Bernie Sanders campaign kickoff.
Options
Comments
-
-
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
0 -
I'm not sure I'd say he would have been "hawkish" but I'll bet he would have had little choice but to respond. Don't want to get into conspiracy theories too much here but that whole issue is definitely rather clouded. I will say this though, Gore would have held the book right side up and actually been reading to the kids and would not have had such a blank stare.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Any sitting president would have been hawkish, but only Bush was going to turn his attention to Iraq. It remains the worst foreign policy blunder of this generation.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
You do realize that the "upside down book" thing is a hoax right? Seriously can't tell if you are joking.brianlux said:
I'm not sure I'd say he would have been "hawkish" but I'll bet he would have had little choice but to respond. Don't want to get into conspiracy theories too much here but that whole issue is definitely rather clouded. I will say this though, Gore would have held the book right side up and actually been reading to the kids and would not have had such a blank stare.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
http://terrific-top10.com/2013/06/12/top-10-historical-altered-photos2/
0 -
Can we really go back and time and say someone would or wouldn't have made the same decision?JimmyV said:
Any sitting president would have been hawkish, but only Bush was going to turn his attention to Iraq. It remains the worst foreign policy blunder of this generation.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
What we know is this...
George Tenet was both Clinton and Bush's CIA director. He was the one who told W that the case on WMD was "a slam dunk". Al Gore was one of only 10 democrats who supported the first gulf war and was very hawkish on saddam during Clinton's final years. With or without 9/11 Saddam was going to be dealt with in some capacity as the sanction was collapsing and he was firing on countries enforcing the no-fly zone. Gore/Lieberman would have absolutely been "hawkish".
In hindsight we like to tell ourselves that things would have been different but there is very little evidence to support that.
To keep the thread on topic though you can be certain that only a President Sanders will keep you out of another war. Stay away from nominating Hillary if the end of military action is your number one cause.
0 -
What? The sanctions were collapsing and Saddam was firing on countries enforcing the no fly zone? What? So now this is your apologists excuse for invading Iraq and "there is very little evidence to support" the dems doing something different? Way to project your fantasy onto the rest of us. You really are a piece of work with your revisionist history. And Lieberman? Yea, he was so fucking hawkish, mainly because he was Israel's bitch, that his own party primaried him and he had to run as an independent to retain his seat in the senate. Keep moving the pieces on the Risk board. Or is it Battleship? Or Stratego?BS44325 said:
Can we really go back and time and say someone would or wouldn't have made the same decision?JimmyV said:
Any sitting president would have been hawkish, but only Bush was going to turn his attention to Iraq. It remains the worst foreign policy blunder of this generation.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
What we know is this...
George Tenet was both Clinton and Bush's CIA director. He was the one who told W that the case on WMD was "a slam dunk". Al Gore was one of only 10 democrats who supported the first gulf war and was very hawkish on saddam during Clinton's final years. With or without 9/11 Saddam was going to be dealt with in some capacity as the sanction was collapsing and he was firing on countries enforcing the no-fly zone. Gore/Lieberman would have absolutely been "hawkish".
In hindsight we like to tell ourselves that things would have been different but there is very little evidence to support that.
To keep the thread on topic though you can be certain that only a President Sanders will keep you out of another war. Stay away from nominating Hillary if the end of military action is your number one cause.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Yes the sanctions were collapsing and Saddam was firing on planes and No this is not my apologist excuse for invading IraqHalifax2TheMax said:
What? The sanctions were collapsing and Saddam was firing on countries enforcing the no fly zone? What? So now this is your apologists excuse for invading IraqBS44325 said:
Can we really go back and time and say someone would or wouldn't have made the same decision?JimmyV said:
Any sitting president would have been hawkish, but only Bush was going to turn his attention to Iraq. It remains the worst foreign policy blunder of this generation.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
What we know is this...
George Tenet was both Clinton and Bush's CIA director. He was the one who told W that the case on WMD was "a slam dunk". Al Gore was one of only 10 democrats who supported the first gulf war and was very hawkish on saddam during Clinton's final years. With or without 9/11 Saddam was going to be dealt with in some capacity as the sanction was collapsing and he was firing on countries enforcing the no-fly zone. Gore/Lieberman would have absolutely been "hawkish".
In hindsight we like to tell ourselves that things would have been different but there is very little evidence to support that.
To keep the thread on topic though you can be certain that only a President Sanders will keep you out of another war. Stay away from nominating Hillary if the end of military action is your number one cause.
Again man...you're not paying attention...please follow the flow. Some of us are discussing whether a Gore/Lieberman administration would have behaved differently. I am not certain they would have. It is an answer we cannot know. They certainly would have dealt with Saddam in some way. It was inevitable. Please take Circle in the Sand by Christian Alfonsi off your vast bookshelf and read it again.0 -
Oh yeah, maybe, maybe not. I should have used one of those crazy sound bites to get the point across. You know, one of those exemplary moments of verbal prowess he so frequently employed in order to vociferate an articulate announcement. Smoke 'em out! LOL!BS44325 said:
You do realize that the "upside down book" thing is a hoax right? Seriously can't tell if you are joking.brianlux said:
I'm not sure I'd say he would have been "hawkish" but I'll bet he would have had little choice but to respond. Don't want to get into conspiracy theories too much here but that whole issue is definitely rather clouded. I will say this though, Gore would have held the book right side up and actually been reading to the kids and would not have had such a blank stare.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
http://terrific-top10.com/2013/06/12/top-10-historical-altered-photos2/
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
So your claiming, via your claim of collapsing sanctions and Saddam firing on the aircraft enforcing the no fly zone, that somehow Iraq was a threat and needed to be addressed with military power and that because Gore was one of 10 democrats to vote for the first gulf war and the Israeli bitch Lieberman was his running mate, the dems, had they been elected,would have done something militarily to deal with Saddam and Iraq? Right, that's what you implied, correct? If your position is/was, "we'll never know" then why all your gobblygook about Tenet, post 9/11, blah, blah, blah.
Why not just say, "it's an answer we cannot know" like you did after I called you out? You are slippery BS, I'll give you that.
It was only "inevitable" with GWB, Cheney and the neocons in office. Circle in the Sand or not.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Ha. No doubt the guy had diction troubles.brianlux said:
Oh yeah, maybe, maybe not. I should have used one of those crazy sound bites to get the point across. You know, one of those exemplary moments of verbal prowess he so frequently employed in order to vociferate an articulate announcement. Smoke 'em out! LOL!BS44325 said:
You do realize that the "upside down book" thing is a hoax right? Seriously can't tell if you are joking.brianlux said:
I'm not sure I'd say he would have been "hawkish" but I'll bet he would have had little choice but to respond. Don't want to get into conspiracy theories too much here but that whole issue is definitely rather clouded. I will say this though, Gore would have held the book right side up and actually been reading to the kids and would not have had such a blank stare.BS44325 said:
If 9/11 happened while Gore was President he probably would have been equally as hawkish. The Clintons supported the Iraq war. His VP nominee Joe Lieberman supported it big time. Gore would have been right there and the democratic party would have championed him as the greatest war time president in history.JimmyV said:
True. I voted for Nader believing there was no difference between Bush and Gore. The Iraq debacle showed that I was wrong. But too often they have their hands out to the same influence peddlers. Many things don't change regardless of which party is in power.callen said:
Can list many things that would of been different if McCain or Romney were elected. Yes not a total change between parties but there are differences.badbrains said:Same policies, same shit every candidate, only the R and D are different.
http://terrific-top10.com/2013/06/12/top-10-historical-altered-photos2/0 -
By the way, what the HECK does all this have to do with Bernie Sanders?"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
Most snakes are H2M. He's no different.Halifax2TheMax said:So your claiming, via your claim of collapsing sanctions and Saddam firing on the aircraft enforcing the no fly zone, that somehow Iraq was a threat and needed to be addressed with military power and that because Gore was one of 10 democrats to vote for the first gulf war and the Israeli bitch Lieberman was his running mate, the dems, had they been elected,would have done something militarily to deal with Saddam and Iraq? Right, that's what you implied, correct? If your position is/was, "we'll never know" then why all your gobblygook about Tenet, post 9/11, blah, blah, blah.
Why not just say, "it's an answer we cannot know" like you did after I called you out? You are slippery BS, I'll give you that.
It was only "inevitable" with GWB, Cheney and the neocons in office. Circle in the Sand or not.0 -
I listen to conservative media, and BS gets his arguments directly from Rush and Hannity, knowingly or not. This is the BS they are trotting out now, about how the invasion was inevitable and it was never about WMD to begin with, it was the no fly zones and the contravention of UN resolutions. Now all the sudden they care about the UN lolMonkey Driven, Call this Living?0
-
First I don't listen to either Rush or Hannity...a man can come to these conclusions on his own. You throwing that comment out there is essentially to say "shut up" and "no one pay attention to BS"...clearly you fear the alternative point of view. Second I never said it wasn't about WMD. The discussion...if you are willing to follow the flow...is about what might have been if it was Gore/Lieberman in charge. I am questioning the certainty, previously mentioned, that they would have responded any differently considering they would have been acting on all the same info W was acting on? Why would they and Tony Blair not have partnered up to do the same thing? I get how pondering this makes you uncomfortable....it is just so much easier to hate on W then to entertain any other possibility.rgambs said:I listen to conservative media, and BS gets his arguments directly from Rush and Hannity, knowingly or not. This is the BS they are trotting out now, about how the invasion was inevitable and it was never about WMD to begin with, it was the no fly zones and the contravention of UN resolutions. Now all the sudden they care about the UN lol
0 -
Because they wouldn't have asked the CIA and NSA to gin up the intelligence to fit their, the neocons, pre-determined outcome and already planned invasion. How stupid do you think we are? You said it yourself, "we'll never know what Gore/Lieberman would have done" so why the hypothesis? Unless of course you're trying to justify your abject failure. I suggest you re-read Circle in the Sand and not the Belinda Carlisle song either.BS44325 said:
First I don't listen to either Rush or Hannity...a man can come to these conclusions on his own. You throwing that comment out there is essentially to say "shut up" and "no one pay attention to BS"...clearly you fear the alternative point of view. Second I never said it wasn't about WMD. The discussion...if you are willing to follow the flow...is about what might have been if it was Gore/Lieberman in charge. I am questioning the certainty, previously mentioned, that they would have responded any differently considering they would have been acting on all the same info W was acting on? Why would they and Tony Blair not have partnered up to do the same thing? I get how pondering this makes you uncomfortable....it is just so much easier to hate on W then to entertain any other possibility.rgambs said:I listen to conservative media, and BS gets his arguments directly from Rush and Hannity, knowingly or not. This is the BS they are trotting out now, about how the invasion was inevitable and it was never about WMD to begin with, it was the no fly zones and the contravention of UN resolutions. Now all the sudden they care about the UN lol
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
It doesn't make me uncomfortable but it is a rewriting of history. Bush had an Iraqi focus that Gore did not. Whether it be because of the alleged plot against his father or a desire to finish the job his father started, the Bush administration had a desire to go back to Iraq before 9/11. The Democrats did not. A President Gore does not deliver David Frum's Axis of Evil speech and would have been lampooned if he did.
The Iraqi invasion was inevitable, but only after George W. Bush became POTUS.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Well clearly you just can't let this go. There was no lie man. No "ginned up intelligence". You can argue the decision was wrong but the "lie" angle has been disproven again and again. As per Bob Woodward...Halifax2TheMax said:
Because they wouldn't have asked the CIA and NSA to gin up the intelligence to fit their, the neocons, pre-determined outcome and already planned invasion. How stupid do you think we are? You said it yourself, "we'll never know what Gore/Lieberman would have done" so why the hypothesis? Unless of course you're trying to justify your abject failure. I suggest you re-read Circle in the Sand and not the Belinda Carlisle song either.BS44325 said:
First I don't listen to either Rush or Hannity...a man can come to these conclusions on his own. You throwing that comment out there is essentially to say "shut up" and "no one pay attention to BS"...clearly you fear the alternative point of view. Second I never said it wasn't about WMD. The discussion...if you are willing to follow the flow...is about what might have been if it was Gore/Lieberman in charge. I am questioning the certainty, previously mentioned, that they would have responded any differently considering they would have been acting on all the same info W was acting on? Why would they and Tony Blair not have partnered up to do the same thing? I get how pondering this makes you uncomfortable....it is just so much easier to hate on W then to entertain any other possibility.rgambs said:I listen to conservative media, and BS gets his arguments directly from Rush and Hannity, knowingly or not. This is the BS they are trotting out now, about how the invasion was inevitable and it was never about WMD to begin with, it was the no fly zones and the contravention of UN resolutions. Now all the sudden they care about the UN lol
http://youtu.be/cP6yPjMprK8
Also...Circle in the Sand is very critical of both Bush 1 and Bush 2. It is the furtherst thing from being pro-invasion. One of the main points of the book is how decisions made during the first gulf war pretty much made the second gulf war inevitable. Not right but inevitable.0 -
Members of the intelligence community would beg to differ. The pressure put on them to come up with something, anything, to justify the pre-determined decision to invade. Valerie Plame would beg to differ as having been outed because her husband questioned the yellow cake and aluminum tubes story that was "mysteriously" leaked to a breathless NYT reporter. The constant belittling and smearing of Hans Blix and Scott Ritter and dismissal of their findings by the US intelligence community, the intelligence that Saddam Hussain's agents met with Al Qaida operatives in Prague, dismissed by German intelligence. Bob Woodward promoting his book doesn't dismiss the facts. The Iraq invasion was a colossal mistake as the book you've referenced twice points out. Own it.BS44325 said:
Well clearly you just can't let this go. There was no lie man. No "ginned up intelligence". You can argue the decision was wrong but the "lie" angle has been disproven again and again. As per Bob Woodward...Halifax2TheMax said:
Because they wouldn't have asked the CIA and NSA to gin up the intelligence to fit their, the neocons, pre-determined outcome and already planned invasion. How stupid do you think we are? You said it yourself, "we'll never know what Gore/Lieberman would have done" so why the hypothesis? Unless of course you're trying to justify your abject failure. I suggest you re-read Circle in the Sand and not the Belinda Carlisle song either.BS44325 said:
First I don't listen to either Rush or Hannity...a man can come to these conclusions on his own. You throwing that comment out there is essentially to say "shut up" and "no one pay attention to BS"...clearly you fear the alternative point of view. Second I never said it wasn't about WMD. The discussion...if you are willing to follow the flow...is about what might have been if it was Gore/Lieberman in charge. I am questioning the certainty, previously mentioned, that they would have responded any differently considering they would have been acting on all the same info W was acting on? Why would they and Tony Blair not have partnered up to do the same thing? I get how pondering this makes you uncomfortable....it is just so much easier to hate on W then to entertain any other possibility.rgambs said:I listen to conservative media, and BS gets his arguments directly from Rush and Hannity, knowingly or not. This is the BS they are trotting out now, about how the invasion was inevitable and it was never about WMD to begin with, it was the no fly zones and the contravention of UN resolutions. Now all the sudden they care about the UN lol
http://youtu.be/cP6yPjMprK8
Also...Circle in the Sand is very critical of both Bush 1 and Bush 2. It is the furtherst thing from being pro-invasion. One of the main points of the book is how decisions made during the first gulf war pretty much made the second gulf war inevitable. Not right but inevitable.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
You're giving him facts H2M, we all know he doesn't do well with facts.Halifax2TheMax said:
Members of the intelligence community would beg to differ. The pressure put on them to come up with something, anything, to justify the pre-determined decision to invade. Valerie Plame would beg to differ as having been outed because her husband questioned the yellow cake and aluminum tubes story that was "mysteriously" leaked to a breathless NYT reporter. The constant belittling and smearing of Hans Blix and Scott Ritter and dismissal of their findings by the US intelligence community, the intelligence that Saddam Hussain's agents met with Al Qaida operatives in Prague, dismissed by German intelligence. Bob Woodward promoting his book doesn't dismiss the facts. The Iraq invasion was a colossal mistake as the book you've referenced twice points out. Own it.BS44325 said:
Well clearly you just can't let this go. There was no lie man. No "ginned up intelligence". You can argue the decision was wrong but the "lie" angle has been disproven again and again. As per Bob Woodward...Halifax2TheMax said:
Because they wouldn't have asked the CIA and NSA to gin up the intelligence to fit their, the neocons, pre-determined outcome and already planned invasion. How stupid do you think we are? You said it yourself, "we'll never know what Gore/Lieberman would have done" so why the hypothesis? Unless of course you're trying to justify your abject failure. I suggest you re-read Circle in the Sand and not the Belinda Carlisle song either.BS44325 said:
First I don't listen to either Rush or Hannity...a man can come to these conclusions on his own. You throwing that comment out there is essentially to say "shut up" and "no one pay attention to BS"...clearly you fear the alternative point of view. Second I never said it wasn't about WMD. The discussion...if you are willing to follow the flow...is about what might have been if it was Gore/Lieberman in charge. I am questioning the certainty, previously mentioned, that they would have responded any differently considering they would have been acting on all the same info W was acting on? Why would they and Tony Blair not have partnered up to do the same thing? I get how pondering this makes you uncomfortable....it is just so much easier to hate on W then to entertain any other possibility.rgambs said:I listen to conservative media, and BS gets his arguments directly from Rush and Hannity, knowingly or not. This is the BS they are trotting out now, about how the invasion was inevitable and it was never about WMD to begin with, it was the no fly zones and the contravention of UN resolutions. Now all the sudden they care about the UN lol
http://youtu.be/cP6yPjMprK8
Also...Circle in the Sand is very critical of both Bush 1 and Bush 2. It is the furtherst thing from being pro-invasion. One of the main points of the book is how decisions made during the first gulf war pretty much made the second gulf war inevitable. Not right but inevitable.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help