Dodd: Iraq Has Left Us More Vulnerable

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Read your own quotes.

Oh, and executive priviledge is not what they're talking about there. *sigh*. I dont know why I bother with you. Read up on your own, I won't do it for you.

iow, you got nothin so you commence with the handwaving and a pathetic attempt at dismissal.

The SSCI had access to the same intelligence Bush did on Iraq. The Democrats trying to blame Bush for somehow being hoodwinked on Iraq is pure crap.

Wrong, and it's in your own quotes. I think it's very clear why I dismiss you almost on principle at this point.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Read your own quotes.

Oh, and executive priviledge is not what they're talking about there. *sigh*. I dont know why I bother with you. Read up on your own, I won't do it for you.

iow, you got nothin so you commence with the handwaving and a pathetic attempt at dismissal.

The SSCI had access to the same intelligence Bush did on Iraq. The Democrats trying to blame Bush for somehow being hoodwinked on Iraq is pure crap.

Wrong, and it's in your own quotes. I think it's very clear why I dismiss you almost on principle at this point.

No, apparently it's only clear to you.

You were wrong. Get over it and move on.

 

[Lemon law]

If we can table the intelligence sharing and executive privilege argument for a moment, its worth noting that Greenspan has weighed in on the Dodd side and stated that Iraq has made
the USA fiscally far more vulnerable.

And given the military must depend on the larger economy to sustain itself, the economic does
pertain to how vulnerable the USA is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If we can table the intelligence sharing and executive privilege argument for a moment, its worth noting that Greenspan has weighed in on the Dodd side and stated that Iraq has made
the USA fiscally far more vulnerable.

And given the military must depend on the larger economy to sustain itself, the economic does
pertain to how vulnerable the USA is.

Actually, here's what Greenspan said:

?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.?

If it was about oil then considering the current price of it and with all the oil in Iraq we should have no problem geting our money back.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Prepare to be smacked down.

And you wonder why people dismiss your posts?

Try acting like an adult.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Prepare to be smacked down.

And you wonder why people dismiss your posts?

Try acting like an adult.

This is coming from you? You're somebody who'se posts I look for whenever I'm feeling down and want to beat up on someone who is obviously unequipped.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Read your own quotes.

Oh, and executive priviledge is not what they're talking about there. *sigh*. I dont know why I bother with you. Read up on your own, I won't do it for you.

iow, you got nothin so you commence with the handwaving and a pathetic attempt at dismissal.

The SSCI had access to the same intelligence Bush did on Iraq. The Democrats trying to blame Bush for somehow being hoodwinked on Iraq is pure crap.

Wrong, and it's in your own quotes. I think it's very clear why I dismiss you almost on principle at this point.

No, apparently it's only clear to you.

You were wrong. Get over it and move on.

Take your time, read your own quotes... and look upon historical precedent. You will then see why the executive branch and the legislative branch do not look at all the same intel. This is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the workings of our government, but you are not exactly a person who seems to have a deep understanding of any of the topics you speak about.

To say that the two branches see the same things would be colossaly stupid... but I'm waiting for you to re-assert the same thing. It would fit into your MO.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Read your own quotes.

Oh, and executive priviledge is not what they're talking about there. *sigh*. I dont know why I bother with you. Read up on your own, I won't do it for you.

iow, you got nothin so you commence with the handwaving and a pathetic attempt at dismissal.

The SSCI had access to the same intelligence Bush did on Iraq. The Democrats trying to blame Bush for somehow being hoodwinked on Iraq is pure crap.

Wrong, and it's in your own quotes. I think it's very clear why I dismiss you almost on principle at this point.

No, apparently it's only clear to you.

You were wrong. Get over it and move on.

Take your time, read your own quotes... and look upon historical precedent. You will then see why the executive branch and the legislative branch do not look at all the same intel. This is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the workings of our government, but you are not exactly a person who seems to have a deep understanding of any of the topics you speak about.

To say that the two branches see the same things would be colossaly stupid... but I'm waiting for you to re-assert the same thing. It would fit into your MO.

Take your blowhard BS and try to sell it someone else, fool.

Good lord you're an ignorant ass.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take your time, read your own quotes... and look upon historical precedent. You will then see why the executive branch and the legislative branch do not look at all the same intel. This is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the workings of our government, but you are not exactly a person who seems to have a deep understanding of any of the topics you speak about.

To say that the two branches see the same things would be colossaly stupid... but I'm waiting for you to re-assert the same thing. It would fit into your MO.

Take your blowhard BS and try to sell it someone else, fool.

Good lord you're an ignorant ass.[/quote]

Seems like its bothering you how completely I've owned you across about 4 different threads now.

There are reasonable conservative arguments for most of the positions you've taken... you just don't know what they are because you haven't educated yourself about the source material. That's the best part... is that I know how to argue your side better then you do yourself.

Ah well. Keep flailing, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, here's what Greenspan said:

?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.?

If it was about oil then considering the current price of it and with all the oil in Iraq we should have no problem geting our money back.

I've always understood it to be about making sure we're not 'shut out', not necessarily owning it.

Is it your contention that oil had nothing to do with us going into Iraq? IOW - if there was no oil, we would've gone in anyway?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, here's what Greenspan said:

?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.?

If it was about oil then considering the current price of it and with all the oil in Iraq we should have no problem geting our money back.

I've always understood it to be about making sure we're not 'shut out', not necessarily owning it.

Is it your contention that oil had nothing to do with us going into Iraq? IOW - if there was no oil, we would've gone in anyway?

No doubt oil was a consideration somewhere on the list of reasons. Would we have gone in anyway without the oil? imo, yes, because the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else. Then again, if it weren't for oil in Iraq would there even have been a Saddam in the first place?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take your time, read your own quotes... and look upon historical precedent. You will then see why the executive branch and the legislative branch do not look at all the same intel. This is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the workings of our government, but you are not exactly a person who seems to have a deep understanding of any of the topics you speak about.

To say that the two branches see the same things would be colossaly stupid... but I'm waiting for you to re-assert the same thing. It would fit into your MO.

Take your blowhard BS and try to sell it someone else, fool.

Good lord you're an ignorant ass.

Seems like its bothering you how completely I've owned you across about 4 different threads now.

There are reasonable conservative arguments for most of the positions you've taken... you just don't know what they are because you haven't educated yourself about the source material. That's the best part... is that I know how to argue your side better then you do yourself.

Ah well. Keep flailing, it doesn't bother me.

If it assuages your seemingly fragile little ego to think you've owned anyone but yourself, dig on in pal. In fact you should start a thread taking both sides of the argument so both sides can congratulate themselves on owning the other. Imagine the group hug if you ever come to an agreement with yourself?

 

[Red Dawn]

The invasion and subsequent occupation and fubared attampt at nation building has to be the biggest foriegn policy blunder of my life time if not in our history. We had Al Queda cornered in Afghanistan but the Dub completely blew it by invading Iraq letting Al Qaeda not only escape and regroup but giving them another front to operate in. What a complete fuck up!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, here's what Greenspan said:

?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.?

If it was about oil then considering the current price of it and with all the oil in Iraq we should have no problem geting our money back.

I've always understood it to be about making sure we're not 'shut out', not necessarily owning it.

Is it your contention that oil had nothing to do with us going into Iraq? IOW - if there was no oil, we would've gone in anyway?

No doubt oil was a consideration somewhere on the list of reasons. Would we have gone in anyway without the oil? imo, yes, because the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else. Then again, if it weren't for oil in Iraq would there even have been a Saddam in the first place?

First, I just want to point out that your "without oil would there have been a Saddam" is besides the point & I don't see any relevance.

Second, your statement "because the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else" makes me wonder why BushCo didn't just say this. Do you have any ideas why? Instead of giving us the dictator / free the Iraqis (along with the main reason of WMD), why didn't he just say what you believe is the reason above all other reasons? And doesn't that make him somewhat of a deceiver?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, here's what Greenspan said:

?I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.?

If it was about oil then considering the current price of it and with all the oil in Iraq we should have no problem geting our money back.

I've always understood it to be about making sure we're not 'shut out', not necessarily owning it.

Is it your contention that oil had nothing to do with us going into Iraq? IOW - if there was no oil, we would've gone in anyway?

No doubt oil was a consideration somewhere on the list of reasons. Would we have gone in anyway without the oil? imo, yes, because the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else. Then again, if it weren't for oil in Iraq would there even have been a Saddam in the first place?

First, I just want to point out that your "without oil would there have been a Saddam" is besides the point & I don't see any relevance.

I'd like to remind you that you brought up the "if there was no oil" hypothetical in the first place. Wondering if there would have been a Saddam without oil in Iraq seems like a very relevant extension of that hypothetical.

Second, your statement "because the Iraq invasion was more about providing the US with a strategic location from which to fight the WoT than anything else" makes me wonder why BushCo didn't just say this. Do you have any ideas why? Instead of giving us the dictator / free the Iraqis (along with the main reason of WMD), why didn't he just say what you believe is the reason above all other reasons? And doesn't that make him somewhat of a deceiver?

What would they have said? "We're invading Iraq because we need it for the WoT. We want to plop right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria so we can keep a close eye on them and their radicals." That would be diplomatically incorrect. It's the kind of thing you don't say in politics but allow your actions to speak volumes instead.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What would they have said? "We're invading Iraq because we need it for the WoT. We want to plop right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria so we can keep a close eye on them and their radicals." That would be diplomatically incorrect. It's the kind of thing you don't say in politics but allow your actions to speak volumes instead.

So it may have been diplomatically incorrect to say it, but the American people should have known it to be the main reason anyway? I don't completely understand. We, the public, were deceived when the POTUS told us why we should attack Iraq? Or should Bush have winked a few times when he addressed the nation giving us those reasons?

Edit: I wonder if the total cost of this war in lives and dollars is worth being diplomatically correct. You think it is?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What would they have said? "We're invading Iraq because we need it for the WoT. We want to plop right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria so we can keep a close eye on them and their radicals." That would be diplomatically incorrect. It's the kind of thing you don't say in politics but allow your actions to speak volumes instead.

So it may have been diplomatically incorrect to say it, but the American people should have known it to be the main reason anyway? I don't completely understand. We, the public, were deceived when the POTUS told us why we should attack Iraq? Or should Bush have winked a few times when he addressed the nation giving us those reasons?

I'm speculating on that being their motivation but if it was their primary reason for going into Iraq they could not possibly announce that intention publicly. However, if it was their motivation then it was a consideration for the safety and security of this country in doing so and I really can't fault them for that.

Edit: I wonder if the total cost of this war in lives and dollars is worth being diplomatically correct. You think it is?

We probably won't know the answer to that question for some years to come yet.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What would they have said? "We're invading Iraq because we need it for the WoT. We want to plop right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria so we can keep a close eye on them and their radicals." That would be diplomatically incorrect. It's the kind of thing you don't say in politics but allow your actions to speak volumes instead.

So it may have been diplomatically incorrect to say it, but the American people should have known it to be the main reason anyway? I don't completely understand. We, the public, were deceived when the POTUS told us why we should attack Iraq? Or should Bush have winked a few times when he addressed the nation giving us those reasons?

I'm speculating on that being their motivation but if it was their primary reason for going into Iraq they could not possibly announce that intention publicly. However, if it was their motivation then it was a consideration for the safety and security of this country in doing so and I really can't fault them for that.

Edit: I wonder if the total cost of this war in lives and dollars is worth being diplomatically correct. You think it is?

We probably won't know the answer to that question for some years to come yet.

It seems rather odd that, if it was their primary reason, it wouldn't have leaked out by now ... especislly with all the books being written.

IYO - does not telling us the actual primary reason for this war = deceit in any way?

If you're right about the primary reason not being told to us, doesn't that make this a war based on deceit?

Edit: Ari should have inserted the words WE TOLD YOU in his second sentence in my sig?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What would they have said? "We're invading Iraq because we need it for the WoT. We want to plop right down in the middle of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria so we can keep a close eye on them and their radicals." That would be diplomatically incorrect. It's the kind of thing you don't say in politics but allow your actions to speak volumes instead.

So it may have been diplomatically incorrect to say it, but the American people should have known it to be the main reason anyway? I don't completely understand. We, the public, were deceived when the POTUS told us why we should attack Iraq? Or should Bush have winked a few times when he addressed the nation giving us those reasons?

I'm speculating on that being their motivation but if it was their primary reason for going into Iraq they could not possibly announce that intention publicly. However, if it was their motivation then it was a consideration for the safety and security of this country in doing so and I really can't fault them for that.

Edit: I wonder if the total cost of this war in lives and dollars is worth being diplomatically correct. You think it is?

We probably won't know the answer to that question for some years to come yet.

It seems rather odd that, if it was their primary reason, it wouldn't have leaked out by now ... especislly with all the books being written.

It doesn't make a good sound byte. If someone claimed that Bush and Co. were primiarly concerned about waging the WoT it's kind of hard to respond with indignation about it. 'You mean Bush invaded Iraq to keep on eye on the jihadists and the regimes that support them? That SOB!' Rings kind of hollow.

IYO - does not telling us the actual primary reason for this war = deceit in any way?

If you're right about the primary reason not being told to us, doesn't that make this a war based on deceit?

Edit: Ari should have inserted the words WE TOLD YOU in his second sentence in my sig?

Deceit? I guess the case could be made. But there's often a fine line between being deceitful and just being clever and maybe a bit duplicitous. imo, I don't think it happens to be just a coincidence that we invaded a country smack dab in the middle of SA, Iran, and Syria. I seriously doubt the message, even though left unspoken, was lost on them either.

Then again, maybe I'm giving Bush Co. way to much credit and they weren't actually smart enough to have that hidden motivation for invading Iraq? Who knows?

 

[Gaard]

Deceit, clever, duplicitous ... however you want to describe it, if you are correct in your assertion that we were never told the main reason why we went to war with Iraq, then that means deception was used on the American people when told why we should attack Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Deceit, clever, duplicitous ... however you want to describe it, if you are correct in your assertion that we were never told the main reason why we went to war with Iraq, then that means deception was used on the American people when told why we should attack Iraq.

If I am right, no, they didn't tell the American people that. Also, if I am right, it's because they couldn't possibly give that reason and it's understandable why they couldn't. In fact, it seems very obvious, imo, why that goal couldn't be publicly stated.

Is the reason for it not being stated something you are overlooking in order to claim deceit or is it something that you just don't understand?

 

[Lemon law]

The question of what the real goal in GWB's mind is somewhat unknowable unless GWB later confesses deceit in some sort of memoir. Or someone in the inner circle confesses it for GWB. Until then, nothing but deceit seems to add up in my mind. And in the mind's of many others.

Meanwhile many others are more charitable about GWB motive.

Quite frankly I don't see that there will be a way to satisfactorily resolve that motive question and it gets somewhat far a field from the original thread question which regards the Dodd's contention of America now being more vulnerable as a result of buying the Iraq war.

And for that matter, the American people who are now footing the bill used to be about 90% in favor of invading Iraq if you believe the polling. Having buyers remorse is somewhat hypocritical and futile. And distracts from the real question of how to best get out of Iraq in the best possible shape? Which may or may not involve the rejection of the GWB plan.

But be it somewhat resolved. America is now more vulnerable because of Iraq, regardless of how it turns out in future.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
Deceit, clever, duplicitous ... however you want to describe it, if you are correct in your assertion that we were never told the main reason why we went to war with Iraq, then that means deception was used on the American people when told why we should attack Iraq.

If I am right, no, they didn't tell the American people that. Also, if I am right, it's because they couldn't possibly give that reason and it's understandable why they couldn't. In fact, it seems very obvious, imo, why that goal couldn't be publicly stated.

Is the reason for it not being stated something you are overlooking in order to claim deceit or is it something that you just don't understand?

Right/wrong ... moral/immoral ... necessary/unnecessary ... deception was still used.