying over there.

Tom In VA wrote:Gore, would have surrendered the moment the second plane hit and we'd all be better off.

Al Gore Sept 28th, 2002 wrote:Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment – right now – is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein

Work off of some facts instead of pre-conceived notions next time. You're better than that.

Whether the soldiers want to continue or not is irrelevant. I don't want to pay for it. Then again, I'm skeptical that over half of the soldiers would like to continue. Ones I know have little interest in having their lives disrupted to be in Iraq. I guess the ones you know are all CEOs with tons of money in the bank to help their families and their jobs are waiting for them.

Treasonous Pelosi and Reid... stop with the hate speech and try and help the country.

I can't. You win. Let's oust Bush from office.


How do we do that ?

How do we not look like running cowards to the people in the Middle East ?

What do we do to keep the U.S. in a position where it can benefit at the trough of natural resources ?



If I had the answers, PSUFAN, I wouldn't be here. I'd change my name to Andy Dufresne and start writing letters.

How do we do that ?

You suffer from a limitation of your own perspective. PLENTY of people were telling Bush and his head-nodders that there were better ways to fight terror than starting a brand new war with Iraq. Now that this has been painstakingly mapped out for everyone's benefit, we need more than "well, what do YOU suggest?".

But - since you appear to be listening now, or at least cognizant that the current path is not one that can be successful, here are a few suggestions:

1. STOP spinning the Iraq situation as "improving". It isn't.

2. STOP blaming Dems. The folks who have made the mistakes in this war are in the Bush Administration.

3. HONESTLY ask yourself whether $270 million a day wasted in IRAQ is doing a damn thing to secure us against radical Islam.

Forget about how we appear to the people in the middle east, Tom. They think we're cowards because we don't flog our women and behead pornographers, NOT because we don't fight unwinnable wars. I'm not so sure that we should give a flying fuck what people in the middle east think of us, tom.

If you want to stay at the feeding trough, then don't support foolish wars that needlessly and copiously waste our existing and future resources. Stop lying to yourself and take a few moments to think about this situation for yourself.

What do you honestly think is happening here?

From Rove's desk to your ears: this thing is unwinnable. Start looking for ways to portray this as a failure by our political opponents, rather than something that we've fucked up from start to finish.

How do we not look like running cowards to the people in the Middle East ?

You want to throw another half trillion and 3K lives at "not seeming like cowards"? I think that money could be better spent elsewhere. Sadly, you know that no matter what happens, the 3rd world toilet circlers in Iran will spin it in their media as some sort of triumph. Inevitable in any area where "Allah Ackbar" is overheard. So what? What is the price? The fodder we should be giving them is Big Macs, not Bush's sabre-rattling.

Might as well step away from the sectarian violence that hasn't subsided in a thousand years. Half a trillion bucks won't likely change it.

What do we do to keep the U.S. in a position where it can benefit at the trough of natural resources ?

Gulf of Mexico. ANWAR. A little ethanol. We are already in that position. Our biggest problem is little bitches snipping at our heels and our allies have been irritated at us to the point of backing away. Will we be blamed when Chavez has to resort to drastic mesures to prop his shit economy?

The diplomatic "hard line" has led to the world thinking we're a bunch of douchebags. Kinda like the stupid smack battles on these boards;
Buttsrayistan: I am wonderful and better than all.
United States of DMike: Know your role, loser.
Buttsrayistan: HA! I got you to kick my ass! I must be great! Look everyone!

Absolutely.

I must be blind.



"I was blind all the time, I was learning to see".


Where I can buy your brand of Kool Aid ?

Tom In VA wrote:Absolutely.

I must be blind.



"I was blind all the time, I was learning to see".


Where I can buy your brand of Kool Aid ?

whatever.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Yeah, diplomacy is treason.

Since when did conducting diplomacy become a Congressional function?

Diplomacy is not within the reach of the Bush Administration - even were they willing. They are too fucking inept.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Absolutely.

I must be blind.



"I was blind all the time, I was learning to see".


Where I can buy your brand of Kool Aid ?

whatever.

About where I'm at as well. It sucks. Everyone tried so hard and got behind the president, rallied behind the troops, even our pro american propaganda campaign on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and in Hollywood was all to no avail. But Bush's bumblings and idiocy failed us all.

I wanted McCain in 2K, should have voted for Gore. And in 2004 the world was robbed again. We'd be much better off behind Kerry's bold and brave leadership ... sure he was PRO an invasion of Iraq in 1998 and right after ... but he was smart enough to see that it was a mistake when things started to go bad and the polls went south.

Leadership by polls. That's the only way out of this.

I'm going to go sign the "I'm Sorry" page again.

mvscal wrote:
Your opinions are noted.

isn't that exactly what the war in Iraq is based on.....Bush and Co's opinions....

it sure wasn't based on facts....

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Your opinions are noted.

isn't that exactly what the war in Iraq is based on.....Bush and Co's opinions....

it sure wasn't based on facts....

I thought it was based on the opinions of the opinions of the vast majority of intelligence agencies that happened to coincide with their opinions.


BTW, what were the facts ? It's been so long, I forgot.

The "Mission" certainly has been accomplished tenfold -- the Good Ol' Boys made billions...if you think the "Mission" was anything else, then you're a fucking idiot. Actions speak MUCH louder than words.

Tom In VA wrote: I wanted McCain in 2K

Yeah, because his track-record for fleecing the American People to make himself and his cronies rich is so stellar.

Sure, our intelligence was badly flawed...but there was a lot of manipulation of information to support the desired result as well.

Bad intelligence wasn't behind the push to underman the Iraq occupation. Bad intelligence didn't get Shinseki fired. Bad intelligence didn't round up some Kurds and film them pulling down Saddam's statue. Bad intelligence didn't get behind a banner that read "Mission Accomplished".

Bad intelligence didn't conceal the cause of the friendly-fire death of Pat Tillman until after they'd made good use of him as a recruiting tool.

A lot of claptrap intelligence was slapped together in order to support a stupid way of going about things. None of that did us any good in the war against Radical Islam. It's time to come to terms with that reality.

Tom In VA wrote:
BTW, what were the facts ? It's been so long, I forgot.

the facts were they invaded Iraq based on United Nations Resolution 1441 (which was valid), but the problem for them is this wasn't sellable to the people of the United States....

fact is, WTC was the perfect opportunity for them to develop their horseshit "Iraq is hiding WMD's" line of "reasoning".....with the people in the US scared shitless after the attacks, it was the opportunity Bush and Co. had been looking for....

and here we are a little less than 6 years later-Husseing is dead, and Osama is still running around....

meanwhile, we're spending money in Iraq like drunken sailors.....

'Swat I said PSUFAN.

Bush and Cheney cherry picked intelligence's opinions that coincided with Bush and Cheney's opinions.


I am asking what were the facts ?


What were the facts in regards to Iraq WMD capabilities before the invasion. And you cannot use facts acquired AFTER the invasion.

That would be cheating.

Tom In VA wrote:

What were the facts in regards to Iraq WMD capabilities before the invasion. And you cannot use facts acquired AFTER the invasion.

the FACT is, they didn't have any.....

the intelligence community suggested they had lots of them.....

Felix wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

What were the facts in regards to Iraq WMD capabilities before the invasion. And you cannot use facts acquired AFTER the invasion.

the FACT is, they didn't have any.....

the intelligence community suggested they had lots of them.....

I think you just cheated. How did we know, prior to the invasion that Iraq did not have the nuclear capabilities Saddam Hussein wanted the rest of the world to think he had ?


Lastly, the fact he was rebuilding his WMD capabilities, is also a fact. The only thing that can be considered dubious, in hindsight and after unfettered access subsequent to the invasion, is the maturity of those programs.

Tom In VA wrote: [
I think you just cheated. How did we know, prior to the invasion that Iraq did not have the nuclear capabilities Saddam Hussein wanted the rest of the world to think he had ?

I'm pretty sure nobody (not even the intelligence community) suggested that Hussein had nukes....they believed he either possessed (or was working to possess) all the chemical and biological nasties.....

Lastly, the fact he was rebuilding his WMD capabilities, is also a fact.

Link?

The only thing that can be considered dubious, in hindsight and after unfettered access subsequent to the invasion, is the maturity of those programs.

Hussein was handcuffed....he was too busy dealing with the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations.....

his resources were stretched pretty thin.....

Tom In VA wrote:

Felix wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

What were the facts in regards to Iraq WMD capabilities before the invasion. And you cannot use facts acquired AFTER the invasion.

the FACT is, they didn't have any.....

the intelligence community suggested they had lots of them.....

I think you just cheated. How did we know, prior to the invasion that Iraq did not have the nuclear capabilities Saddam Hussein wanted the rest of the world to think he had ?

On WMD's, the facts, as they were known at the time, were . . .

Although the intelligence community suggested that Iraq had WMD's, as Felix said, there were some conflicting reports.

There were also, undisputably, weapons inspectors in Iraq prior to the invasion. Weapons inspectors who repeatedly requested that the Bush Administration allow them more time to complete inspections before beginning an invasion. And the Bush Administration ignored these requests.

And although you didn't ask, it was also a known fact that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack prior to the invasion of Iraq. Notwithstanding this fact, members of the Bush Administration used Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath so often that a sizeable portion of the American public -- from 3% immediately after 9/11 to 41% in the run-up to the Iraq invasion -- began to believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Felix wrote:SSDP

Absolutely, I forgot he kicked the UN out in 1998 to renovate their quarters. Sorry about that. Failing memory.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: There were also, undisputably, weapons inspectors in Iraq prior to the invasion. Weapons inspectors who repeatedly requested that the Bush Administration allow them more time to complete inspections before beginning an invasion. And the Bush Administration ignored these requests.

And although you didn't ask, it was also a known fact that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack prior to the invasion of Iraq. Notwithstanding this fact, members of the Bush Administration used Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath so often that a sizeable portion of the American public -- from 3% immediately after 9/11 to 41% in the run-up to the Iraq invasion -- began to believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

You're right Terry. Saddam let the U.N. back in, in 2002 I think. He was renovating their quarters for four years. I forgot.


I'm sorry, I missed where Bush said Saddam was a part of the 9-11 attack. I don't remember that.

Tom In VA wrote:
I'm sorry, I missed where Bush said Saddam was a part of the 9-11 attack. I don't remember that.

you're a funny guy....

why don't you produce statements employed by Bush during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, wherein he didn't use Iraq and the WTC attacks in the same paragraph.......

did he blatantly say "Iraq perpetrated the 9-11 attacks", no, but the inference was clear.....

Tom In VA wrote:I'm sorry, I missed where Bush said Saddam was a part of the 9-11 attack. I don't remember that.

Not directly. But he and members of his administration repeatedly mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath. I don't think it was coincidence -- I think they wanted to convey the idea that the two were connected without coming out and saying so.

I drew no such inference. Throughout the 90's our country's leaders were indicating the dangerous nature of Iraq under Saddam. He was a loose cannon, a loose cannon that decided to say "Fuck You" to the U.N. Kick out the inspectors and he did, in fact, provide material support to terrorist organizations.

In 2001. An organization of terrorists, did in fact, execute a brilliantly conceived mission and succeeded in killing 3,000 Americans on American soil.


The risk, which Bush and Co. were now oath bound to assess and manage this risk. Which was having this "loose cannon" in Iraq .... with his mind and money on rebuilding WMD ... AND having a terrorist organization being able to concoct a scheme, slowly put the operators to execute such a scheme within the U.S., and then execute the scheme.



Their answer to managing the risk ?


What we have today. Would it have been any different ? I don't know. You can feel free to indulge that aspect of your ego and mentally jerk yourself off all you want.

I pay attention, Felix, this motherfucker was cooking all throughout the 90's. And we really are .....

Still in the beginning of this stage of our development.



So kindly don't tell me what the fuck I inferred from Bush's speeches because you don't know.


Now link me to where Bush or Cheney explicitly stated Saddam was involved on the 9-11 attack.


Thanks.

Tom In VA wrote:
I'm sorry, I missed where Bush said Saddam was a part of the 9-11 attack. I don't remember that.

"We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."


Nevermind that there's evidence that AQ was trying to oust[i/] Saddam.


I guess you also missed where Cheney said that Iraq was the "geographical base" for AQ.



You really are incapable of independent, rational thought, aren't you Tom?


After Bush mentioned 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence so many times, polls showed that a high percentage of Americans believe that "some or most" of the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi...gee, I wonder where they got that impression?


From Bush's resolutions on Iraq --

necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I'm sorry, I missed where Bush said Saddam was a part of the 9-11 attack. I don't remember that.

Not directly. But he and members of his administration repeatedly mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath. I don't think it was coincidence -- I think they wanted to convey the idea that the two were connected without coming out and saying so.

Short sighted, selective memory and pretty darn cynical if you ask me.

I think they wanted to convey, what they conveyed .... bad man in the middle east trying make nasties .... who does support Islamic terrorists (Hezbollah)

A very loose, autonomous network of terrorist groups who also support other Islamic terrorists (Hezbollah)...who were able to pull of the attack of the century so far .....


You make the call ... you're responsible for the lives of millions.

Dinsdale wrote: You really are incapable of independent, rational thought, aren't you Tom?

Same old tired remark from the same old tired cunt.


Saddam supports Hezbollah .... Al-Qaida support Hezbollah .... Hezbollah support Al-Qaida.



Go read a fucking history book dummy.

Tom In VA wrote:I drew no such inference.

Maybe not, but that's irrelevant.

If you look at public opinion surveys, the percentage of people who thought that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack went from 3%, immediately after the attack, to 41%, immediately prior to the run-up to war. While the adage that nobody has ever gone broke misunderestimating the intelligence of the American people is at least partially true, public opinion does not shift so dramatically in a direction that is contrary to the evidence unless someone or something is pushing it in that direction.

Without 9/11 and the implications Bush and his administration made about it, he never gets enough public support for a war with Iraq.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Without 9/11 and the implications Bush and his administration made about it, he never gets enough public support for a war with Iraq.

With stiplulations, I don't think I can honestly disagree with that statement, I would have to qualify that with what I perceived those implications to be.

Tom In VA wrote:Saddam supports Hezbollah .... Al-Qaida support Hezbollah .... Hezbollah support Al-Qaida.

I don't know where you got this information from, but . . .

Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Hezbollah is Shiite. Saddam was Sunni, but secularist (clearly unlike Al-Qaeda).

Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other. Tell me you knew.

Saddam and Al-Qaeda, although both were/are Sunni, also didn't like each other. Tell me you knew that too.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Saddam supports Hezbollah .... Al-Qaida support Hezbollah .... Hezbollah support Al-Qaida.

I don't know where you got this information from, but . . .

Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Hezbollah is Shiite. Saddam was Sunni, but secularist (clearly unlike Al-Qaeda).

Sunnis and Shiites don't like each other. Tell me you knew.

Saddam and Al-Qaeda, although both were/are Sunni, also didn't like each other. Tell me you knew that too.

You mean Al-Qaida doesn't support their brothers in Hezbollah and their fight against Israel and the U.S. ? Really ?