Trump Has A Vivid Imagination

[Campbell]

While all our intelligence gathering capabilities have reached an overwhelming consensus that Russia has been hacking all our sites guess what? Trump has taken a stance that the jury is still out.

This is not funny when in reality we're dealing with a country run by thugs and murderers.

 

[westwall]

While all our intelligence gathering capabilities have reached an overwhelming consensus that Russia has been hacking all our sites guess what? Trump has taken a stance that the jury is still out.

This is not funny when in reality we're dealing with a country run by thugs and murderers.

Big whoop. These are the same intel orgs that told us there were WMD's in Iraq. See how that works silly boy...

 

[Campbell]

While all our intelligence gathering capabilities have reached an overwhelming consensus that Russia has been hacking all our sites guess what? Trump has taken a stance that the jury is still out.

This is not funny when in reality we're dealing with a country run by thugs and murderers.

Big whoop. These are the same intel orgs that told us there were WMD's in Iraq. See how that works silly boy...

The Republican party had been trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the old man Bush in Qatar...circa 1993. This letter.....which has essentially disappeared from online sites proves exactly that:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,


We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Campbell]

While all our intelligence gathering capabilities have reached an overwhelming consensus that Russia has been hacking all our sites guess what? Trump has taken a stance that the jury is still out.

This is not funny when in reality we're dealing with a country run by thugs and murderers.

Big whoop. These are the same intel orgs that told us there were WMD's in Iraq. See how that works silly boy...

The Republican party had been trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the old man Bush in Qatar...circa 1993. This letter.....which has essentially disappeared from online sites proves exactly that:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,


We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Like I Said!!!!


December 18, 1998





The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC




Dear Mr. President,




We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity
in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass
destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[whitehall]

Just what are "our intelligence gathering capabilities"? Our "intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't detect a rag-tag gang of terrorists going to flight school in the U.S. and learning how to fly a freaking plane into a freaking building. Our "intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston in time to stop the Marathon bombing or the Christmas party act of terrorism in San Bernadino or even the night club shooting in Florida when the freaking suspect was allegedly under surveillance. Now our "intelligence gathering bureaucracy" seems to be pleading insanity when they obviously couldn't stop alleged Russian hacking in the freaking first place. Do we pay these people in the "intelligence community" to be political whiners after the fact?

 

[Penelope]

While all our intelligence gathering capabilities have reached an overwhelming consensus that Russia has been hacking all our sites guess what? Trump has taken a stance that the jury is still out.

This is not funny when in reality we're dealing with a country run by thugs and murderers.

Big whoop. These are the same intel orgs that told us there were WMD's in Iraq. See how that works silly boy...

No it wasn't.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Just what are "our intelligence gathering capabilities"? Our "intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't detect a rag-tag gang of terrorists going to flight school in the U.S. and learning how to fly a freaking plane into a freaking building. Our "intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston in time to stop the Marathon bombing or the Christmas party act of terrorism in San Bernadino or even the night club shooting in Florida when the freaking suspect was allegedly under surveillance. Now our "intelligence gathering bureaucracy" seems to be pleading insanity when they obviously couldn't stop alleged Russian hacking in the freaking first place. Do we pay these people in the "intelligence community" to be political whiners after the fact?

"intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston in time to stop the Marathon bombing


even though they did have them on their radar at one point

 

[Campbell]

Just what are "our intelligence gathering capabilities"? Our "intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't detect a rag-tag gang of terrorists going to flight school in the U.S. and learning how to fly a freaking plane into a freaking building. Our "intelligence gathering capabilities" couldn't find two Russian born terrorists in Boston in time to stop the Marathon bombing or the Christmas party act of terrorism in San Bernadino or even the night club shooting in Florida when the freaking suspect was allegedly under surveillance. Now our "intelligence gathering bureaucracy" seems to be pleading insanity when they obviously couldn't stop alleged Russian hacking in the freaking first place. Do we pay these people in the "intelligence community" to be political whiners after the fact?

Not only was that detected and recorded...it was reported to Bush.....who was too busy trying to get big tax cuts for the richest people in the country to pay any attention to it.

 

[westwall]

While all our intelligence gathering capabilities have reached an overwhelming consensus that Russia has been hacking all our sites guess what? Trump has taken a stance that the jury is still out.

This is not funny when in reality we're dealing with a country run by thugs and murderers.

Big whoop. These are the same intel orgs that told us there were WMD's in Iraq. See how that works silly boy...

No it wasn't.

Uhhhhh, yeah, it was. Do try and keep up...