Gimpy...questions??

[reconeil]

Being that I basically think politics in general sucks, and in fact believe that politics is the most people-dividing/alienating and trouble causing (into infinity) entity known mankind, whereas you quite differently believe that politics (naturally The Dem bent alone) is the end all, be all and cure all of whatever ails America,...I figured whom better to ask my questions to? Maybe you can make me understand the political nonsense and absurdity of it all?

The questions in general pertain to our latest wartime breech and/or stupidity of publicly airing in detail (airing in detail to the enemy also) our intelligence failings (or not?).

First-off, about a year ago our Chief WMD Inspector Kay relayed to his superiors that Iraq had WMD's and capabilities of further mass producing such quite easily and very quickly. Plus, it was known by all that Sadam had already murdered many thousands with WMD's (both at home in Iraq and also in Iran).

Afterwards, such credible intelligence was acted upon quickly by President Bush, as any other rational and sane leader would've and should've done.

NOW, about a year later, Chief Weapons Inspector Kay turns around and does A 180. NOW Kay says: "I don't THINK Iraq has or ever had WMD's". I've emphasized the word: "THINK", since very important.

NOW, after confessing to having misled and/or misinformed The Administration about WMD's,..."He" THINKS Sadam never had WMD's and that non are stashed-away or hidden in Iraq or any surrounding fellow dictatorships. NONSENSE,...no matter what such an apparently UNRELIABLE & SUSPECT (proven to be so) person and source of intelligence: "THINKS". Given the many additional months time given Iraq prior to war , and having so many powerful collaborators to assist,...I could have hidden The Empire State Building in Antarctica by NOW.

That brings me to the questions.

1. If Kay's intelligence and intelligence about the enemy in general (what ANY Administration must go by during wartime) was so flat-out-wrong(?) a year ago,...whats all the present nonsense of placing blame on President Bush and Administration for trusting and believing fellow Americans?

2. In a Real World and/or not political oneupsmanship context,...wouldn't it make much more sense to pillary Kay and any Intelligence Agency responsible for misleading The President and The American People INSTEAD?

Naturally, such wrist-slappings of subordinates shouldn't be done in public. After all, The Press/Media (both foreign and domestic) have already given more than enough aid, comfort and intelligence about The West's politically-correct weaknesses and failings (intelligence also),...and quite foolishly MORE THAN EVER DONE BY ANYONE in The History of Warfare.

Hope SOMEBODY wakes up before too late. Our enemies might be sickos and nuts. But, "They" most certainly aren't dummies. Plus, We actually help them to get smarter and smarter everyday.

Neil

[MORTARDUDE]

Neil :

If I may be privleged to retort :

1 ) Bush's sources, besides Kay, should and did include the NSA, CIA, FBI, NIS, DIA, and all the other US alphabet soup intelligence agencies. He also had at his disposal intelligence from Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, UK, and many other countries, as well as spies and Special Forces in-country. If after considering all of this, he had credible evidence for WMDs ( he didn't ), why doesn't he produce the credible evidence now, and end all of this ? This war and many others to come are about oil. We are running out. The amount the third world and China will be using in the next 20+ years is enormous. If our government is not willing to develop an alternative to the configuration of the automobile we have now and / or jack up the price of gasoline to $ 5 or more per gallon, then we will be forced to continue to secure the oil fields...wherever they may be.

2) NO, the President should get the blame. The buck stops there. Ask yourself, If Clinton or Gore was President now, how would you feel about it ? Would you call for impeachment ? I would, but that is just my view on it.

Just IMHO.

Larry

{................}

"That brings me to the questions.

1. If Kay's intelligence and intelligence about the enemy in general (what ANY Administration must go by during wartime) was so flat-out-wrong(?) a year ago,...whats all the present nonsense of placing blame on President Bush and Administration for trusting and believing fellow Americans?

2. In a Real World and/or not political oneupsmanship context,...wouldn't it make much more sense to pillary Kay and any Intelligence Agency responsible for misleading The President and The American People INSTEAD?

Naturally, such wrist-slappings of subordinates shouldn't be done in public. After all, The Press/Media (both foreign and domestic) have already given more than enough aid, comfort and intelligence about The West's politically-correct weaknesses and failings (intelligence also),...and quite foolishly MORE THAN EVER DONE BY ANYONE in The History of Warfare.

Hope SOMEBODY wakes up before too late. Our enemies might be sickos and nuts. But, "They" most certainly aren't dummies. Plus, We actually help them to get smarter and smarter everyday."

{............}

[reconeil]

Even though giving your perspective about how things should be (or not), and that you like many apparently believe The People (thusly the enemy also) should be better informed about everything in detail during wartime,...don't think you answered my questions. Hope Gimpy does better.

Neil

P.S. If a close friend and confidant gave you a sure-pop winner in the Stock Market, which you passed-along to your entire family and YOU ALL TOOK A SHELLACING on The Turkey,...do you think your family should take you out and hang you, or take your friend and confidant out and hang him? Am I getting across?

[HARDCORE]

HEY NEIL -

What again was it that Harry Truman said? "Just asking ?!"
"The brothers of bows are lumps!"

VERITAS

[Gimpy]

Here goes.......my thanks to Larry and hardcore for their contributions as well.

If this ain't enough...........I got MORE!

I believe historians will struggle to understand the logic of George Bush and his "reasons" for attacking Iraq, given that the attacks on September 11, 2001, were by men not from Afghanistan or Iraq, not from Iran, Syria, or North Korea, but from Saudi Arabia. Bush's wars will only begin to make sense to historians when they unearth the Project for a New American Century (that I've menntioned before and Paul O'Neil has confirmed their "influence over this administration), discovering first that top members of George Bush's administration wrote it, then that it envisions a new world order with the United States at the center, with all other countries -- willingly or not -- either aligned with our interests or subservient to them. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 or WMDs'............only a case for GREED and domination and REVENGE!

Unfortunately, the grandiose plans of Bush's policy makers were foolishly shortsighted. Afghanistan is still a hotbed of violence and revenge. Iraq is still lacking water and electricity, and as of today American troops are being attacked an average of fifteen times a day; Osama bin Laden is still sending tapes to Al Jazeera. Terrorists are flocking to Iraq to kill Americans. Those unspeakable weapons that Bush claimed were poised to attack the free world have yet to be found. And, according to his OWN weapons inspector(s), David Kay........were NEVER there to begin with!

Bush's wars, rather than bring us safety, have made the world a dangerous, cynical place. Many countries, including most of our allies, are now afraid of us and openly critical of our misguided policies. Just ask them.........they'll TELL you if THEY think the world is a "safer" place than BEFORE the attack on Iraq!

The Bush administration's preemptive war policy, wherein he claims the right to overthrow any government suspected of being a danger to the US, goes against international law, specifically the UN Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another unless under imminent threat of invasion.

For more than a year, Bush has framed Iraq as part of the "war on terror." And for more than a year, he has produced no evidence for that claim. No evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. No evidence of an affinity between Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and the fundamentalists of al-Qaida. No evidence of a terrorist presence in Iraq greater than in other Arab or Muslim countries. No evidence that Iraq offered weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

And yet, when confronted with his misrepresentations about Iraq's weapons, rather than take the blame, Bush started pointing fingers. His loyal Republicans (like George Tenet) began to fall on their swords, but most Americans have seen through the charade; they know where the buck stops.

George Bush went to war in Iraq in spite of the will of the people. According to a CBS News poll before the war, "Americans are willing to wait for that approval: a majority wants Congress to wait until the U.N. has acted before voting on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, even if that would take longer than the few weeks in which the administration wants action.

Months after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when it became clear that Iraq really had not been an imminent threat to anyone, the Bush administration began to seek new reasons to justify the war. As the Bush administration's leading hawks on Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz have been tireless proponents of the argument that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction was a compelling enough reason for the United States to resort to war. These days, their emphasis (like Bushs') is different and oh so foolishly laughed at not only among most Americans, but citizens of the world as well!

And there you have it.

[MORTARDUDE]

Neil :

Between Gimpy and I, the bases were covered. Wouldn't you say ?

Larry

P.S : No you are not getting across at all !! What does the stock market analogy below have to do with the loss of over 500 American troops, 15,000 mede-vaced, and thousands of dead Iraqis..NOTHING.. except for lining Cheney's pockets..

IMHO

{...}

"P.S. If a close friend and confidant gave you a sure-pop winner in the Stock Market, which you passed-along to your entire family and YOU ALL TOOK A SHELLACING on The Turkey,...do you think your family should take you out and hang you, or take your friend and confidant out and hang him? Am I getting across?"
{...}

[reconeil]

I fully understand the MANY areas you're commin-from and especially that repeated: "No evidence" bit.

Still, and since: "Dead men (victims of WMD's also) tell no tales" and "Birds of a feather (all fanatical Middle East nations also) flock together" and certainly aren't going to tell any tales,...we'll all be long-gone or dead, if waiting around for any courtroom type: "Evidence" to show-up, such as all presidential wanabees seem to be requiring recently, in their ploy for power, control and the catbird seat of America.

HARDCORE,
Never did, never will put much stock in ANY POLITICO stating: "The Buck Stops Here" (ala Harry S.). It was pure political bull when Truman said it,...and it will be pure political bull whenever any politico says it, AMEN.

Only a little while ago on The History Channel about Korea, such pretty-much proves what I've just stated to you. While kicking MacArthur out of Korea for saying he could end: "The Korean Police Action" quickly with a few nukes (plus not respectfully ring kissing also),...the little political warlord already had 9 nukes in place in a forward area, and B-29 dry runs were being made. And,...everyone knows that generals don't deploy nukes. Only The President does such. I guess with nukes,..."The Buck" really does stop there?

Regardless, fortunately much wiser and cooler heads prevailed and many thousands of lives were spared, and Harry S. went off to a happy retirement. That's almost like a fairytale ending.

Neil

[Gimpy]

Using "your" supposition for the "reasons" and or "evidence" (or lack of it, whichever the case may be) for Bushs' war on Iraq.

I should certainly expect you would "excuse" the military "efforts" attempted by the Clinton administration at Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and the bombing of Iraq?.............All BTW which have been called into "question" by the right-wing and National Alliance of Neo-Nit-wits and Fruitcakes Association?

The same "logic" should therefore apply, huh?

Just asking?

BTW..................

Here's ANOTHER op-editorial view of the "current" question' being discussed! Just published recently for your persusement.

*******************

Yeah, It Was The Spooks Who Duped W!
DANIEL RUTH
Published: Feb 1, 2004

So much for the buck stopping with the president of the United States.

Why, there hasn't been this much action hiding behind the first desk since Monica Lewinsky last delivered a pizza.

Gracious, if former weapons inspector David Kay were any more disingenuous, he would be the perfect candidate for ``The Bachelor.''

It certainly wasn't a good week for George W. Bush, as Kay stepped down from the search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, having spent $900 million and not even coming up with so much as a whoopee cushion to validate the White House's vanity war against Iraq.

But then in an attempt to provide some political cover to Bush, Kay asserted that the president of the United States himself may well have been duped into believing Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons by an overzealous intelligence community eager to go to war.

Towel Snappers

This was hardly uplifting news. After all, when you've been burdened your entire political career with a reputation for being less engaged than Sonny von Bulow, the last thing you need is someone like David Kay suggesting you were little more than a Three Card Monte mark at the mercy of the spook community.

Of course, the alternative was hardly any better.

How would it look for the president to argue he wasn't duped, but instead participated in misleading the American people by using phony data to justify a war, which up to now has taken the lives of more than 500 U.S. military personnel?

This was a no-brainer (sorry, bad word choice perhaps) for the West Wing towel snappers surrounding the president. This called for a Parallel Universe Red Alert!

White House press shill, Scott McClellan, who makes a deer caught in the headlights look like the Lion King, was sent out to insist that even though the nation's chief weapons inspector (and his successor Charles Duelfer) are steadfastly confident that Iraq had fewer lethal hardware than the Dalai Lama, the president and his gaggle of paranoid political appointees still believed otherwise.

Nuclear Gibberish

Indeed, McClellan, speaking for the president of Zircon 5, adamantly maintained the administration was still confident - despite Kay, Duelfer and Secretary of State Colin Powell's statements to the contrary - that Iraq possessed vast stores of weapons of mass destruction.

In an attempt to obfuscate the circumstances surrounding Bush's apparent AWOL from reality when it came to the invasion of a foreign country, the deaths of thousands of its citizens, the estrangement from the world community and the loss of American life, the White House has seized upon whether anyone in the administration ever made the precise claim that Saddam posed an ``imminent threat.''

But that is parsing on a scale that makes Bill Clinton look like Mr. Rogers.

In the end, it depends on your definition of bold-faced chutzpah White House hooey.

The overriding predicate for going to war with Iraq began and ended on the issue of weapons of mass destruction.

It was the mantra blathered by every senior member of the Bush administration on the Sunday talk shows, in speeches, including the State of Union address (remember the Niger nuclear gibberish) and before the United Nations.

And now these Heritage Foundation frat boys want you to believe that for all their patronizing hubris, they were led astray by CIA career paper pushers?

How comforting it must be for the families of the U.S. service personnel who have died in Iraq to know that their loved ones gave their lives because the president and his top advisers were led like lemmings into war.

What does this mean? The buck passing stops at Langley?
********************************

Well, that's kinda what it looks like, huh???

Larry, you and Gimpy crack me up.

War on terrorism is war on terrorism.For the life of me I can't understand why y'all have so much trouble understanding that simple concept.Unless of course you'd rather deliberately misunderstand to try to further your own agendas.

We suffered a surprise attack on our civilians at the hands of a bunch of scum-suckin raghead terrorist cowards that hurt us badly.We are now takeing the fight to them to try to assure that doesn't happen again.Seems both simple and reasonable to me.Would you boys have prefered to that we just sat back and licked our wounds after 9/11 rather than do something about it?Can't think of anything more suicidal than that.

Is the world a safer place?Given that the terrorists have not scored any further major hits against American civilians it appears obvious that it is indeed safer for American civilians.Not safer for terrorists and their buddies though.This is a very good thing (in case you were wondering).

The vast majority of folks that were paying attention considered that Iraq-a terrorist state led by a terrorist-an obvious threat that needed to be delt with even before 9/11.After 9/11 the vast majority of the American public supported dealing with Iraq in a definative way.You can speculate WHY the American people felt this way all you want to but it remains speculation.

All this BS about all these supposed nefarious plots and minor side issues (oil,al-quiada,world/UN opinion,WMD's,etc.,etc.)is just BS that detracts from the actual issue of self defense.

[MORTARDUDE]

Hal :

I have posted a lot of items on here about 9/11. I will just let that rest...

As for your quote, "Unless of course you'd rather deliberately misunderstand to try to further your own agendas." That is total BULLSIT !! 'Nuf Sed.

Believe whatever it is you want to believe.

Larry