- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,014
- Reaction score
- 5,743
- Location
- Huntsville, AL (USA)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Actually, I just looked these two guys up, they both have 100% credibility, on THIS issue, McCain for sponsoring a bill that required following the army's field guide to interrogation techniques, and Graham for sponsoring it.
They switched biographers because of Mickey speaking about this to others. Not because his writing skills, it was near the end of it when they switched. You can chose not to believe him, but his statement along with PNAC's paper, a Bush cabinet meeting on invading Iraq two weeks into his presidency, his immideate use of 9/11 as impetus to invade Iraq, all connected draw a straight line, as I see it.
You must be joking! Talk about not being aware what's going on! The moron in the White House treats our allies like crap and kneels before our enemies. That's why and where we've lost influence.
America, i. e. the people never had any power. Only the corporate-backed US govt. has power, which, as the Taliban has successfully demonstrated, is largely a facade.
Good. That's one thing at least I agree with the Senators from AZ and NC over.
The switch was not made because he was speaking about his work with others. It's very clear that was not the case. Obviously, if there is a hint of truth to Kos's post, it was a good decision, given the size of the chip on Mickey's shoulder.
As to straight lines, sometimes they are only as straight as the twists and turns one must ignore to see them.
If you would have read the entire story, you would have learned that the replacement biographer said Mickey told him about it as well, and knew it to be true.
Yea, Mickey told him about it. Got it.
Hopefully you guys get one of yours (establishment GOPer) back in next time and I'll be pointing out the same things to you nevertheless.
You can keep your head under the covers or in the waves, its no skin off my back. One thing is certain, George Bush caused the US the loss of much credibility for attacking a country that had no connection to 9/11, but claiming that it did. Russia and China's surges in militarization followed on the heels of that, and they won't be letting up. The US has shown the world that it can and will abuse its power, but that's going to be a little more difficult going forward.
It is clear that, even before 9/11, President Bush wanted Saddam Hussein out of power. President Clinton wanted Saddam Hussein out of power. But President Bush wanted it more, and in a more aggressive form. He said several times during the presidential campaign that he wanted Saddam Hussein out of power. He allied himself with people who thought that his father had made a mistake in not sending American troops during the first Gulf war onto Baghdad to take out Saddam Hussein.
Bob Woodward
I'm familiar with all the memes that have been spread by those with an agenda. As to covers, perhaps dependence on "axes to grind" suggests the covers may be over someone else's head.
Establishment GOPer is not one of mine.
Woodward has an agenda, lol. He too is quite the equal opportunity critic, no president has been immune to it. Just turn the light back off dude.
Lights been on for a long time, dude. Perhaps you should exercise a bit more scrutiny to where you plug in yours.
So considering Woodward's harsh criticisms of democratic presidents, you can't frame him as agenda driven, so just ignore that part.
I haven't ignored anything. I find it amusing criticism of a President from another political party automatically qualifies someone as being unassailable. Interesting standard.
Must be off. Thanks for the exchange.
3,000 Americans wouldn't have died if the bumkin-in-chief fired a neuron or two and intercepted the off-course airliners in time.
Even the crappiest Third World militaries in the world could've handled a 9-11 type situation (i. e. by simply firing a SAM at the airliners). gwb just couldn't differentiate between his cranium and anus.
3,000 Americans wouldn't have died if the bumkin-in-chief fired a neuron or two and intercepted the off-course airliners in time.
Even the crappiest Third World militaries in the world could've handled a 9-11 type situation (i. e. by simply firing a SAM at the airliners). gwb just couldn't differentiate between his cranium and anus.
Americans wouod have still died. Your comments are idiotic on an epic scale.
Liberals telling us what they "really" think is always fascinating, isn't it?
It's very telling...lol!
T
That's it. Everything else is speculation, and if the US actually had a Pres at the time whose brainpower even slightly exceeded that of an average 3 y/o, the attacking planes would've been intercepted and shot down.
This is why they are best as repeating scripts from others and attacking conservatives. You dont want to hear what they come up with.
Whats funny is in the context of this thread topic-the criticism of Clinton was always that he could have done something but did not.
Clinton loudly argued against this-not wanting his legacy tarnished-but now we find out (in his own words!) that the criticism was dead on correct.
I'm most amazed at how they cling to the idiotic idea that shooting down the high-jacked aircraft was an option. Worse than that, they actually believe it was a solution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?