Neo Culpa (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Remember all the Neocons who pushed for the Iraq war? Guess what? A good many of them are now saying we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place, and they are also slamming the crap out of Bush for taking the advice that they themselves gave.

The war party is now cannibalizing itself. Do I blame Bush? Of course, but the ones who are the most at fault are the very ones who are dumping on Bush now. Bush was merely convinced. THEY had the plan, and now that it has failed, seek to blame the President? Those people suck. They really, really, suck. Noble lies? Yea, right.

I might be a Bush basher, but I will be the very first to defend him against the likes of those scumbags.
Article is here.

 

[Kandahar]

Bush was merely convinced. THEY had the plan, and now that it has failed, seek to blame the President?

Umm no. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the day he was sworn in as president, and possibly even earlier. Had we had someone competent in the White House who didn't feel like making crap up about Iraq, no one at all (including commentators) would have been banging the war drums.

 

[jujuman13]

Well said KANDAHAR.

DANARHEA, you really have no need to try and defend the indefensible.

 

[BubbaBob]

Umm no. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the day he was sworn in as president, and possibly even earlier.

I know you have proof of that...right?

Not rumor. Not innuendo. Not political "hate Bush" rhetoric. Proof.

If not, you just show, once again in a LONG list of Bush hating crap, that you don't have a clue beyond spouting the "hate Bush" mantra. Sad...really, really sad.

BubbaBob

 

[danarhea]

I know you have proof of that...right?

Not rumor. Not innuendo. Not political "hate Bush" rhetoric. Proof.

If not, you just show, once again in a LONG list of Bush hating crap, that you don't have a clue beyond spouting the "hate Bush" mantra. Sad...really, really sad.

BubbaBob

Well, Bush is the leader who has led wrong, there is no doubt about that. But when Bush was Governor of my state, his style was very pragmatic, much different than it is today. What made him the way he is? It was the influence of the Neocons. Now that does not mitigate the blame that is due Bush for his poor job performance, and I was in no way attempting to mitigate it. My point is that these Neocon a$$holes are the ones who influenced Bush, and now have the unmitigated audacity to back off and act like it is all Bush, when they are the ones who pushed the agenda in the first place.

Now these others who are jumping on me for defending Bush a little are the ones playing politics, and have no desire to know how this situation came to be. They just want to Bash. Kind of funny, since I thought I was the biggest Bush basher on this board. However, I do believe that one has to look beyond what is on the surface to see how it really unfolded, and there is where you find the Neocons, who are the parasites who infested the Republican party and used the party as their parasitic host. Bush was not even in politics when the Neocons first formulated their Machiavellian and Communistic hogwash.

 

[BWG]

The ol' saying about 'if you sleep with dogs' comes to mind.

Fact is, the Bush machine hooked up with the neocons and radical Christian right to get elected. To get their support, they made promises or alluded that they (Bush machine) were sympathetic to their cause(s). Now that it seems as though those promises haven't materialized, it looks as though both groups have hung the cons out to dry. When you rely on the 50% + 1 theory, it doesn't take much to shift the balance back the other way.

 

[aps]

I know you have proof of that...right?

Not rumor. Not innuendo. Not political "hate Bush" rhetoric. Proof.

If not, you just show, once again in a LONG list of Bush hating crap, that you don't have a clue beyond spouting the "hate Bush" mantra. Sad...really, really sad.

BubbaBob

BubbaBob, it's not like there is no evidence of such. It's a choice of whether you want to accord any credibility to Paul O'Neill and/or Richard Clarke, both of whom have said the vety same thing--that Bush talked about invading Iraq as early as January 2001. Additionally, in a Vanity Fair aritcle entitled, "The Path to War," the author discussed how Bush was upset about how 9-11 took Iraq off the ball.....until he realized he could use 9-11 to invade Iraq. Dismiss it all you want. To me, his actions corroborate such evidence.

Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

“Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

RICHARD CLARKE: Well, let's just look at the facts. Within days, within three days of the administration beginning, I wrote to Condoleezza Rice asking for an urgent -- underlined "urgent" -- meeting of the so-called Principals Committee. Now, that's the Cabinet-level members of the NSC: secretary of defense, secretary of state, CIA director, attorney general.

Instead of having that meeting, they had a meeting on February 1st on Iraq. And, in fact, I wasn't given a Cabinet-level NSC Principals meeting on terrorism until September 4th.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/clarke_03-22.html

Details of this extraordinary conversation [with Chrisopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington] will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1185407,00.html

Meyer spoke again about the matter to Vanity Fair for its May 2004 report, "The Path to War." Soon after Sept. 11, Meyer went to a dinner at the White House, "attended also by Colin Powell, [and] Condi Rice," where "Bush made clear that he was determined to topple Saddam. 'Rumors were already flying that Bush would use 9/11 as a pretext to attack Iraq,' Meyer remembers.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/19/lies/index.html?pn=3

Three days later, on Saturday, September 15, President Bush gathered his closest advisers at Camp David to discuss the shape of the coming war. Much of their discussion dealt with Afghanistan. But during a session that morning, according to Bob Woodward's 2002 book, Bush at War, Wolfowitz advocated an attack on Iraq, perhaps even before an attack on Afghanistan. There was a 10 to 50 percent chance that Iraq had been involved in 9/11, he argued, concluding that Saddam's "brittle, oppressive regime" might succumb easily to an American attack-in contrast to the difficulties involved in prosecuting war in the mountains of Afghanistan.

http://zfacts.com/p/164.html

And there you have it, BubbaBob.

 

[Navy Pride]

All I know is Saddam will never invade another country or gas his own people or ever pay terrorist families $25,000 or ever give a WMD to use on us or anyone else again.......

All you Bush haters have to admit that......

Thank you President Bush.........

 

[aps]

All I know is Saddam will never invade another country or gas his own people or ever pay terrorist families $25,000 or ever give a WMD to use on us or anyone else again.......

All you Bush haters have to admit that......

Thank you President Bush.........

All I know is that 2800 families have lost loved ones and will never see them again and 20,000 troops and their families have to deal with disabilities that their spouses, sons, daughters, grandchilden, etc. have for the rest of their lives as a result of this war. Sure, I'll thank President Bush for that. :roll:

 

[Navy Pride]

All I know is that 2800 families have lost loved ones and will never see them again and 20,000 troops and their families have to deal with disabilities that their spouses, sons, daughters, grandchilden, etc. have for the rest of their lives as a result of this war. Sure, I'll thank President Bush for that. :roll:

And we lost 6,000 men on the landings at Normandy in WW2 in 1 day....I grieve for every man that has died but it sure puts things in prospective doesn't it......

 

[aps]

And we lost 6,000 men on the landings at Normandy in WW2 in 1 day....I grieve for every man that has died but it sure puts things in prospective doesn't it......

I support our getting involved in World War II. This war is a f***ing joke.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I support our getting involved in World War II. This war is a f***ing joke.

Just my humble opinion: I like it when you act like a lady.

 

[aps]

Just my humble opinion: I like it when you act like a lady.

Why thank you. I like it when you provide posts with substantive thoughts in them.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And we lost 6,000 men on the landings at Normandy in WW2 in 1 day....I grieve for every man that has died but it sure puts things in prospective doesn't it......

Not really. It's a cornball comparison.

The price of something is only relative to its value.

Sure we paid more lives in WWII, but we got a lot more for it.

It don't make sense to say that $250 isn't to much to pay for a cup of coffee because we paid $75,000 for our new Mercedes.
Just don't make sense.

The comparison you offer is just an appeal to emotion meant to bypass the intellect.

 

[Navy Pride]

I support our getting involved in World War II. This war is a f***ing joke.

I don't think all the brave men and women that have been wounded in Iraq would think its a joke......

 

[Navy Pride]

Not really. It's a cornball comparison.

The price of something is only relative to its value.

Sure we paid more lives in WWII, but we got a lot more for it.

It don't make sense to say that $250 isn't to much to pay for a cup of coffee because we paid $75,000 for our new Mercedes.
Just don't make sense.

The comparison you offer is just an appeal to emotion meant to bypass the intellect.

That is the problem with you liberals...........You don't take the war on terror seriously becasue President Bush has protected you for 5 years without and attack on this country..........Sadly I guess the only thing that will bring you to your senses is a nuclear cloud over your hometown......

 

[hipsterdufus]

And we lost 6,000 men on the landings at Normandy in WW2 in 1 day....I grieve for every man that has died but it sure puts things in prospective doesn't it......

The latest figures state that 650,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded. How's that for perspective?

Also, it was crystal clear why we participated in WWII. I can't say the same about Iraq.
It seems to be all about getting $$$$ for Haliburton and KBR at this point.

 

[Navy Pride]

The latest figures state that 650,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded. How's that for perspective?

Also, it was crystal clear why we participated in WWII. I can't say the same about Iraq.
It seems to be all about getting $$$$ for Haliburton and KBR at this point.

Close to between 30 and 40 thousand........

Yeah Haliburton that is the same Contractor that Clinton hired for Bosnia/Kosovo and Haiti......:roll:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That is the problem with you liberals...........You don't take the war on terror seriously becasue President Bush has protected you for 5 years without and attack on this country..........Sadly I guess the only thing that will bring you to your senses is a nuclear cloud over your hometown......

LOL!

Oh NP. We're talking about the invasion of Iraq not the GWoT. The invasion of Iraq was a set back in the GWoT.

Yes, if only my home town were nuked, then I'd see how wise it was to invade Iraq and provide the next generation of Salafist jihadis with an even better training grounds than they had in Afghanistan, disperse radiological material to the vagaries of the international black market and liberate thousands of tons of conventional munitions for use by whoever in the ME can get their hands on them.

Until that nuke comes, I'll just have to try to be content with thinking giving terrorists who want to attack America a better place to learn and train and providing them with greater access to munitions and dangerous materials is a bad idea. Woe, woe, woe is me.

LOL!

Really NP. C'mon.

 

[danarhea]

LOL!

Oh NP. We're talking about the invasion of Iraq not the GWoT. The invasion of Iraq was a set back in the GWoT.

Yes, if only my home town were nuked, then I'd see how wise it was to invade Iraq and provide the next generation of Salafist jihadis with an even better training grounds than they had in Afghanistan, disperse radiological material to the vagaries of the international black market and liberate thousands of tons of conventional munitions for use by whoever in the ME can get their hands on them.

Until that nuke comes, I'll just have to try to be content with thinking giving terrorists who want to attack America a better place to learn and train and providing them with greater access to munitions and dangerous materials is a bad idea. Woe, woe, woe is me.

LOL!

Really NP. C'mon.

Look out Simon. NP is now going to go into his arsenal and pull out the big weapon. He will call you his Liberal friend. LOL.