obama throws national intelligence director under the bus

[Victorian Gray]

Your hindsight is pretty good.

How old were you when 9/11 happened?

The people demanded someone pay for 9/11. Saddam just happened to be the guy.

Who had nothing to do with either 9/11 or world terrorism in general.

So, still not sure what this has to do with the fact that apparently Bush Jr. has testicles.

 

[himkhan]

Your hindsight is pretty good.

How old were you when 9/11 happened?

The people demanded someone pay for 9/11. Saddam just happened to be the guy.

The people? No people were demanding we attack the wrong country or Saddam other than Bush and he neocon puppets.

 

[Bowfinger]

Obama doesn't need any help. He's leading us down a course to war. McCain pales in significance to what the one man who cannot effectively be opposed can do. He doesn't need Congress. He doesn't need you or me. All he needs to do is say "go". The rhetoric from war supporters McCain or otherwise will prevail. I consider Obama one of them. He just is taking his time, but the rhetoric he's providing has all the hallmarks of a very, very serious, involved and deadly conflict. This is starting to not feel like Bush's War so much as Johnson's. I'm not comforted by the R or D behind the name of any such person.

I fear you may be right, but the jury is still out. Unlike Bush 43 who was eager to launch a full invasion, Obama has remained more restrained so far (much like his predecessors except Bush 43). The rhetoric is certainly heated, but that's the only way to get a reticent public to accept any new military campaigns. I agree that the real question is whether Obama's going to Johnson us into continual escalations. I hope not. I hope he'll be more like Bush 41 than 43, but I'm not confident.

I am skeptical about all the hysterics about ISIS/ISIL. I find they're often triggering my BS detector, just like the con job that led us into Iraq. While ISIS is certainly a nasty bunch, I'm not convinced they pose any substantial threat to the world, let alone an "existential" threat to the U.S. They seem like another conveniently concocted evil incarnate, crafted to make Americans wet their pants and rubber stamp whatever the war profiteers want. The U.S. corporate media are complicit in selling this story again, of course. I've sampled some non-Western media, however, and found they aren't nearly so shrill. We will see.

For all my dissatisfaction with Obama, I am glad that he's there instead of his leading opponents. I would expect both Romney and Hillary Clinton to be much more hawkish. We'd already be fully engaged on the ground if either was at the helm. It's my main concern with Clinton getting elected in 2016.

 

[Bowfinger]

The people? No people were demanding we attack the wrong country or Saddam other than Bush and he neocon puppets.

Exactly. The people were content with going after al Qaida in Afghanistan. It was Bush (or his handlers, really) who diverted us into Iraq, thus handing a big win to AQ. Bin Laden got just what he wanted: severe damage to the U.S. economy and a terrorized America that sheepishly accepted a huge loss of civil liberties. In many ways, Bush and company finished the job bin Laden started, far better than OBL could do with just four planes.

 

[squarecut1]

I am skeptical about all the hysterics about ISIS/ISIL. I find they're often triggering my BS detector, just like the con job that led us into Iraq. While ISIS is certainly a nasty bunch, I'm not convinced they pose any substantial threat to the world, let alone an "existential" threat to the U.S. They seem like another conveniently concocted evil incarnate, crafted to make Americans wet their pants and rubber stamp whatever the war profiteers want. The U.S. corporate media are complicit in selling this story again, of course. I've sampled some non-Western media, however, and found they aren't nearly so shrill. We will see.

.

This is the truth

 

[ivwshane]

I fear you may be right, but the jury is still out. Unlike Bush 43 who was eager to launch a full invasion, Obama has remained more restrained so far (much like his predecessors except Bush 43). The rhetoric is certainly heated, but that's the only way to get a reticent public to accept any new military campaigns. I agree that the real question is whether Obama's going to Johnson us into continual escalations. I hope not. I hope he'll be more like Bush 41 than 43, but I'm not confident.

I am skeptical about all the hysterics about ISIS/ISIL. I find they're often triggering my BS detector, just like the con job that led us into Iraq. While ISIS is certainly a nasty bunch, I'm not convinced they pose any substantial threat to the world, let alone an "existential" threat to the U.S. They seem like another conveniently concocted evil incarnate, crafted to make Americans wet their pants and rubber stamp whatever the war profiteers want. The U.S. corporate media are complicit in selling this story again, of course. I've sampled some non-Western media, however, and found they aren't nearly so shrill. We will see.

For all my dissatisfaction with Obama, I am glad that he's there instead of his leading opponents. I would expect both Romney and Hillary Clinton to be much more hawkish. We'd already be fully engaged on the ground if either was at the helm. It's my main concern with Clinton getting elected in 2016.

I agree, the rhetoric is all too familiar.

 

[Moonbeam]

And yet we're willing to do it all over again.

Fear turns liberals into conservatives and because Democratic politicians know that they try to get out ahead of Republicans warmongering to win elections. The rest is just collateral damage. Humanity is asleep and operates like a machine. If you go boo, you can start a war. "Who cares who dies so long as I feel actions are being taken to protect me."

 

[Moonbeam]

The Iraq war was the result of a 5 4 vote in the Supreme Coup who installed the guy who lost the Florida election.

 

[Matt1970]

Fear turns liberals into conservatives and because Democratic politicians know that they try to get out ahead of Republicans warmongering to win elections. The rest is just collateral damage. Humanity is asleep and operates like a machine. If you go boo, you can start a war. "Who cares who dies so long as I feel actions are being taken to protect me."

So the portion of the liberal brain that handles fear grew and they turned into conservatives?

 

[Texashiker]

Who had nothing to do with either 9/11 or world terrorism in general.

Did we know that at the time?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Did we know that at the time?

The world did, I dunno about Americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

London

including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[3]

 

[Texashiker]

The world did, I dunno about Americans

Please post information saying the rest of the world knew iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

You linked to a page about protest.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Please post information saying the rest of the world knew iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

You linked to a page about protest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

 

[waggy]

Your hindsight is pretty good.

How old were you when 9/11 happened?

The people demanded someone pay for 9/11. Saddam just happened to be the guy.

No they didn't. most people knew Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That is why they brought up the "yellow cake" bullshit. Then the inspectors not being allowed to visit his plants.

the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11.

most people i know wanted NOTHING to do with iraq. now they didn't think we didn't finish the job. no they didn't want to go back.

Obama doesn't need any help. He's leading us down a course to war. McCain pales in significance to what the one man who cannot effectively be opposed can do. He doesn't need Congress. He doesn't need you or me. All he needs to do is say "go". The rhetoric from war supporters McCain or otherwise will prevail. I consider Obama one of them. He just is taking his time, but the rhetoric he's providing has all the hallmarks of a very, very serious, involved and deadly conflict. This is starting to not feel like Bush's War so much as Johnson's. I'm not comforted by the R or D behind the name of any such person.

/this

I was against the Iraq war. it didn't make sense to start yet another war. We finally get out (lol not really) of the 2 we were in. what happens? we just happen to find the "JV" team was the real threat! we now need to spark a war in Syria? uh huh..where is the yellow cake? we need yellow cake!

The party in charge really does not seem to matter.

And yet we're willing to do it all over again.

sad but true. More proof it does not seem to matter what party is in charge. Same shit different country.

 

[waggy]

Did we know that at the time?

yeah we did.

reason for iraq war

The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e. the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".[3]


is that enough? no?

In addition, Bush received on September 21, 2001, a classified President's Daily Brief (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that "there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."[13]


ohhh so Even the US intelligence community said there was no evidence he had anything to do with 9/11 shit..or even Al Qaeda


so fuck off with this bullshit we invaded iraq over 9/11

 

[boomerang]

Yet again, we see that it is impossible to talk about Obama, without also talking about Bush.

 

[waggy]

Yet again, we see that it is impossible to talk about Obama, without also talking about Bush.

well to be fair the two are very alike.

 

[Texashiker]

Yet again, we see that it is impossible to talk about Obama, without also talking about Bush.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Instead of obama saying something like "we" made a mistake, and acting like a team player, he throws someone under the bus.

Everything posted here about bush as nothing to do with obama passing the buck.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please post information saying the rest of the world knew iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

You linked to a page about protest.

Gawd that's lame. There was no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 other than Bush Admin innuendo & fear mongering.

The ROTW knew there was no evidence.

 

[Texashiker]

Gawd that's lame. There was no evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 other than Bush Admin innuendo & fear mongering.

The ROTW knew there was no evidence.

How about we get back on topic?

Everyone knows obama is not a team player. His throwing the intelligence director under the bus is just like obama refusing to negotiate over the budget.

obamas actions display a blatant disregard for teamwork and cooperation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fear turns liberals into conservatives and because Democratic politicians know that they try to get out ahead of Republicans warmongering to win elections. The rest is just collateral damage. Humanity is asleep and operates like a machine. If you go boo, you can start a war. "Who cares who dies so long as I feel actions are being taken to protect me."

I wonder if many claiming to be this or that do so because they wish to identify, not because they believe. The one I call the Apologist certainly isn't a liberal or progressive, he's a Democrat and will stand by whatever he's tells us or not. Truthfully I find the vast majority of people to have conservative minds, at least as I define things. They won't take the step of liberally applying intelligence and good things they learned, or should have. Instead they decry what one person does and embraces or at least tolerates it in others who say they belong to whatever group they identify with. As I see things we ought to feel regret when others are harmed, and guilt when it's done unjustly. But it seems that justice, mercy, kindness, generosity, empathy, are just words with no meaning to too many. Words to use as weapons against others while they embrace the same evils in the name of whomever they favor. That does not mean that all people are as such, but "humans", they do seem to be in the minority. "Who is my neighbor" is a lesson most never understood, much less embraced.

 

[Bowfinger]

How about we get back on topic?

Everyone knows obama is not a team player. His throwing the intelligence director under the bus is just like obama refusing to negotiate over the budget.

obamas actions display a blatant disregard for teamwork and cooperation.

If you want on-topic discussion, lead by example. One, don't start threads with overt trolling. Two, actually respond to those who address the topic (e.g., post #s 7, 8, 12). You have a distinctly dishonest habit of ignoring on-topic posts that directly challenge you while running with off-topic distractions.

 

[Texashiker]

Two, actually respond to those who address the topic (e.g., post #s 7, 8, 12). You have a distinctly dishonest habit of ignoring on-topic posts that directly challenge you while running with off-topic distractions.

Those are factual post that do not need assuring or debate.

Are you saying I need to reply to every post?

McCain is a warmonger, we all know this. McCain is like the boy who cries wolf. Sooner or later we get tired of hearing it. But one day he might be right.

Even a blind hog will find an acorn.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

McCain is like a blind hog, a stopped clock and a boy who cries wolf. What more do you want me to say?

Going off on a tangent about bush on something that happened over a decade ago is not relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[squarecut1]

I wonder if many claiming to be this or that do so because they wish to identify, not because they believe. The one I call the Apologist certainly isn't a liberal or progressive, he's a Democrat and will stand by whatever he's tells us or not. Truthfully I find the vast majority of people to have conservative minds, at least as I define things. They won't take the step of liberally applying intelligence and good things they learned, or should have. Instead they decry what one person does and embraces or at least tolerates it in others who say they belong to whatever group they identify with. As I see things we ought to feel regret when others are harmed, and guilt when it's done unjustly. But it seems that justice, mercy, kindness, generosity, empathy, are just words with no meaning to too many. Words to use as weapons against others while they embrace the same evils in the name of whomever they favor. That does not mean that all people are as such, but "humans", they do seem to be in the minority. "Who is my neighbor" is a lesson most never understood, much less embraced.

Another fine post from the same poster. If only more Americans were half as perceptive, or even one tenth of it.

But we are a nation of clueless sheep, led into whatever the powers that be decide for us. We can't even think for ourselves.

 

[Orignal Earl]

obamas actions display a blatant disregard for teamwork and cooperation.

Says the guy shitting on the president of the US