Doing something isn't always better than doing nothing.
If you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion you can keep saying we have "bigger fish to fry" so lets ignore this one problem. Individual murders are insignificant, for example, right?
I mean, really. This is reminiscent of the shameful Whitewater investigation, which started out about alleged financial crimes by the Clintons, but the only thing that Starr could pin on him was lying about blowjobs from an intern. It's totally unrelated, but witch hunts are like that.
What's really shameful is that we had an investigation over that, but no investigations or criminal prosecutions of George W. Bush lying to the American populace about WMDs in Iraq. Bill Clinton suffers an ethical transgression and gets a blow job. A Republican president suffers one and thousands of Americans are killed for no national benefit at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Investigation only for the blow job.
9/11/01 already showed us that this government can do pretty much anything and the dumbed down sheeple will still worship it.
How so?
Phase 1: Inject Fear Into the General Public like a Needle
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Pass whatever you want and everyone emotionally accepts it temporarly out of fear. Although the fear phase is temporary, the laws/bills passed are not.
That is what he is referring to broceritops.
That's what I was hoping he was referring to - using an outside event to further amplify the police powers of the state in the name of security. The way it was worded suggested that he was a 9/11 conspiracy nut though.
Great, the good old blame Bush about making up intel about WMD's line even though it never happened. Never gets used up apparently.
Congress still gets a pass for using the same intel and agreeing to go to war over it though.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Great, the good old blame Bush about making up intel about WMD's line even though it never happened. Never gets used up apparently.
Congress still gets a pass for using the same intel and agreeing to go to war over it though.
I'm curious as to what happens when you fart in your bubble? Do you just inhale deeply and recycle it or does the shit smell just blend together with all the other crap that comes out of your mouth?
Don Rumsfeld
on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Who is in a bubble? Sure isn't me.
You may not be in a bubble but thousands of American boys are in bubbles (under 6 ft of earth) because President Bush LIED to America. President Bush murdered those kids and he is not being held responsible.
Do you have evidence that Bush knew what he was saying was wrong?You may not be in a bubble but thousands of American boys are in bubbles (under 6 ft of earth) because President Bush LIED to America. President Bush murdered those kids and he is not being held responsible.
Do you have evidence that Bush knew what he was saying was wrong?
Something I don't understand here. Supposedly this was a CIA arms smuggling ring with dozens of people there earlier in the day. That's the kind of thing that certainly would have a lot of heavily armed security. So how did our ambassador come to be there practically alone with zero security? Why would our ambassador be there at all when such a program screams for plausible deniability? This comes back to my objections to Valerie Plame as a covert operative - running a clandestine arms smuggling operation from a diplomatic mission is just as stupid as running an overt part of a diplomatic mission as a covert operative. When you are trying to hide something, why use a place to which suspicions and surveillance are already going to be drawn? And if our government really is this stupid, why leave such a place with zero security when such an important government figure is present? None of this makes any sense.
True. We can't even really know if they are covering up because there are vital secrets at risk or simply because they can, just to avoid embarrassment or criminal charges.While it's certainly possible that the CIA acted stupidly in this case there's simply no way any of us have even close to enough information to make that call.
This "question" has been thrashed to death here already, so I'm just going to repost something I posted before:Do you have evidence that Bush knew what he was saying was wrong?
If you truly want to quibble with that, I can give you links to earlier threads where the nutter bubble's distortions and diversions have been methodically dissected and refuted. "There is no doubt" the Bush administration lied its way into attacking Iraq. If some of you prefer to believe Bush personally was not a liar, but rather an incompetent, uninformed puppet, knock yourselves out.I think that's the wrong question. Whether Bush personally lied is misdirection, intended to distract from the more critical issue of his administration's dishonesty. It is conceivable that Bush himself is so well managed by his staff that he personally was never aware of any of the behind-the-scenes battles and debates surrounding the case against Iraq. While such gross incompetence is hardly admirable, it is possible. Ignorance is bliss, and his staff may have been diligent about keeping him happy.
The issue of his administration's dishonesty is far more clear in my opinion, and it's not all about WMDs. I have no doubt the people within the Bush administration sincerely believed Iraq had some remaining WMD capabilities. Had they said, "We think Iraq still has some WMD capabilities," that would have been truthful. That is not what they said, however. That's where the lies started.
A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive.
The lies were in the way the Bush administration sold the war on Iraq. They lied about the certainty of their information, e.g., "There is no doubt" when there was, in fact, significant doubt about many of their claims. They lied about the extent of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities, e.g. claiming greater quantities and capabilities than was supported by their intel. They lied about the threat posed by Iraq, for example publicly suggesting Iraq would provide WMDs to terrorists when their own analysts said this was extremely unlikely ... except maybe, maybe in a situation where Hussein felt he had nothing left to lose, e.g., an invasion by the U.S. As you pointed out, they lied about aluminum tubes and the Winnebagos of Death and "We know where they are."
The Bush administration lied about their motives and agenda for invading; several insiders have come forward to say Bush/Cheney were determined to invade Iraq long before they had built a case to do so. They lied by intentionally shopping for cherry-picked intel to justify their predetermined decision, going so far as setting up their own intel agency when the CIA wouldn't provide sufficiently inflammatory reports. They lied by using innuendo to suggest a connection between Iraq and 9/11. The list goes on and on.
In short, the Bush administration did not give America a full and honest report on what they did and did not know about Iraq. Instead, they intentionally withheld, misrepresented, and overstated the real story to deceive us to sell their invasion. That is lying, plain and simple.
This was rebutted the last time you raised it. The issue with Plame is not what she did "today", but rather what she had been doing. She specialized in WMD proliferation (purportedly a top priority for the Bush administration, by the way). She had been engaged in covert, overseas NOC operations where she established a network of contacts. Although she was no longer overseas, her contacts were, and having her identity exposed put them at risk. Further, while she was covert, her NOC was a front company (Brewster-Jennings, IIRC) that was also exposed when she was outed. That put everyone else associated with that front company and its operations at risk. Finally, and perhaps the final word, regardless of what you or I think, the fact remains that her identity was still legally classified, according to both the Special Prosecutor and an official CIA spokesman.[ ... ]
This comes back to my objections to Valerie Plame as a covert operative - running a clandestine arms smuggling operation from a diplomatic mission is just as stupid as running an overt part of a diplomatic mission as a covert operative. ...
This "question" has been thrashed to death here already, so I'm just going to repost something I posted before:
If you truly want to quibble with that, I can give you links to earlier threads where the nutter bubble's distortions and diversions have been methodically dissected and refuted. "There is no doubt" the Bush administration lied its way into attacking Iraq. If some of you prefer to believe Bush personally was not a liar, but rather an incompetent, uninformed puppet, knock yourselves out.
Heh. And the "issue" wrt the tragic events at Benghazi is what, exactly?
I mean, really. This is reminiscent of the shameful Whitewater investigation, which started out about alleged financial crimes by the Clintons, but the only thing that Starr could pin on him was lying about blowjobs from an intern. It's totally unrelated, but witch hunts are like that.
Something I don't understand here. Supposedly this was a CIA arms smuggling ring with dozens of people there earlier in the day. That's the kind of thing that certainly would have a lot of heavily armed security. So how did our ambassador come to be there practically alone with zero security? Why would our ambassador be there at all when such a program screams for plausible deniability? This comes back to my objections to Valerie Plame as a covert operative - running a clandestine arms smuggling operation from a diplomatic mission is just as stupid as running an overt part of a diplomatic mission as a covert operative. When you are trying to hide something, why use a place to which suspicions and surveillance are already going to be drawn? And if our government really is this stupid, why leave such a place with zero security when such an important government figure is present? None of this makes any sense.