Bush Blames Iraq WMD claim on bad Intelligence, gives executive order for Investigation, Collin sad he was lied to

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD -

Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X

So I guess we can assume that you don't think he should've done X?

Depends on what "X" you want to put in there. The "X" = whatever new excuse/accusation people will use to try use to complain.

The point still remains that people whined about not having an independent investigation and still aren't going to be happy even though there is going to be one.

Meh - whatever helps people sleep at night. Maybe some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

CkG

Well, CAD. you said "Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X". What were you talking about?

Or was it just general Bush-basher bashing?

Well here are some examples of what I was talking about - whining and X:
"LoL - Will this get as far as the 9/11 commision ?" - Wonder what he meant?
"I'd guess that the report will be censored." - Hmmm
"I think the problem is that Bush didn't 'call for it'." - don't know what that guy was smoking
"This is going to be patterned after the warren commission?!?!?!? LOLOLOL, WHY DON'T WE JUST CALL IT A COVERUP!?" - CONSPIRACY!!!!
"Is this an independent investigation?" - with overtones of "he'll still pull strings".

All examples of finding something to whine/bitch/complain about.

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...
...WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

He tries to stop an independent investigation ... he's bashed...
He does nothing at all...and he's bashed...
He calls for an investigation...and he's bashed...
Hmmm...
Meh - like I said - seems like some people just like to be unhappy.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD -

Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X

So I guess we can assume that you don't think he should've done X?

Depends on what "X" you want to put in there. The "X" = whatever new excuse/accusation people will use to try use to complain.

The point still remains that people whined about not having an independent investigation and still aren't going to be happy even though there is going to be one.

Meh - whatever helps people sleep at night. Maybe some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

CkG

Well, CAD. you said "Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X". What were you talking about?

Or was it just general Bush-basher bashing?

Well here are some examples of what I was talking about - whining and X:
"LoL - Will this get as far as the 9/11 commision ?" - Wonder what he meant?
"I'd guess that the report will be censored." - Hmmm
"I think the problem is that Bush didn't 'call for it'." - don't know what that guy was smoking
"This is going to be patterned after the warren commission?!?!?!? LOLOLOL, WHY DON'T WE JUST CALL IT A COVERUP!?" - CONSPIRACY!!!!
"Is this an independent investigation?" - with overtones of "he'll still pull strings".

All examples of finding something to whine/bitch/complain about.

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...
...WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

He tries to stop an independent investigation ... he's bashed...
He does nothing at all...and he's bashed...
He calls for an investigation...and he's bashed...
Hmmm...
Meh - like I said - seems like some people just like to be unhappy.

CkG

OK CAD. We both know you were talking about my post when you made the 'he didn't do X' comment. So I'll just come right out and ask you. Do you feel he should've supported an investigation sooner? Do you agree/disagree with the bolded part of your quote above?

I'm anxiously awaiting yet another excuse not to answer my questions. Your other excuses are vaulted, btw.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD -

Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X

So I guess we can assume that you don't think he should've done X?

Depends on what "X" you want to put in there. The "X" = whatever new excuse/accusation people will use to try use to complain.

The point still remains that people whined about not having an independent investigation and still aren't going to be happy even though there is going to be one.

Meh - whatever helps people sleep at night. Maybe some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

CkG

Well, CAD. you said "Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X". What were you talking about?

Or was it just general Bush-basher bashing?

Well here are some examples of what I was talking about - whining and X:
"LoL - Will this get as far as the 9/11 commision ?" - Wonder what he meant?
"I'd guess that the report will be censored." - Hmmm
"I think the problem is that Bush didn't 'call for it'." - don't know what that guy was smoking
"This is going to be patterned after the warren commission?!?!?!? LOLOLOL, WHY DON'T WE JUST CALL IT A COVERUP!?" - CONSPIRACY!!!!
"Is this an independent investigation?" - with overtones of "he'll still pull strings".

All examples of finding something to whine/bitch/complain about.

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...
...WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

He tries to stop an independent investigation ... he's bashed...
He does nothing at all...and he's bashed...
He calls for an investigation...and he's bashed...
Hmmm...
Meh - like I said - seems like some people just like to be unhappy.

CkG

Yep, just as I thought.

Lame, but then you are supporting a lame position.

FLASH- Bush wants to set up an investigation that involves matters that reflect on himself. That way he can avoid what Ken Starr did to Clinton. Of course you felt that Clinton should have had more control over the investigation don't you? Pull the other one.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X , and it's going to be X....blah blah blah.

You people are hilarious. Whine when he doesn't do what you think he should and then bitch when he actually does what you whined he didn't before.

Nice.

CkG

Here come all the apologists. Bleat about how we don't need investigations, or don't need independent investigations, or don't need more time for investigations, and then when Bush-lite caves to the pressure, you try to give him credit for it. You people are hilarious.

Nice.

Once "you people" are done with your knee-jerk, left-bashing generalizations, you might want to notice that not everyone is criticizing Bush ... yet. I'll save my "bitching" for when we have something more than a vague announcement. We need to hear the details of who will conduct the investigation and their organization, restrictions, and scope. Once we have that, we'll have plenty of time to comment. For now, it looks like a step in the right direction.

Oh really? Don't think I ever said the intelligence shouldn't be investigated. Seems to me- people here were bleating about how an independent council should review the intel. Now that it is going to be - other Bush accusations start flying. But sure - whatever - it's never stopped you all before so why change now?

CkG

(Well I don't remember what you personally said, but that's unimportant since I'm going to lump you together with unspecified others as "you people".)

You people always* object to every* attempt to investigate possible incompetence or malfeasance by the Bush-lite administration. You people objected to an independent 9/11 investigation, then you objected to requests to review the President's daily briefings, and most recently, you people objected to requests to give the Commission enough time to finish their work, having been delayed by the Bush administration for so long. You people objected to an investigation of Cheney's secret energy cartel meetings. You people objected to an independent investigation of the Plame scandal, but then tried to praise Bush&Co once Ashcroft stepped aside ... many months too late. And yes, you people objected to an investigation into the lies used to justify invading Iraq.

(By the way, we don't know yet whether this will be an independent investigation or not. Time will tell.)


* These words are over-generalizations too, just like "you people", but they are so much easier and more dramatic than expressing my arguments accurately.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD -

Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X

So I guess we can assume that you don't think he should've done X?

Depends on what "X" you want to put in there. The "X" = whatever new excuse/accusation people will use to try use to complain.

The point still remains that people whined about not having an independent investigation and still aren't going to be happy even though there is going to be one.

Meh - whatever helps people sleep at night. Maybe some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

CkG

Well, CAD. you said "Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X". What were you talking about?

Or was it just general Bush-basher bashing?

Well here are some examples of what I was talking about - whining and X:
"LoL - Will this get as far as the 9/11 commision ?" - Wonder what he meant?
"I'd guess that the report will be censored." - Hmmm
"I think the problem is that Bush didn't 'call for it'." - don't know what that guy was smoking
"This is going to be patterned after the warren commission?!?!?!? LOLOLOL, WHY DON'T WE JUST CALL IT A COVERUP!?" - CONSPIRACY!!!!
"Is this an independent investigation?" - with overtones of "he'll still pull strings".

All examples of finding something to whine/bitch/complain about.

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...
...WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

He tries to stop an independent investigation ... he's bashed...
He does nothing at all...and he's bashed...
He calls for an investigation...and he's bashed...
Hmmm...
Meh - like I said - seems like some people just like to be unhappy.

CkG

OK CAD. We both know you were talking about my post when you made the 'he didn't do X' comment. So I'll just come right out and ask you. Do you feel he should've supported an investigation sooner? Do you agree/disagree with the bolded part of your quote above?

I'm anxiously awaiting yet another excuse not to answer my questions. Your other excuses are vaulted, btw.

Actually your post wasn't why I stated any of that. I know you were posing hypotheticals and questions as you always do. Hardly ever taking a position - just playing the game

Are the some of the questions legitimate? sure - maybe... but like I said - some people just like to whine/bitch/complain about Bush whenever and for whatever they can. Could he have done it sooner? sure. Should he have? who's to say? Why should he have done it sooner? Because YOU say he should? You do realize there are other "probes" going on - no? Since it looks like there have been intel problems regarding Iraq for years - I want the problem(s) found and addressed - no matter how far it goes back. - happy? We need good intel - period.

But anyway - yeah - try to spin this into something about me, but people still seem to miss the point of what I posted. Do I need to say it again?
OK - here it goes:
It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about.
Oh well - just ignore my point I guess Bleat on!"D

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Do you think he would've 'called' for an investigation if there wasn't the pressure to do so?

<--- playing the game.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD -

Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X

So I guess we can assume that you don't think he should've done X?

Depends on what "X" you want to put in there. The "X" = whatever new excuse/accusation people will use to try use to complain.

The point still remains that people whined about not having an independent investigation and still aren't going to be happy even though there is going to be one.

Meh - whatever helps people sleep at night. Maybe some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

CkG

Well, CAD. you said "Yep - here come the whiners. Well....he didn't do X". What were you talking about?

Or was it just general Bush-basher bashing?

Well here are some examples of what I was talking about - whining and X:
"LoL - Will this get as far as the 9/11 commision ?" - Wonder what he meant?
"I'd guess that the report will be censored." - Hmmm
"I think the problem is that Bush didn't 'call for it'." - don't know what that guy was smoking
"This is going to be patterned after the warren commission?!?!?!? LOLOLOL, WHY DON'T WE JUST CALL IT A COVERUP!?" - CONSPIRACY!!!!
"Is this an independent investigation?" - with overtones of "he'll still pull strings".

All examples of finding something to whine/bitch/complain about.

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...
...WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

He tries to stop an independent investigation ... he's bashed...
He does nothing at all...and he's bashed...
He calls for an investigation...and he's bashed...
Hmmm...
Meh - like I said - seems like some people just like to be unhappy.

CkG

OK CAD. We both know you were talking about my post when you made the 'he didn't do X' comment. So I'll just come right out and ask you. Do you feel he should've supported an investigation sooner? Do you agree/disagree with the bolded part of your quote above?

I'm anxiously awaiting yet another excuse not to answer my questions. Your other excuses are vaulted, btw.

Actually your post wasn't why I stated any of that. I know you were posing hypotheticals and questions as you always do. Hardly ever taking a position - just playing the game

Are the some of the questions legitimate? sure - maybe... but like I said - some people just like to whine/bitch/complain about Bush whenever and for whatever they can. Could he have done it sooner? sure. Should he have? who's to say? Why should he have done it sooner? Because YOU say he should? You do realize there are other "probes" going on - no? Since it looks like there have been intel problems regarding Iraq for years - I want the problem(s) found and addressed - no matter how far it goes back. - happy? We need good intel - period.

But anyway - yeah - try to spin this into something about me, but people still seem to miss the point of what I posted. Do I need to say it again?
OK - here it goes:
It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about.
Oh well - just ignore my point I guess Bleat on!"D

CkG

"Since it looks like there have been intel problems regarding Iraq for years"

Then why is it only the Bush Tag Team that has gone over there hunting in the desert?

 

[Gaard]

Oh yeah. Would you like to be the first to answer my hypotheticals I asked way up top?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah. Would you like to be the first to answer my hypotheticals I asked way up top?

In other words another Milosovic ouster or Somolia?

Didn't those have a U.N. mixed coalition forces though?

We did this for all intents and purposes alone.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah. Would you like to be the first to answer my hypotheticals I asked way up top?

I've answered that one before with MY opinion on the matter. I don't know what Bush would have done, but I know what I would/wouldn't have supported. IF Saddam had followed and complied with ALL of the demands of the original cease-fire agreement and the subsequent resolutions regarding his disarmament - then no I wouldn't have supported a war. But the FACT of the matter is - Saddam never lived up to his end of the agreement regardless of WMDs.

CkG

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah. Would you like to be the first to answer my hypotheticals I asked way up top?

In other words another Milosovic ouster or Somolia?

Didn't those have a U.N. mixed coalition forces though?

We did this for all intents and purposes alone.

Our Somalia commitment was originally made by Bush 41 after he was defeated in the November '92 election. I remember this timeframe rather distinctly because my unit was placed on alert to go down there. We couldn't figure out why a soon-to-be former president would commit us like that.

What irks me in some ways is that various posters try equating the debacle to Clinton. This isn't entirely true.

To answer the question, there was some multilateral involvement in Somalia but not on the scale of the Balkans.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh yeah. Would you like to be the first to answer my hypotheticals I asked way up top?

I've answered that one before with MY opinion on the matter. I don't know what Bush would have done, but I know what I would/wouldn't have supported. IF Saddam had followed and complied with ALL of the demands of the original cease-fire agreement and the subsequent resolutions regarding his disarmament - then no I wouldn't have supported a war. But the FACT of the matter is - Saddam never lived up to his end of the agreement regardless of WMDs.

CkG

There is a boatload of other Dictators not "living" up to thier end of agreements of WMD, are we going to pre-emptively strike and go to war with each and every one of them now? North Korea, Syria, Iran, and on and on. Let's get em all, charge!!!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...

Guardian

Senior American officials concluded at the beginning of last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, The Observer has learnt.
Intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors familiar with the details of the hunt for WMD told The Observer it was widely known that Iraq had no WMD within three weeks of Baghdad falling, despite the assertions of senior Bush administration figures and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Hmm, is there little wonder why 1) Bush didn't call for an investigation until pressured, 2) he didn't do it earlier, 3) there was a protracted effort by the administration to imply or dare I say . . . lie about the prospects for finding WMD during the Summer, Fall, and well . . . up to last week, and 4) Bushies want to control the process much like they wanted to control the 9/11 commission through the release of documents and setting of timetables.

Bush had rejected an independent investigation amid White House fears of a political witch-hunt by Democrats hoping to unseat him in elections this year, but began in recent days to reconsider the position.
'I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts,' Bush told reporters on Friday.

Hmm, I think that qualifies as 1) didn't call for an investigation until pressured, 2) didn't do it earlier, 3) wants to control the process, and 4) . . . is trying to convince the American public that he's sincere.

 

[no0b]

whos going to be the escape goat?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: no0b
whos going to be the escape goat?

Me Me Me, I already caused the Unemployment numbers to be what they are so what's another blame?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

There's already five or six "investigations" going on. The CIA has already completed on internal review. Among their findings was that no analyst was "pressured" by superiors or outside influence. IMO an independent review is necessary and it should be done quickly not only because of the obvious mistakes we made wrt Iraq but because we probably don't really know what's going on in Syria, Iran, China, N. Korea, etc.

Cheney/Rumsfeld didn't have to pressure analysts . . . they selected analysts. There's little doubt that we don't really know what's going on in Syria, Iran, China, and North Korea . . . and as long as Bush is in office that's unlikely to change.

People were whining when before Bush called for this investigation. Now he has called for it and .........

Dude, have you watched Bush talk over the past year. Even a month ago, Bush had NO questions or qualms about intelligence leading up to Bush War 2003. Whomever it is that's pulling Bush's strings this week is not nearly as oblivious as the commander-in-chief. As for the whiners . . . you mean like John McCain and David Kay?

David Kay is a liberal traitor.

He Cant Be. He Worked for Faux News.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Possible examples of "X":
...he didn't call for it until pressured...
...he didn't do it soon enough...
...its going to be a cover-up...
...he's going to "control" the process...
...it'll be kept secret...

Guardian

Senior American officials concluded at the beginning of last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, The Observer has learnt.
Intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors familiar with the details of the hunt for WMD told The Observer it was widely known that Iraq had no WMD within three weeks of Baghdad falling, despite the assertions of senior Bush administration figures and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Hmm, is there little wonder why 1) Bush didn't call for an investigation until pressured, 2) he didn't do it earlier, 3) there was a protracted effort by the administration to imply or dare I say . . . lie about the prospects for finding WMD during the Summer, Fall, and well . . . up to last week, and 4) Bushies want to control the process much like they wanted to control the 9/11 commission through the release of documents and setting of timetables.

Bush had rejected an independent investigation amid White House fears of a political witch-hunt by Democrats hoping to unseat him in elections this year, but began in recent days to reconsider the position.
'I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts,' Bush told reporters on Friday.

Hmm, I think that qualifies as 1) didn't call for an investigation until pressured, 2) didn't do it earlier, 3) wants to control the process, and 4) . . . is trying to convince the American public that he's sincere.

While this poster obviously, or obviously to me, operates with a rare and gifted intellectual acumen both in analysis and delivery, I can't excape the feeling that the thrust of his opinion here ought to be and surely is obvious to all but the most obtuse of programmed fools. That means, in other words, I guess, that you would have to have your head up your ass not to agree.
==================

Like Reagan, Bush has going for him the possibility that he will escape culpability for his blundering and titanic incompetance based on the fact that people may give him a retard's pass. The buck stops here, in Bush's case means the buck stops nowhere.

 

[Bitek]

While this poster obviously, or obviously to me, operates with a rare and gifted intellectual acumen both in analysis and delivery, I can't excape the feeling that the thrust of his opinion here ought to be and surely is obvious to all but the most obtuse of programmed fools. That means, in other words, I guess, that you would have to have your head up your ass not to agree.

Like Reagan, Bush has going for him the possibility that he will escape culpability for his blundering and titanic incompetance based on the fact that people may give him a retard's pass. The buck stops here, in Bush's case means the buck stops nowhere

HA!

This president is the root of a historical blunder which will erode our nation's crediability and reputation for years to come. And what is he now "claiming" as the justification? Saddam was a bad guy? 12,000 of our soldiers medivac'd (serious injury,) 500+ dead, 10,000 Iraqis dead, 100B spent, and a nation not on the brink of democracy, but increasing internal strife and potential civil war? Not to mention our complete distraction from the war with the real terrorists in Afghanistan. Who cares about OBL/Al Quesadia when we've got Saddam! Nice plan commander.

And where are all the weapons he promised? All those materials Colin Powell impassionedly presented to the UN body as evidence? Those weapons Rummy promised were "around the areas of Baghdad and Tikrit..."? Where are the nuclear weapon materials (not to mention the uranium from Niger...

) Bush and his "mushroom clouds" haunted us with?.....

"What's that you say? They don't exist?! You have GOT to be F'ing kidding me?!"
---> Bush apologists:"Yeah, but he gave a tax cut, and he did gas those Kurds (*cough* 15 years ago *cough*)"
"Gee, all's well that ends well, right? Lets go home and make some cocoa."

Throw this blundering, incompetent idiot out of office before he can cause any more disasters, and America has some face left.

 

[tomwolfman]

still ,when the troops pull out.instaed of one lunatic with a weapon we'll have many thousands of lunatics with weapons

 

[MonkeyK]

The White House official said the investigation's members will be "distinguished citizens who have served their country in the past."

<Troll>Ollie North?</Troll>

 

[dmcowen674]

Awww poor Collin, he was lied to by his Boss:

2-3-2004 Powell Says New Data May Have Affected War Decision

Asked if he would have recommended an invasion knowing Iraq had no prohibited weapons, Powell replied: "I don't know, because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world." He said the "absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get."

 

[tcsenter]

Collin sad he was lied to

I've read the Washington Post story twice but I can't seem to find the part where Powell expressed sadness over being "lied to". Could anyone help me find this part?

Or would this fall under the category of "Dave said something again..."?

 

[Orsorum]

George W. Bush and his Administration: "The Buck Stops Anywhere But Here"

A'ight, gotta stop making the snide little asides that prove nothing but my own bad humor.

 

[DealMonkey]

What a sad day for America. Our foreign policy has devolved to the equivalent of: "Who are you lookin' at? You lookin' at me? You want a piece of this? . . . "

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What a sad day for America. Our foreign policy has devolved to the equivalent of: "Who are you lookin' at? You lookin' at me? You want a piece of this? . . . "

Let's keep the movie analogy going . . . "say hello to my little friend . . ." and " . . . the truth, you can't handle the truth . . ."