Large Scale Central

This ought to draw some comments from the usual suspects... :D

General Discussion
#1

This was sent to me by Tony

#2
Steve Featherkile said:
[url=http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv]This was sent to me by Tony[/url]
Hypocrites are not regulated to the Republican party. Statements prior to 2000 can be taken more at face value. Statements after that time have to weighed against the fact they were based on false intelligence. However, without seeing the entire interview(s), it is hard to say if any of the statements are taken out of context. One of the usual suspects
#3

Lots of dems believed in the existence of WMD. It was politically risky not to, and Saddam was a bad guy.

They have equally bad judgement and an equally bad grasp of the evidence. I’m happy to condem them as well

Fault for the decision to go to war rests with the “decider” however.

#4

Gosh, Steve, Reps or Dems, they are all Americans, they cannot help it. Best wishes from Tokyo, Zubi

#5

In a nutshell:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

full report:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Dems, Reps Bush, whoever, can only play the hand they are dealt. And who controls the playing cards but none other than Congress. They control the purse strings for the Intelligence community, they also set the rules for the Intelligence community. Bush inherited the Intelligence community that Congress had dealt him from previous administrations. Unfortunately, over those years, Congress had continually drawn the purse strings tighter and tighter, and made the rules that they also unfortuntely had to play by. After all, The Cold War was over, who needed them? We saw the result on 9/11. A sad case of “you get what you pay for”. Which makes all this Congressional Bush Lied horseshit and fingerpointing laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic. Doesn’t appear that congress has learned it’s lesson.

"But the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran’s nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more. "

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

#6
Ken Brunt said:
For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines.
I go with option #1 - forget the "may" word.
#7

“the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.”

This statement I can agree with.
I’m not 100% behind the idea that it was an “oops” event. But I can’t say for sure it wasn’t.
Ralph

#8

Just like back when they used to hang horse theives. They may have been wrong, but the guy never stole another horse.

#9
Ric Golding said:
Just like back when they used to hang horse theives. They may have been wrong, but the guy never stole another horse.
So who do we hang........those running the intelligence or those that listened to them? Ralph
#10

How about starting with a good selection of “All of the Above”. We could start with anyone that has ever been introduced as “The Honorable”. You know that if somebody has to tell you that someone is honorable, they aren’t.

#11
Steve Featherkile said:
[url=http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv]This was sent to me by Tony[/url]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
#12
Kevin Morris said:
Steve Featherkile said:
[url=http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv]This was sent to me by Tony[/url]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
HEY KEVIN, WAKE UP!
#13
Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin Morris said:
Steve Featherkile said:
[url=http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv]This was sent to me by Tony[/url]
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
HEY KEVIN, WAKE UP!
I'm part way through a bottle of red wine. Feeling kinda drowsy. But Steve, the WMD thing is a dead issue. Regardless of the rationale, Dub-ya has proved that starting a war is the most reliable way to get re-elected in America.
#14

Starting a war may be a reliable way to winning an election, but loosing a war certainly isn’t…

#15
Ralph Berg said:
Ric Golding said:
Just like back when they used to hang horse theives. They may have been wrong, but the guy never stole another horse.
So who do we hang........those running the intelligence or those that listened to them? Ralph
How about the "dealers"?
#16
Ken Brunt said:
Starting a war may be a reliable way to winning an election, but loosing a war certainly isn't.............
Very true. At least Ronald Reagan had enough sense to pick Grenada, a country small enough to "run" over in a matter of minutes. George W didn't spend enough time reading this section of the "Ronald Reagan Playbook." Even "Dad" was smart enough to "get in" and "get out". Ralph
#17

Yup, lots of idiots on both sides of the aisle unquestioningly believed in whatever intelligence reports were put in front of them. I’m have not or will not vote for any of them either.

-Brian

#18

Back in 1941, a lot of idiots didn’t believe the intelligence reports that were put in front of them…