Lest we forget who is still in office

[jonks]

http://article.nationalreview....TM3ZjlhNGM1YTM=&w=MQ==

On Iraq, we brought up Karl Rove?s recent statement that, ?absent weapons of mass destruction, no, I don?t think there would have been an invasion.? Bush wouldn?t engage the question, saying only that a president doesn?t ?get an opportunity to redo a decision.?

On a related topic, the president rejected criticism that his administration has presided over a deterioration of relations with the rest of the world

Asked whether he believes Harriet Miers ?would have been excellent on the court,? the president quickly responded, ?Absolutely. Absolutely, no question in my mind . . . and there?s no doubt in my mind that my dear friend, Harriet Miers, would have had the same judicial philosophy 20 years after I went home, and had the intellectual firepower to do the job.? Bush said he felt it was important to pick a judicial candidate who was ?not part of the judicial-nominee club ? she went to SMU Law School? and who was a pioneer in her own law firm. His regret about the Miers case, he told us, was that ?this really, really good person got chucked out there and, man, the lions tore her up.?

Facts are troublesome things. Better to ignore them, or spin them, or interpret them. Anything but accepting them. Accepting an unpleasant fact is like being defeated by it. And then the terrorists win.

 

[blackangst1]

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Not every administration starts a war based on bullsh*t, though

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Not every administration starts a war based on bullsh*t, though

Touche. But the fact that Obama has already taken a "lets see what happens" attitude towards it, as opposed to his language in pre-election, I think the focus will change. In regards to the war, Obama has given NO indication he plans on doing anything differently. Confirmation? Perhaps. But clearly the GWB administration wont be the only ones tied to the opinion of perpetrating, as you put it, a bullshit war.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Not every administration starts a war based on bullsh*t, though

Touche. But the fact that Obama has already taken a "lets see what happens" attitude towards it, as opposed to his language in pre-election, I think the focus will change. In regards to the war, Obama has given NO indication he plans on doing anything differently. Confirmation? Perhaps. But clearly the GWB administration wont be the only ones tied to the opinion of perpetrating, as you put it, a bullshit war.

I don't agree with you, but I have a feeling that your definition of what satisfies an "indication" is different than mine in this case.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
But clearly the GWB administration wont be the only ones tied to the opinion of perpetrating, as you put it, a bullshit war.

Pre-Revisionism? Is that possible? Obama was as opposed to the war as it was possible to be. Now that we are there and he has to deal with the shitstorm he is stepping into, he wants to extract us as reasonably as possible without leaving chaos in our wake. Claiming that his advocating a cautious exit somehow translates into his perpetrating an illegal unnecessary war begun under false pretenses is baseless.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Not every administration starts a war based on bullsh*t, though

Not just starts but continues to defend to this day.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Asked whether he believes Harriet Miers ?would have been excellent on the court,? the president quickly responded, ?Absolutely. Absolutely, no question in my mind . . . and there?s no doubt in my mind that my dear friend, Harriet Miers, would have had the same judicial philosophy 20 years after I went home, and had the intellectual firepower to do the job.?

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Thanks to Obama today for demonstrating exactly how wrong you are. No months and years of excuses, no hard headed stubborn insistence that he's right and everyone else is wrong, no defensive claims of congressional conspiracy to thwart his will. A simple statement: "I screwed up." Bush couldn't say it if you waterboarded him.

Despite the horrors of the current economic situation, I do find comfort that the Grownup in Chief is not a petulant child.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Asked whether he believes Harriet Miers ?would have been excellent on the court,? the president quickly responded, ?Absolutely. Absolutely, no question in my mind . . . and there?s no doubt in my mind that my dear friend, Harriet Miers, would have had the same judicial philosophy 20 years after I went home, and had the intellectual firepower to do the job.?

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Thanks to Obama today for demonstrating exactly how wrong you are. No months and years of excuses, no hard headed stubborn insistence that he's right and everyone else is wrong, no defensive claims of congressional conspiracy to thwart his will. A simple statement: "I screwed up." Bush couldn't say it if you waterboarded him.

Despite the horrors of the current economic situation, I do find comfort that the Grownup in Chief is not a petulant child.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITI...4/bush.iraq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's historic election, President Bush took responsibility Wednesday for "wrong" intelligence that led to the war, but he said removing Saddam Hussein was still necessary.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

Pretty much the same thing.

 

[GeezerMan]

*********************Future News****************************
Dateline 2010.........

Halliburton posted today the largest profits ever recorded in company history.
Listed as major stockholders are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
Halliburton company spokesman, Ima Lion, said all shares owned by the dynamic duo were purchased after they left office.

*********************End Transmission****************************

 

[winnar111]

At least Harriet Miers was an honest nomination, of an honest woman, and not a Daschle, Geithner, or other woman.

 

[First]

Miers was as garbage as you can get. Worse than Scalia.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

All right, funny boy. Show us where Obama has done, or intends to do, anything as egregious as your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did to this nation over the last eight years.

Nothing to see here.

Didn't your mother warn you, if you didn't stop that, you'd go blind? :shocked: :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

All right, funny boy. Show us where Obama has done, or intends to do, anything as egregious as your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did to this nation over the last eight years.

You mean things like not bringing troops home and simply moving them to a different theater? You mean like eclisping Bush's deficit spending? Stuff like that?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Asked whether he believes Harriet Miers ?would have been excellent on the court,? the president quickly responded, ?Absolutely. Absolutely, no question in my mind . . . and there?s no doubt in my mind that my dear friend, Harriet Miers, would have had the same judicial philosophy 20 years after I went home, and had the intellectual firepower to do the job.?

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

Nothing to see here.

Thanks to Obama today for demonstrating exactly how wrong you are. No months and years of excuses, no hard headed stubborn insistence that he's right and everyone else is wrong, no defensive claims of congressional conspiracy to thwart his will. A simple statement: "I screwed up." Bush couldn't say it if you waterboarded him.

Despite the horrors of the current economic situation, I do find comfort that the Grownup in Chief is not a petulant child.

I would like to test that assertion.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

All right, funny boy. Show us where Obama has done, or intends to do, anything as egregious as your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did to this nation over the last eight years.

You mean things like not bringing troops home and simply moving them to a different theater? You mean like eclisping Bush's deficit spending? Stuff like that?

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Funny how EVERY administration does this isnt it?

All right, funny boy. Show us where Obama has done, or intends to do, anything as egregious as your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did to this nation over the last eight years.

You mean things like not bringing troops home and simply moving them to a different theater? You mean like eclisping Bush's deficit spending? Stuff like that?

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

And Afghanistan poses a threat directly to the US how exactly? Their hiddem ICBM's?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

And Afghanistan poses a threat directly to the US how exactly? Their hiddem ICBM's?

Well 3,000 Americans were killed by people based out of Afghanistan.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Harvey
your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief

Assuming you are an American, I would love to know how you deny that Bush was not your President as well.

Or is this more of the "He is not my president" bullshit you continually spew?

I may have hated Carter more then almost any other President, but I recognize for a short period of my life, he was still my President.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

And Afghanistan poses a threat directly to the US how exactly? Their hiddem ICBM's?

Well 3,000 Americans were killed by people based out of Afghanistan.

Really? They are dead, and the organization they represented is pretty much dismantled, with many killed or captured.

So Afghanastan poses a threat how exactly? The country itself didnt attack us, nor do they threaten us now. Or is it OK because public setiment SAYS it is? Isnt that the problem we had in Iraq?

404 logic not found. Like I said. Same war, different theater.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

And Afghanistan poses a threat directly to the US how exactly? Their hiddem ICBM's?

Well 3,000 Americans were killed by people based out of Afghanistan.

Really? They are dead, and the organization they represented is pretty much dismantled, with many killed or captured.

So Afghanastan poses a threat how exactly? The country itself didnt attack us, nor do they threaten us now. Or is it OK because public setiment SAYS it is? Isnt that the problem we had in Iraq?

404 logic not found. Like I said. Same war, different theater.

While you weren't paying attention there is a resurgent Taliban and reconstituted Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The ugly question which Obama and the DoD must address is whether we go 'all' in' in that suckhole known as Afghanistan ...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

And Afghanistan poses a threat directly to the US how exactly? Their hiddem ICBM's?

Well 3,000 Americans were killed by people based out of Afghanistan.

Really? They are dead, and the organization they represented is pretty much dismantled, with many killed or captured.

So Afghanastan poses a threat how exactly? The country itself didnt attack us, nor do they threaten us now. Or is it OK because public setiment SAYS it is? Isnt that the problem we had in Iraq?

404 logic not found. Like I said. Same war, different theater.

While you weren't paying attention there is a resurgent Taliban and reconstituted Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The ugly question which Obama and the DoD must address is whether we go 'all' in' in that suckhole known as Afghanistan ...

From your link:

In recent months, special forces have mounted ground assaults on targets inside the tribal areas without the consent of the Pakistani government, prompting growing tensions with the Pakistani army and its new civilian leaders. ?The United States does not have the right to go into a sovereign country that is its ally without permission and approval and consent of that ally,? Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, tells FRONTLINE.

War on terror =!= war on Afghanastan/Pakistan. Like I said, same war, different theater. In 3 years after public support wanes after thousands of more body bags come home, we'll be in the same place now we are with Iraq. Guaran-fuckin-teed.

War in Iraq bad. Same war elsewhere good.

404 logic not found.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Many Americans who are against the war in Iraq supported action in Afghanistan, and still do. So, moving them from an illegal war with little support, to a legal war directly related to why we started this whole business to begin with, and one that has broad based support from the counrty is certainly an improvement wouldn't you say? Also, Obama has not eclipsed Bush's deficit spending in any way, and even if he were to, at least he's spending money on America instead of unpopular wars of occupation. This continuing desperation to equate Obama and Bush doesn't make much sense to me.

And Afghanistan poses a threat directly to the US how exactly? Their hiddem ICBM's?

Well 3,000 Americans were killed by people based out of Afghanistan.

Really? They are dead, and the organization they represented is pretty much dismantled, with many killed or captured.

So Afghanastan poses a threat how exactly? The country itself didnt attack us, nor do they threaten us now. Or is it OK because public setiment SAYS it is? Isnt that the problem we had in Iraq?

404 logic not found. Like I said. Same war, different theater.

Well that's odd. US agencies say that Al-Qaeda is stronger now than it's ever been before... so I'm not sure what you're basing your idea that it's 'pretty much dismantled' on. In particular, the areas around the Afghan/Pakistani border are where they are concentrated. This is in marked contrast to Iraq, where most analysis puts the Al-Qaeda presence as fairly low and not particularly significant at this time. If the struggle is against Al-Qaeda as we originally stated, to say that it is the same war but a different theater is simply not accurate.

Public support does not in and of itself legitimize a war, but a war that is carried on with the consent of the public is certainly more legitimate than one without it. The government of Afghanistan purposefully harbored and had intimate governmental ties with a group responsible for a large scale attack on our country. The country provided material support to organizations that had attacked us in the past, planned to attack us under their protection, and did in fact attack us. That's an attack on us by any reasonable measure.

Since Al-Qaeda was able to marshal resources and training areas within Afghanistan that directly contributed to their ability to plan and execute attacks inside the US, and the resurgence of the Taliban threatens to return Afghanistan to the state in which that happened, the current situation in Afghanistan is directly relevant to US security interests.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well that's odd. US agencies say that Al-Qaeda is stronger now than it's ever been before... so I'm not sure what you're basing your idea that it's 'pretty much dismantled' on.

Yes. The same agencies that told us Iraq was a threat. Unless you actually TRUST these guys now? Remember, the agencies that are saying this are the same ones Bush Co. put in place.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
In particular, the areas around the Afghan/Pakistani border are where they are concentrated. This is in marked contrast to Iraq, where most analysis puts the Al-Qaeda presence as fairly low and not particularly significant at this time. If the struggle is against Al-Qaeda as we originally stated, to say that it is the same war but a different theater is simply not accurate.

"at this time". You are correct in that statement. Eskimo, you and I both know this was NEVER a war on AQ. Its a war on terror. AQ may be the primary focus, but we both know any organization that is fighting us is a terrorist, right?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Public support does not in and of itself legitimize a war, but a war that is carried on with the consent of the public is certainly more legitimate than one without it.

We'll agree to disagree then.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The government of Afghanistan purposefully harbored and had intimate governmental ties with a group responsible for a large scale attack on our country. The country provided material support to organizations that had attacked us in the past, planned to attack us under their protection, and did in fact attack us. That's an attack on us by any reasonable measure.

And how can we be certain this harboring and assistance wasnt by force? If it was, Afghanistan isnt the problem.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Since Al-Qaeda was able to marshal resources and training areas within Afghanistan that directly contributed to their ability to plan and execute attacks inside the US, and the resurgence of the Taliban threatens to return Afghanistan to the state in which that happened, the current situation in Afghanistan is directly relevant to US security interests.

Maybe so. If thats the case we will ONCE AGAIN go about this the wrong way. Instead of flooding the country with soldiers we need to call a spade a spade and declare war on Afghanistan and simply raze the country. Period. But as it stands, we wont. We will put tens of thousands of soldiers on the ground venerable to bombing, shooting, and traps (sound familiar?). Same war, different theater. Instead of bad guys going to Iraq to take pop shots at us they'll move to Afghanistan. Same war, different theater.