The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[Camp]

Like I said folks, no control whatsoever over their ignorance or their hypocrisy.

None.

They stand for nothing and rightwinger keeps proving it.

Tell us again why Obama continued Bush policies that he campaigned against in order to gain votes in 2008. He then took office and it turned out he lied about everything.

Meaning, he broke virtually every promise.

It must be hard to placate such morons when the morons consist of 99% of the democratic voting base. Think about the corner they pain themselves in.

The voting base always think they know more than those who are privy to actual information. Such is the manner of the liberals and such is the character of the democratic voting base.

Look at rightwinger displaying his pathetic academia hypocrisy here. Hell, he does it in every thread with every post. This is just classic stuff.

Nixon spying on five democrats? His types....... are all......

Whenever democrats are caught red handed either spying on all of America, or using the IRS illegally, or being guilty of mass corporate scandals, or anything at all they are all....

Which Bush policies are you talking about? What promises are you claiming he broke? Why do you continuously use old data that is irrelevant to the topic. Stuff like Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and/or people supporting the Bush claims before they knew they were being lied to? I'll bet you are going to blame Obama for not closing GTMO and I'll bet you never read the wikileak/Turley link about why Obama didn't try to prosecute Bush for war crimes.
By the way, you used a term that confused me in one of your post. What is logistical reality? My Quartermaster use to scream that sometimes. I don't think he meant what you meant.

On President Barack Obama's second full day in the Oval Office in 2009, he signed important executive orders that signaled a clear break with the excesses of George W. Bush's “war on terror.” Obama decreed that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp would be closed in a year and that the United States would no longer perpetrate torture. No longer would men, some of them innocent, languish without charges in what has been described as an American gulag by Amnesty International. No longer would men be subjected to brutal interrogation tactics that clearly amounted to torture, like water boarding.

The orders would “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism,” said Obama.

Fast-forward to today. Guantanamo remains open, warrantless wiretapping continues, and drone strikes have accelerated, leading to the deaths of innocent civilians and a burst in support for anti-American forces in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. Instead of breaking with the Bush era, Obama has codified and permanently institutionalized the “war on terror” framework that has characterized American foreign policy since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And they have done all of this largely in secret, refusing to open up about how drone strikes are decided on. So while torture has been thrown out of the American playbook, other black marks remain. Obama has done everything but restore “core constitutional values” to how the U.S. conducts itself around the world.

Perhaps the most potent symbol of Obama's willingness to institutionalize Bush-era frameworks for dealing with terrorism is his January 2013 appointment of John Brennan as new Central Intelligence Agency director. Brennan was a key supporter of many Bush-favored tactics used by the CIA, including torture and extraordinary rendition. When Obama first contemplated appointing Brennan in his first term to the post he's been appointed to now, the outcry was swift and Brennan pulled out from consideration. Now, the reaction has been meek—a symbol of how Bush-era military and intelligence tactics have become normalized to the extent that nobody bats an eye when a man with a sordid record at the CIA is appointed to head up the entire agency.

Obama has kept the U.S. on a permanent war footing with no end in sight through a variety of methods. Here are five ways the Obama administration has institutionalized the never-ending war on terror.

1. Drones

The image of the gray, pilotless aircraft flying through the sky to eventually rain hellfire down will be indelibly tied to Obama. His administration has made drone strikes in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan the weapon of choice when it comes to dealing with suspected militants. You have to look at the numbers of drone strikes under the Bush and Obama administrations to truly appreciate how Obama has taken this Bush tool and increased its use exponentially.

The first drone strike in U.S. history occurred in 2002, when a CIA-operated drone fired on three men in Afghanistan. The drone strikes have since migrated over to battlefields away from U.S.-declared wars. In Pakistan, the Bush administration carried out a total of 52 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which closely tracks drone strikes. That led to the deaths of an estimated 438 people, including 182 civilians and 112 children. But the Obama administration has ordered at least 300 drone strikes in Pakistan—and Obama's second term has yet to begun. Those strikes have killed about 2,152 people, including 290 civilians, of whom 64 were children.

The drone strikes also have a devastating impact beyond the deaths reported. As a New York University/Stanford University study on drone strikes stated, the constant buzzing of drones in the sky “terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.”

Instead of looking forward to how this permanent drone war might end, the Obama administration has decided to institutionalize the process. In October 2012, the Washington Post revealed that the administration had undertaken a two-year long strategy to institutionalize what has become known as the “kill list,” or the list of suspected terrorists the Obama administration unilaterally decides to kill by drone strikes. The administration calls it the “disposition matrix,” which refers to the different plans the administration has to “dispose” of suspected militants. The Post described the “matrix” as part of “the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”

2. Warrantless Wiretapping

One of the enduring scandals of the George W. Bush years was that administration's practice of wiretapping American citizens with no warrant in order to spy on suspected terrorists. The New York Times, which broke the story in 2005, reported that “months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.” The move raised concerns that the Bush administration was crossing constitutional limits on wiretapping Americans.

But the outcry from those concerned with civil liberties has largely been muted in the Obama era. In late December 2012, President Obama signed an extension of a law that allows the U.S. to “eavesdrop on communications and review email without following an open and public warrant process,” as NPR summed it up. The law was an extension of the 2008 law that legalized the Bush administration's wiretapping of American citizens.

As national security blogger Marcy Wheeler notes in a recent piece for the Nation, the president's signature on the new bill on wiretapping means that the U.S. “has nearly unrestrained authority to eavesdrop on those who communicate with people outside the country. The government doesn’t even need to show that these foreign targets are terrorists or that the conversations center around a plot. This means any international communication may be subject to wiretapping.”

3. Proxy Detentions

Under the Bush administration, the process of “extraordinary rendition” involved abducting people accused of terrorism and shipping them off to another country where they were interrogated and tortured. The Obama administration has continued to use foreign countries to detain and interrogate suspects, but the details of how they do it are changed from the Bush era. Still, the overall practice of using other security forces to do your dirty work remains in place.

The Washington Post reported on January 1 that “the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” While the Post used the term “rendition,” the more accurate term would be “proxy detention,” as Mother Jones pointed out.

The most recent iterations of the practice of using other countries to detain suspects the U.S. wants to interrogate have been in countries like Dijibouti and Nigeria. The Post reported on one December 2011 case in which an man from Eritrea “revealed that he had been questioned in a Ni*ger*ian jail by what a U.S. interrogator described as a 'dirty' team of American agents who ignored the suspect’s right to remain silent or have a lawyer, according to court proceedings.”

Other cases have been publicized by Mother Jones. The magazine reported on the case of Yonas Fikre, a Muslim-American from Oregon who was detained in the United Arab Emirates. There, Fikre and his lawyers claim, he was beaten and held in stress positions. He claims there was cooperation between the FBI and UAE security forces. So the FBI was using the UAE forces to detain people the U.S. wanted to interrogate.

Will Congress Rein In Illegal Spying? | The Nation

Plan for hunting terrorists signals U.S. intends to keep adding names to kill lists - The Washington Post

4. Guantanamo

Although the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay camp is hardly the sole fault of President Obama, it does symbolize the abject failure to reject the Bush administration's approach to terrorism.

While it's important to note that the Republican Party has blocked Obama's desire to close Guantanamo, he has not expended political capital on closing the prison and has signed bills that restrict his ability to do so. The most recent bill concerning Guantanamo Bay crossed his desk at the beginning of the year.

Despite threatening to veto the bill because it restricted the executive branch's authority, Obama signed it, and curtailed his own ability to move ahead on closing the infamous camp, where people have languished without charge for years on end. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, where the Guantanamo provisions are included, restricts “the transfer of detainees into the United States for any purpose, including trials in federal court. It also requires the defense secretary to meet rigorous conditions before any detainee can be returned to his own country or resettled in a third country,” according to the Washington Post.

Human rights activists blasted the move. “Indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo is illegal, unsustainable and against U.S. national security interests, and it needs to end,” Human Rights Watch's Andrea Prasow told the Post. “The administration should not continue to just blame Congress. President Obama should follow through on his earlier commitments and make the effort to overcome the transfer restrictions.”

Bill?s Guantanamo Bay provisions have human rights groups upset with Obama - The Washington Post




5 Ways President Obama Has Doubled Down on Bush's Most Tragic Mistakes | Alternet


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

Watch folks, they will either not acknowledge them, obfuscate from the facts with some lame brain excuse, and will certainly not admit that they are not wiser than those privy to intel that they are not privy to.

Why?

Cause liberals are hypocrites who think they know every fucking thing.

You just promoted the side of this discussion you claim to disagree with. Did you do that on purpose because you have finally seen the light and changed your position? Congratulations if you have!!!

 

[Camp]

And by the way, posting endless unrelated stuff to a topic is not an acceptable way to avoid and evade answering simple and straight to the point questions, which is what you are doing.

 

[Theowl32]

Nixon was caught with his pants down and paid the price. Nobody to blame but himself

Like I said folks, no control whatsoever over their ignorance or their hypocrisy.

None.

They stand for nothing and rightwinger keeps proving it.

Tell us again why Obama continued Bush policies that he campaigned against in order to gain votes in 2008. He then took office and it turned out he lied about everything.

Meaning, he broke virtually every promise.

It must be hard to placate such morons when the morons consist of 99% of the democratic voting base. Think about the corner they pain themselves in.

The voting base always think they know more than those who are privy to actual information. Such is the manner of the liberals and such is the character of the democratic voting base.

Look at rightwinger displaying his pathetic academia hypocrisy here. Hell, he does it in every thread with every post. This is just classic stuff.

Nixon spying on five democrats? His types....... are all......

Whenever democrats are caught red handed either spying on all of America, or using the IRS illegally, or being guilty of mass corporate scandals, or anything at all they are all....

Which Bush policies are you talking about? What promises are you claiming he broke? Why do you continuously use old data that is irrelevant to the topic. Stuff like Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and/or people supporting the Bush claims before they knew they were being lied to? I'll bet you are going to blame Obama for not closing GTMO and I'll bet you never read the wikileak/Turley link about why Obama didn't try to prosecute Bush for war crimes.
By the way, you used a term that confused me in one of your post. What is logistical reality? My Quartermaster use to scream that sometimes. I don't think he meant what you meant.

Amateurs always discuss strategy and the professionals are always studying logistics. For example a moronic liberal will always say we are "occupiers" cause we establish bases in either Japan, Germany, South Korea or various other regions.

Yeah, how fucking stupid. All while you have no clue about the logistical necessity and in your arrogance you will not acknowledge it or ignore it outright. You have no idea what rapid troop deployment entails or what the word transit even really means.

It is certainly not discussed in your little drum circles. Another clear example of pure and utter liberal ignorance in regards to logistics is when the morons blamed Bush for the Katrina disaster. As though any of you know or care that the logistical problems in a natural disaster are very similar to war time logistics. When a 400 mile diameter storm covers 5 states for example and when all communication and power is knocked out and main roads are wiped out........

Where do you set up command control center?
Who is in most immediate danger?
How do get supplies in and out of troubled areas?
How do we coordinate with local authorities when communication is knocked out?

Especially when New Orleans was not even hit directly. The simple fact is the democratic mayor did not make adequate provisions and failed to set up proper contingencies for the distinct possibility that a hurricane would one day hit there.

No, in their panic, the media put on a full court press blame on Bush. They know the public, especially the liberals have no clue about logistics, and certainly do not know how the local state and federal governments work.

Liberals, in their typical know it all fashion, typically put all of the blame at the feet of republicans and Bush.

Liberals are pathetic and one of the things they do when confronted with truth is obfuscate to irrelevant fallacies. The fact that rightwinger approves your half baked ignorant dreck proves what I say.

 

[Theowl32]

Which Bush policies are you talking about? What promises are you claiming he broke? Why do you continuously use old data that is irrelevant to the topic. Stuff like Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and/or people supporting the Bush claims before they knew they were being lied to? I'll bet you are going to blame Obama for not closing GTMO and I'll bet you never read the wikileak/Turley link about why Obama didn't try to prosecute Bush for war crimes.
By the way, you used a term that confused me in one of your post. What is logistical reality? My Quartermaster use to scream that sometimes. I don't think he meant what you meant.

On President Barack Obama's second full day in the Oval Office in 2009, he signed important executive orders that signaled a clear break with the excesses of George W. Bush's “war on terror.” Obama decreed that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp would be closed in a year and that the United States would no longer perpetrate torture. No longer would men, some of them innocent, languish without charges in what has been described as an American gulag by Amnesty International. No longer would men be subjected to brutal interrogation tactics that clearly amounted to torture, like water boarding.

The orders would “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism,” said Obama.

Fast-forward to today. Guantanamo remains open, warrantless wiretapping continues, and drone strikes have accelerated, leading to the deaths of innocent civilians and a burst in support for anti-American forces in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. Instead of breaking with the Bush era, Obama has codified and permanently institutionalized the “war on terror” framework that has characterized American foreign policy since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And they have done all of this largely in secret, refusing to open up about how drone strikes are decided on. So while torture has been thrown out of the American playbook, other black marks remain. Obama has done everything but restore “core constitutional values” to how the U.S. conducts itself around the world.

Perhaps the most potent symbol of Obama's willingness to institutionalize Bush-era frameworks for dealing with terrorism is his January 2013 appointment of John Brennan as new Central Intelligence Agency director. Brennan was a key supporter of many Bush-favored tactics used by the CIA, including torture and extraordinary rendition. When Obama first contemplated appointing Brennan in his first term to the post he's been appointed to now, the outcry was swift and Brennan pulled out from consideration. Now, the reaction has been meek—a symbol of how Bush-era military and intelligence tactics have become normalized to the extent that nobody bats an eye when a man with a sordid record at the CIA is appointed to head up the entire agency.

Obama has kept the U.S. on a permanent war footing with no end in sight through a variety of methods. Here are five ways the Obama administration has institutionalized the never-ending war on terror.

1. Drones

The image of the gray, pilotless aircraft flying through the sky to eventually rain hellfire down will be indelibly tied to Obama. His administration has made drone strikes in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan the weapon of choice when it comes to dealing with suspected militants. You have to look at the numbers of drone strikes under the Bush and Obama administrations to truly appreciate how Obama has taken this Bush tool and increased its use exponentially.

The first drone strike in U.S. history occurred in 2002, when a CIA-operated drone fired on three men in Afghanistan. The drone strikes have since migrated over to battlefields away from U.S.-declared wars. In Pakistan, the Bush administration carried out a total of 52 strikes, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which closely tracks drone strikes. That led to the deaths of an estimated 438 people, including 182 civilians and 112 children. But the Obama administration has ordered at least 300 drone strikes in Pakistan—and Obama's second term has yet to begun. Those strikes have killed about 2,152 people, including 290 civilians, of whom 64 were children.

The drone strikes also have a devastating impact beyond the deaths reported. As a New York University/Stanford University study on drone strikes stated, the constant buzzing of drones in the sky “terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.”

Instead of looking forward to how this permanent drone war might end, the Obama administration has decided to institutionalize the process. In October 2012, the Washington Post revealed that the administration had undertaken a two-year long strategy to institutionalize what has become known as the “kill list,” or the list of suspected terrorists the Obama administration unilaterally decides to kill by drone strikes. The administration calls it the “disposition matrix,” which refers to the different plans the administration has to “dispose” of suspected militants. The Post described the “matrix” as part of “the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”

2. Warrantless Wiretapping

One of the enduring scandals of the George W. Bush years was that administration's practice of wiretapping American citizens with no warrant in order to spy on suspected terrorists. The New York Times, which broke the story in 2005, reported that “months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.” The move raised concerns that the Bush administration was crossing constitutional limits on wiretapping Americans.

But the outcry from those concerned with civil liberties has largely been muted in the Obama era. In late December 2012, President Obama signed an extension of a law that allows the U.S. to “eavesdrop on communications and review email without following an open and public warrant process,” as NPR summed it up. The law was an extension of the 2008 law that legalized the Bush administration's wiretapping of American citizens.

As national security blogger Marcy Wheeler notes in a recent piece for the Nation, the president's signature on the new bill on wiretapping means that the U.S. “has nearly unrestrained authority to eavesdrop on those who communicate with people outside the country. The government doesn’t even need to show that these foreign targets are terrorists or that the conversations center around a plot. This means any international communication may be subject to wiretapping.”

3. Proxy Detentions

Under the Bush administration, the process of “extraordinary rendition” involved abducting people accused of terrorism and shipping them off to another country where they were interrogated and tortured. The Obama administration has continued to use foreign countries to detain and interrogate suspects, but the details of how they do it are changed from the Bush era. Still, the overall practice of using other security forces to do your dirty work remains in place.

The Washington Post reported on January 1 that “the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” While the Post used the term “rendition,” the more accurate term would be “proxy detention,” as Mother Jones pointed out.

The most recent iterations of the practice of using other countries to detain suspects the U.S. wants to interrogate have been in countries like Dijibouti and Nigeria. The Post reported on one December 2011 case in which an man from Eritrea “revealed that he had been questioned in a Ni*ger*ian jail by what a U.S. interrogator described as a 'dirty' team of American agents who ignored the suspect’s right to remain silent or have a lawyer, according to court proceedings.”

Other cases have been publicized by Mother Jones. The magazine reported on the case of Yonas Fikre, a Muslim-American from Oregon who was detained in the United Arab Emirates. There, Fikre and his lawyers claim, he was beaten and held in stress positions. He claims there was cooperation between the FBI and UAE security forces. So the FBI was using the UAE forces to detain people the U.S. wanted to interrogate.

Will Congress Rein In Illegal Spying? | The Nation

Plan for hunting terrorists signals U.S. intends to keep adding names to kill lists - The Washington Post

4. Guantanamo

Although the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay camp is hardly the sole fault of President Obama, it does symbolize the abject failure to reject the Bush administration's approach to terrorism.

While it's important to note that the Republican Party has blocked Obama's desire to close Guantanamo, he has not expended political capital on closing the prison and has signed bills that restrict his ability to do so. The most recent bill concerning Guantanamo Bay crossed his desk at the beginning of the year.

Despite threatening to veto the bill because it restricted the executive branch's authority, Obama signed it, and curtailed his own ability to move ahead on closing the infamous camp, where people have languished without charge for years on end. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, where the Guantanamo provisions are included, restricts “the transfer of detainees into the United States for any purpose, including trials in federal court. It also requires the defense secretary to meet rigorous conditions before any detainee can be returned to his own country or resettled in a third country,” according to the Washington Post.

Human rights activists blasted the move. “Indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo is illegal, unsustainable and against U.S. national security interests, and it needs to end,” Human Rights Watch's Andrea Prasow told the Post. “The administration should not continue to just blame Congress. President Obama should follow through on his earlier commitments and make the effort to overcome the transfer restrictions.”

Bill?s Guantanamo Bay provisions have human rights groups upset with Obama - The Washington Post




5 Ways President Obama Has Doubled Down on Bush's Most Tragic Mistakes | Alternet


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

Watch folks, they will either not acknowledge them, obfuscate from the facts with some lame brain excuse, and will certainly not admit that they are not wiser than those privy to intel that they are not privy to.

Why?

Cause liberals are hypocrites who think they know every fucking thing.

You just promoted the side of this discussion you claim to disagree with. Did you do that on purpose because you have finally seen the light and changed your position? Congratulations if you have!!!

 

[Camp]

Katrina and all the stuff being posted to defend Bush is the same kind of misdirection that Bush used to lie us into the Iraq disaster and tragedy to start with. Whitewater and Clinton and Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and Obama is a horrible President and person are not viable as defenses for Bush having lied us into a war in Iraq.

 

[GWV5903]

Congress received their information from the CIA. Never did the CIA tell Congress (or SoS Powell) that their source for this information was a guy codenamed "curveball" whom they never interviewed, or that the intel agencies in Germany and England had cautioned them about the trustworthiness of "curveball" and that after we had gone in--when they did finally interview "curveball", they issued a burn notice on his intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvKVGmAc54c

Of course you won't watch the video.

Okay so he says he lied to bring down Saddam, he wasn't the source for the Democrat's quotes in this post, so they were just as wrong correct?

Or are you going to continue to lie?

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

So all of this Intel was from bad sources then?

I can't stand how two faced and chicken shit you and your fellow asshole liberals are...

Sad truth is you probably lie to EDIT in the same fashion...

Yeah, Curveball didn't brief Congress; the CIA did. The CIA used Curveball as their source for briefing Congress (even though they were warned of his untrustworthiness and had never questioned him directly) and for briefing Secretary Powell as was proven by the video.

When you trust the CIA is telling you the truth and are debating what action to take based on the intel, you are comfortable with what they told you. However, as we know now, the CIA was cooking the intel to get the result the administration wanted.

No WMDs found, no nukes found. Bush lied...people died. It's a fact; get used to it.

Typical Liberal bias, you have no integrity, why can't you admit that ALL of your so called Democrat Leadership were just as wrong?

I now know you do lie to your EDIT...

 

[candycorn]

Okay so he says he lied to bring down Saddam, he wasn't the source for the Democrat's quotes in this post, so they were just as wrong correct?

Or are you going to continue to lie?

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

So all of this Intel was from bad sources then?

I can't stand how two faced and chicken shit you and your fellow asshole liberals are...

Sad truth is you probably lie to EDIT in the same fashion...

Yeah, Curveball didn't brief Congress; the CIA did. The CIA used Curveball as their source for briefing Congress (even though they were warned of his untrustworthiness and had never questioned him directly) and for briefing Secretary Powell as was proven by the video.

When you trust the CIA is telling you the truth and are debating what action to take based on the intel, you are comfortable with what they told you. However, as we know now, the CIA was cooking the intel to get the result the administration wanted.

No WMDs found, no nukes found. Bush lied...people died. It's a fact; get used to it.

Typical Liberal bias, you have no integrity, why can't you admit that ALL of your so called Democrat Leadership were just as wrong?

I now know you do lie to your EDIT...

The facts whisper louder than your childish accusations but being from Texas, you wouldn't know anything about facts or logic or civility. What is it you're trying to say that keeps getting edited?

 

[Theowl32]

Katrina and all the stuff being posted to defend Bush is the same kind of misdirection that Bush used to lie us into the Iraq disaster and tragedy to start with. Whitewater and Clinton and Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and Obama is a horrible President and person are not viable as defenses for Bush having lied us into a war in Iraq.

What specifically are you referring to in regards to Katrina? Are you in your ignorance saying there are no logistical problems in regards to a 400 mile diameter storm that devastates 5 states?

You do not think there was a need to set up a command center?
You do not think there was a problem with all communication being knocked out?
You do not think there was a problem with getting supply lines into crucial areas with roads knocked out?
You do think it was important to coordinate with local government?
How would you go about doing that?
You did not know the democrats mayor failed in establishing effective contingencies or providing adequate provisions?
You do not realize that is the responsibility of the local government to establish those things?
Does it piss you off to learn about your ignorance?

Cause quite frankly I know you never considered any of those things.

Again, morons like you never consider logistics, which makes you the amateurs you are. More importantly it establishes what kind of puppet you are for your puppet masters in the democratic party in order use your favorite scapegoat the republicans. The cliches are the puppet strings, and every time you go to your pathetic cliches in order to obfuscate from the actual truth, I will point it out. ,
You are ignorant. The truth...is very hard to deal with, especially for people that rely and perpetuate the lies. People like you.

 

[JQPublic1]

Theowl32 burst into this thread with misdirected passion; making a valiant attempt to disrupt the ongoing conversation with irrelevancies. This extraordinary harangue concerning old outdated data from the 1980s and 1990s adds little, if anything, to the discussion at hand: Did Bush lie about WMDs in
Iraq?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tify-the-invasion-of-iraq-10.html#post9310555

But Theowl32 wasn’t through. He took aim at Obama and tried to make him part of the Bush legacy.

Oh right, so the war that Obama was against he just increased and sought to increase it in Iraq too. Yes, he did.

So the reason he did not conduct an investigation was simply cause he did not want to drag the country through the mud? That is all you got?

Yet that same good guy conducted drone strikes along with expanding the war. You know what that evidence ACTUALLY SHOWS? It actually shows there are aspects of this war that we the people are not privy to. Obama of course is privy to those things and once he took office, he saw the reality.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tify-the-invasion-of-iraq-10.html#post9312481
I guess Theowl32 was a fly on the wall in the Oval Office. How else could he be so sure that his speculation is any better than anyone else’s? IMHO, Obama expanded the war in Iraq on the advice of military commanders and, I hate to say it, CIA reports. Implementation of the Bush Doctrine, by Bush, had changed regional dynamics. After Saddam was gone, there was an increased possibility that Al-Qaeda or even Iran might start to make incursions into Iraq. That was no secret. Moreover, that expansion had nothing to do with Bush’s original lie.
BTW if Obama’s stance on Iraq had been changed by revelations afforded under executive privilege, even Theowl32 should be wondering what prompted him to actually end the war there and bring our troops home. Bush’s lie has not been diminished in the least thus far. Got anything else? Of course you do…
Unable to martial a viable defense against the damning evidence presented here:

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior IA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again. Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...stify-the-invasion-of-iraq-7.html#post9306709

You enigmatically deflect your conversation to Clinton’s presidency, forsaking the topic at hand!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tify-the-invasion-of-iraq-10.html#post9312724

GWV5903 joins the clueless legions, seemingly oblivious to my link above at post #9306709
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...stify-the-invasion-of-iraq-8.html#post9308122.

The seeds of Bush’s lie has taken root and flourishes among his duped allies. They feed on it, they regurgitate the invalidated mess emanating from it, and they spread new seeds everywhere they go.

 

[Camp]

Katrina and all the stuff being posted to defend Bush is the same kind of misdirection that Bush used to lie us into the Iraq disaster and tragedy to start with. Whitewater and Clinton and Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and Obama is a horrible President and person are not viable as defenses for Bush having lied us into a war in Iraq.

What specifically are you referring to in regards to Katrina? Are you in your ignorance saying there are no logistical problems in regards to a 400 mile diameter storm that devastates 5 states?

You do not think there was a need to set up a command center?
You do not think there was a problem with all communication being knocked out?
You do not think there was a problem with getting supply lines into crucial areas with roads knocked out?
You do think it was important to coordinate with local government?
How would you go about doing that?
You did not know the democrats mayor failed in establishing effective contingencies or providing adequate provisions?
You do not realize that is the responsibility of the local government to establish those things?
Does it piss you off to learn about your ignorance?

Cause quite frankly I know you never considered any of those things.

Again, morons like you never consider logistics, which makes you the amateurs you are. More importantly it establishes what kind of puppet you are for your puppet masters in the democratic party in order use your favorite scapegoat the republicans. The cliches are the puppet strings, and every time you go to your pathetic cliches in order to obfuscate from the actual truth, I will point it out. ,
You are ignorant. The truth...is very hard to deal with, especially for people that rely and perpetuate the lies. People like you.

Dude I was packin' and dropin' with goonies to places you never heard of before you were born.
I can assure you, I could have dropped fresh water to those people at the Superdome if given anything with a friggin propeller and wings and parachutes.

 

[Theowl32]

Katrina and all the stuff being posted to defend Bush is the same kind of misdirection that Bush used to lie us into the Iraq disaster and tragedy to start with. Whitewater and Clinton and Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and Obama is a horrible President and person are not viable as defenses for Bush having lied us into a war in Iraq.

What specifically are you referring to in regards to Katrina? Are you in your ignorance saying there are no logistical problems in regards to a 400 mile diameter storm that devastates 5 states?

You do not think there was a need to set up a command center?
You do not think there was a problem with all communication being knocked out?
You do not think there was a problem with getting supply lines into crucial areas with roads knocked out?
You do think it was important to coordinate with local government?
How would you go about doing that?
You did not know the democrats mayor failed in establishing effective contingencies or providing adequate provisions?
You do not realize that is the responsibility of the local government to establish those things?
Does it piss you off to learn about your ignorance?

Cause quite frankly I know you never considered any of those things.

Again, morons like you never consider logistics, which makes you the amateurs you are. More importantly it establishes what kind of puppet you are for your puppet masters in the democratic party in order use your favorite scapegoat the republicans. The cliches are the puppet strings, and every time you go to your pathetic cliches in order to obfuscate from the actual truth, I will point it out. ,
You are ignorant. The truth...is very hard to deal with, especially for people that rely and perpetuate the lies. People like you.

Dude I was packin' and dropin' with goonies to places you never heard of before you were born.
I can assure you, I could have dropped fresh water to those people at the Superdome if given anything with a friggin propeller and wings and parachutes.

You could have dropped off fresh water where and when? You are old enough to be what?

Wait, are you saying you could have single handedly rescued the hundreds of thousands of people that were not adequately taken care of by the mayor who had the responsibility for providing provisions and establishing adequate contingency plans?

Or.....

Are you holding the mayor and governor responsible, you know, since it was indeed their responsibility.

Your pathetic ignorant statement makes me believe you may very well be the dumbest of all the left wing hacks on here. I cannot express to you how fucking stupid that is.

Thank you for letting us all know how you could have saved all of those people by yourself.

Stupid fucking liberals and their bullshit.

 

[Theowl32]

Theowl32 burst into this thread with misdirected passion; making a valiant attempt to disrupt the ongoing conversation with irrelevancies. This extraordinary harangue concerning old outdated data from the 1980s and 1990s adds little, if anything, to the discussion at hand: Did Bush lie about WMDs in
Iraq?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tify-the-invasion-of-iraq-10.html#post9310555

But Theowl32 wasn’t through. He took aim at Obama and tried to make him part of the Bush legacy.

Oh right, so the war that Obama was against he just increased and sought to increase it in Iraq too. Yes, he did.

So the reason he did not conduct an investigation was simply cause he did not want to drag the country through the mud? That is all you got?

Yet that same good guy conducted drone strikes along with expanding the war. You know what that evidence ACTUALLY SHOWS? It actually shows there are aspects of this war that we the people are not privy to. Obama of course is privy to those things and once he took office, he saw the reality.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tify-the-invasion-of-iraq-10.html#post9312481
I guess Theowl32 was a fly on the wall in the Oval Office. How else could he be so sure that his speculation is any better than anyone else’s? IMHO, Obama expanded the war in Iraq on the advice of military commanders and, I hate to say it, CIA reports. Implementation of the Bush Doctrine, by Bush, had changed regional dynamics. After Saddam was gone, there was an increased possibility that Al-Qaeda or even Iran might start to make incursions into Iraq. That was no secret. Moreover, that expansion had nothing to do with Bush’s original lie.
BTW if Obama’s stance on Iraq had been changed by revelations afforded under executive privilege, even Theowl32 should be wondering what prompted him to actually end the war there and bring our troops home. Bush’s lie has not been diminished in the least thus far. Got anything else? Of course you do…
Unable to martial a viable defense against the damning evidence presented here:

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior IA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again. Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...stify-the-invasion-of-iraq-7.html#post9306709

You enigmatically deflect your conversation to Clinton’s presidency, forsaking the topic at hand!
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...tify-the-invasion-of-iraq-10.html#post9312724

GWV5903 joins the clueless legions, seemingly oblivious to my link above at post #9306709
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...stify-the-invasion-of-iraq-8.html#post9308122.

The seeds of Bush’s lie has taken root and flourishes among his duped allies. They feed on it, they regurgitate the invalidated mess emanating from it, and they spread new seeds everywhere they go.

Huh, man you must be pissed the UN did not charge Bush with war crimes. I see. Bush was responsible for deliberately killing millions (according to you morons) and you feel it was a good thing for Obama to not hold an independent investigation? For the good of the country? No justice?

Color me confused, especially when Obama has dragged this country through the mud on an apology tour since he has been president. That is between killing mythical terrorists with drones.

There seems to be some serious denial going on. The Obama administration did in fact negotiate to keep troops in Iraq. It was only after Al-Maliki rejected the terms of an extension (for troop prosecution immunity) of the old Bush agreement for US troops staying in Iraq that the US was forced to leave.

Obama did not decide to leave to fulfill a campaign promise, he was convinced to stay but legally can't without that agreement.

EDIT: For people who doubt that Obama was TRYING TO STAY IN IRAQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-...d-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ar-wanted-troops-stay-iraq-longer_655272.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...aq-into-2012/2011/09/07/gIQAcnkhAK_story.html
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/

Oh the truth hurts the liberals so......

 

[KNB]

You keep thinking that Obama is somehow different than Bush. You should stop thinking that.

Bush fucked the world for the super-rich and Obama is keeping the game going.

Why can't anyone see that? "Obama did the same thing as Bush. Why is that?" Because they're the same. It isn't rocket scientology.

 

[MikeK]

[
George Tenet's "slam dunk" comment referred to the relative ease of invading Iraq. He was saying what his master, Bush, wanted him to say.

.

Wrong. And it makes no sense.

President Bush was asking SPECIFICALLY about WMD evidence when Tenet made his "slam dunk" comment.

Bush had no reason to ask a question about invasion plans or et cetera to Tenet.

I'll agree Tenet was a cockroach but President Bush was NOT his master. He was a Clinton appointee who was in his position before Bush ever ran for the presidency.

George Tenet is a compliant ass-wiping stooge, which is why Clinton appointed him. Bush could have replaced him but he kept him on for the same reason Clinton appointed him. And Bush could have "accepted his resignation" at any time, which is why Tenet was so eagerly willing to affirm and support Bush's well-known ambition to invade Iraq, which accounts for his "slam dunk" reply to the question about WMD.

Bush clearly wanted to advance the notion that invading Iraq to remove Hussein's WMD, Tenet was well aware of that, and he affirmed Bush's wish by declaring it a "slam dunk" prospect.

But if you prefer to believe otherwise it is not my intention to attempt changing your mind. I know better. Anything I say here is said for the benefit of those who might be swayed by the same propaganda which clearly has convinced you but who are amenable to learning the facts.

 

[Camp]

What specifically are you referring to in regards to Katrina? Are you in your ignorance saying there are no logistical problems in regards to a 400 mile diameter storm that devastates 5 states?

You do not think there was a need to set up a command center?
You do not think there was a problem with all communication being knocked out?
You do not think there was a problem with getting supply lines into crucial areas with roads knocked out?
You do think it was important to coordinate with local government?
How would you go about doing that?
You did not know the democrats mayor failed in establishing effective contingencies or providing adequate provisions?
You do not realize that is the responsibility of the local government to establish those things?
Does it piss you off to learn about your ignorance?

Cause quite frankly I know you never considered any of those things.

Again, morons like you never consider logistics, which makes you the amateurs you are. More importantly it establishes what kind of puppet you are for your puppet masters in the democratic party in order use your favorite scapegoat the republicans. The cliches are the puppet strings, and every time you go to your pathetic cliches in order to obfuscate from the actual truth, I will point it out. ,
You are ignorant. The truth...is very hard to deal with, especially for people that rely and perpetuate the lies. People like you.

Dude I was packin' and dropin' with goonies to places you never heard of before you were born.
I can assure you, I could have dropped fresh water to those people at the Superdome if given anything with a friggin propeller and wings and parachutes.

You could have dropped off fresh water where and when? You are old enough to be what?

Wait, are you saying you could have single handedly rescued the hundreds of thousands of people that were not adequately taken care of by the mayor who had the responsibility for providing provisions and establishing adequate contingency plans?

Or.....

Are you holding the mayor and governor responsible, you know, since it was indeed their responsibility.

Your pathetic ignorant statement makes me believe you may very well be the dumbest of all the left wing hacks on here. I cannot express to you how fucking stupid that is.

Thank you for letting us all know how you could have saved all of those people by yourself.

Stupid fucking liberals and their bullshit.

I couldn't rescue them but I could have para dropped water and medical supplies and hit targets at 500 to 700 feet that were a fraction of the size of the Superdome all day long and with some strobes, flares or burning fires all night.

 

[Theowl32]

Dude I was packin' and dropin' with goonies to places you never heard of before you were born.
I can assure you, I could have dropped fresh water to those people at the Superdome if given anything with a friggin propeller and wings and parachutes.

You could have dropped off fresh water where and when? You are old enough to be what?

Wait, are you saying you could have single handedly rescued the hundreds of thousands of people that were not adequately taken care of by the mayor who had the responsibility for providing provisions and establishing adequate contingency plans?

Or.....

Are you holding the mayor and governor responsible, you know, since it was indeed their responsibility.

Your pathetic ignorant statement makes me believe you may very well be the dumbest of all the left wing hacks on here. I cannot express to you how fucking stupid that is.

Thank you for letting us all know how you could have saved all of those people by yourself.

Stupid fucking liberals and their bullshit.

I couldn't rescue them but I could have para dropped water and medical supplies and hit targets at 500 to 700 feet that were a fraction of the size of the Superdome all day long and with some strobes, flares or burning fires all night.

Shut the fuck up

 

[rightwinger]

Katrina and all the stuff being posted to defend Bush is the same kind of misdirection that Bush used to lie us into the Iraq disaster and tragedy to start with. Whitewater and Clinton and Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and Obama is a horrible President and person are not viable as defenses for Bush having lied us into a war in Iraq.

What specifically are you referring to in regards to Katrina? Are you in your ignorance saying there are no logistical problems in regards to a 400 mile diameter storm that devastates 5 states?

You do not think there was a need to set up a command center?
You do not think there was a problem with all communication being knocked out?
You do not think there was a problem with getting supply lines into crucial areas with roads knocked out?
You do think it was important to coordinate with local government?
How would you go about doing that?
You did not know the democrats mayor failed in establishing effective contingencies or providing adequate provisions?
You do not realize that is the responsibility of the local government to establish those things?
Does it piss you off to learn about your ignorance?

Cause quite frankly I know you never considered any of those things.

Again, morons like you never consider logistics, which makes you the amateurs you are. More importantly it establishes what kind of puppet you are for your puppet masters in the democratic party in order use your favorite scapegoat the republicans. The cliches are the puppet strings, and every time you go to your pathetic cliches in order to obfuscate from the actual truth, I will point it out. ,
You are ignorant. The truth...is very hard to deal with, especially for people that rely and perpetuate the lies. People like you.

Quite a challenge and yet you expect a mayor of a devastated city to accomplish it

Yet, you exonerate Bush who had the entire US Military and FEMA at his disposal

 

[Camp]

You could have dropped off fresh water where and when? You are old enough to be what?

Wait, are you saying you could have single handedly rescued the hundreds of thousands of people that were not adequately taken care of by the mayor who had the responsibility for providing provisions and establishing adequate contingency plans?

Or.....

Are you holding the mayor and governor responsible, you know, since it was indeed their responsibility.

Your pathetic ignorant statement makes me believe you may very well be the dumbest of all the left wing hacks on here. I cannot express to you how fucking stupid that is.

Thank you for letting us all know how you could have saved all of those people by yourself.

Stupid fucking liberals and their bullshit.

I couldn't rescue them but I could have para dropped water and medical supplies and hit targets at 500 to 700 feet that were a fraction of the size of the Superdome all day long and with some strobes, flares or burning fires all night.

Shut the fuck up

No, I don't think I will do as you suggest. You don't have a clue about what I am talking about do you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let us know when a legit government or the UN files war crimes against Bush for the OBVIOUS lies that they claim exist.

LOL.

I never did get the answer the other day. Why didn't Obama conduct an independent investigation LIKE ALL MORON LIBERALS were expecting him to do? Especially when he had that super majority?

I will tell you what never occurs to these know it all academic types who know nothing about logistics. It never occurs to any of them that perhaps there is intel that we will never know about and Obama became privy to only after he became president.

Hence the reasons he did not conduct an investigation, the reason he never closed down GTMO and the reason he carried out drone strikes on terrorists that they claimed did not exist.

However, of course since Obama needs to placate is perpetually naive moronic base, he lies to them nonstop. Especially in election years where the democrats expands and edifies their stupid base who can never be convinced of anything.

The funny thing is how they really believe they always know more than the intel that none of us are privy to. It is hilarious watching them squirm and scratch while they cannot explain why Bush was not investigated like they thought when Obama took office.

The reason Democrats did not bring the Bush administration up on charges was because they did not want to drag the country through the mud. Unlike Republicans who kept a Whitewater investigation going for seven years or impeached over a blowjob, Democrats realize what these investigations do to the country

Oh right, so the war that Obama was against he just increased and sought to increase it in Iraq too. Yes, he did.

So the reason he did not conduct an investigation was simply cause he did not want to drag the country through the mud? That is all you got?

Yet that same good guy conducted drone strikes along with expanding the war. You know what that evidence ACTUALLY SHOWS? It actually shows there are aspects of this war that we the people are not privy to. Obama of course is privy to those things and once he took office, he saw the reality.

Of course he needs to placate his constituency. He needs to edify that base and people like you. He talks his game and lies to you about EVERYTHING. You never stop to ask yourselves if whether or not it is even possible that there are indeed things that is a lot more crucial with this war on terrorism. It never occurs to anyone that perhaps this war on terror is not about overthrowing one country or deposing one leader.

You can say Saddam is dead and it has done nothing. Well, I can say bin laden is dead and it has done nothing. Seemingly anyway. This is more than taking out one leader. The long term goal is about attempting to win the hearts and minds of those people that are perpetually tortured by these throw backs.

It is also not as simple as us just leaving the region. It is not as simple as that, and the only chance this country or the world has is to educate the region. Our presence is essential and as I mentioned it is the same scenario as us still having bases in Japan. The Japanese were once as fanatical as these muslims. If we has just left Japan in 1945 or 46 the country would have fell into those fanatical elements that still existed there. The same problem would have happened 20 years later.

That is the logistical reality. Fact is there is more than one reason we NEED bases around the world now. One to protect our enemies by establishing a presence and creating a buffer between Japan and her enemies. The other is for rapid deployment in regions that are potential hot spots.

The liberals in this country always think they know more than the experts and always think they understand what all of the intelligence says or what the intel is revealing. The simple fact is if Bush deliberately lied and if it was so obvious he would have been charged by the world through the UN and he has not. Not only that, but the Nobel Peace prize winner expanded the mythical war. You all never wonder why that is.

It is pathetic.

Saturday, September 9, 2006

Rumsfeld Forbade Planning For Postwar Iraq, General Says

Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said.

Brig. Gen. Mark E. Scheid told the Newport News Daily Press in an interview published yesterday that Rumsfeld had said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a postwar plan.

Scheid was a colonel with the U.S. Central Command, the unit that oversees military operations in the Middle East, in late 2001 when Rumsfeld "told us to get ready for Iraq."

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us . . . that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4" -- plans that covered post-invasion operations such as security, stability and reconstruction, said Scheid, who is retiring in about three weeks, but "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that."

Washington Post

 

[Theowl32]

Katrina and all the stuff being posted to defend Bush is the same kind of misdirection that Bush used to lie us into the Iraq disaster and tragedy to start with. Whitewater and Clinton and Saddam having WMD's in the 80's and 90's and Obama is a horrible President and person are not viable as defenses for Bush having lied us into a war in Iraq.

What specifically are you referring to in regards to Katrina? Are you in your ignorance saying there are no logistical problems in regards to a 400 mile diameter storm that devastates 5 states?

You do not think there was a need to set up a command center?
You do not think there was a problem with all communication being knocked out?
You do not think there was a problem with getting supply lines into crucial areas with roads knocked out?
You do think it was important to coordinate with local government?
How would you go about doing that?
You did not know the democrats mayor failed in establishing effective contingencies or providing adequate provisions?
You do not realize that is the responsibility of the local government to establish those things?
Does it piss you off to learn about your ignorance?

Cause quite frankly I know you never considered any of those things.

Again, morons like you never consider logistics, which makes you the amateurs you are. More importantly it establishes what kind of puppet you are for your puppet masters in the democratic party in order use your favorite scapegoat the republicans. The cliches are the puppet strings, and every time you go to your pathetic cliches in order to obfuscate from the actual truth, I will point it out. ,
You are ignorant. The truth...is very hard to deal with, especially for people that rely and perpetuate the lies. People like you.

Quite a challenge and yet you expect a mayor of a devastated city to accomplish it

Yet, you exonerate Bush who had the entire US Military and FEMA at his disposal

No you fuckball. However, the state and local is suppose to have contingencies established and provisions provided.

You are still ignorant as hell when it comes to logistics and you sure as shit are ignorant as to how the government is set up to work.

I get it. You and camp would have known exactly what to do and where to go after the 400 mile diameter storm wrecked 5 states with power out, communication down and roads wiped out.

Of course.

Liberals.....are such pieces of uneducated, ignorant, shit and all of them are so easy for their democratic puppet masters to manipulate.

Tell us again camp how you would have known where to parachute the provisions due to your super duper senses and where everyone was in most need.

Ignorant fucks. Anyone want to know why our country is slowly descending into hell, look at these two right here.