The Red Line: Part Deux

#577
#577
#579
#579
#582
#582
n_huffhines said:
This is crazy.



Obama Promises Syria Strike Will Have No Objective : The New Yorker
Click to expand...

"no purpose or goal".. then why do it? please tell me that was a satire article. if he truly said that. then just truly forget about it. there is no hope at all. and if he is sending multiple warships into the area. he will do something. same thing with bush. you dont send 100k troops to kuwait and then back down. he isnt sending 5 warships to the area and then turn around.
 
#583
#583
hog88 said:
So? Is it pertinent to what is going on today?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Rummy is going on TV and saying the reason has to be justified before attacking a country after the mess he helped pull off. 10 years later and we are still in the mess he helped start that was not justified.
 
#584
#584
Gramps said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world/americas/05iht-intel.4.13504658.html?_r=0


Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq

Senate Report: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

The Iraq War Ten Years After


Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq | Foreign Affairs


There is 5 links. If that is not enough , Google is your friend.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your links prove anything regarding Rumsfeld willfully lying. Nothing.

In fact, see the below quote from you last link;

At the same time, an acrimonious and highly partisan debate broke out over whether the Bush administration manipulated and misused intelligence in making its case for war. The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.

In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services.
Click to expand...

Was it handled perfectly? No, of course not. But jumping to the conclusion that Rumsfeld willingly lied to the people so we could invade Iraq is absurd.
 
#585
#585
Gramps said:
Yes it is. Rummy is going on TV and saying the reason has to be justified before attacking a country after the mess he helped pull off. 10 years later and we are still in the mess he helped start that was not justified.
Click to expand...

Clearly, Rumsfeld's fault and his alone. You're conveniently ignoring everyone else who voted for the attack because it's apparently the "cool" thing to do.
 
#586
#586
A decade later and the Iraq debate is still contaminated with myths | Shadow Government

5. Bush "lied" in making the case for war. I have addressed this myth before. It is a staple of the anti-Iraq/anti-Bush commentary -- and not just of the pseudonymous trolls in blog comment sections. John Mearsheimer, one of the most influential security studies academics, has written a book built around the claim that leaders regularly lie and that Bush in particular lied about Iraq. Mearsheimer claims "four key lies," each one carefully rebutted by Mel Leffler.

The first is the question of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. As I noted above, while the Iraq files contain no "smoking gun" of an active operational link, the record includes ample evidence of overtures originating from either side -- each pursuing precisely the kind of enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend alliance of convenience that Bush worried about.
The second is the Bush administration statements of certainty about Iraq's WMD programs. It turns out the Bush administration officials were wrong on many of those particulars and should have been less certain about how they were reading the intelligence, but there is no compelling evidence that they knew they were reading the intelligence incorrectly, which is what is logically required to prove the charge of "lying" rather than being "mistaken."
The third is the charge that Bush claimed Saddam was behind the attacks of 9/11. Here Mearsheimer ignores the explicit and repeated explanation by President Bush (and countless administration figures) about what they meant -- namely that the links they saw were (i) how 9/11 had changed their risk calculus and (ii) how terrorist groups and states sponsors of terror should be treated as part and parcel of the same war. Again, the Bush administration may or may not have been wrong to view things that way but these are disputes of reasoning and policy, not fact.
The fourth is the charge that Bush "lied" about sincerely pursuing a diplomatic solution short of war in 2002-2003. In fact, Bush was committed to a final resolution of WMD issue, which he believed would require either abject capitulation by Hussein or forcible regime change. Bush was not open to a wide range of face-saving and half-way diplomatic measures, but he never claimed to be. In other words, Bush was not willing to accept diplomatic solutions that others might have accepted, but he did go to great lengths to secure the diplomatic solution he was willing to accept but Saddam was not.
Click to expand...
 
#587
#587
Gramps said:
Yes it is. Rummy is going on TV and saying the reason has to be justified before attacking a country after the mess he helped pull off. 10 years later and we are still in the mess he helped start that was not justified.
Click to expand...

What official capacity does he hold right now?

You should be more worried about what the man who can pull the trigger is doing.
 
#588
#588
VOLinthaNATI said:
A decade later and the Iraq debate is still contaminated with myths | Shadow Government
Click to expand...

Bush "lied" in making the case for war.???


So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


Want to see more from the Dems?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#589
#589
hog88 said:
What official capacity does he hold right now?

You should be more worried about what the man who can pull the trigger is doing.
Click to expand...

You need to head home. Vols 520 may be visiting again. He hasn't posted in an hour or so.
 
#590
#590
Gramps said:
You need to head home. Vols 520 may be visiting again. He hasn't posted in an hour or so.
Click to expand...

Not worried. She would laugh at him.

I let the office staff cut out so I'm holding down the fort. So I'm stuck for another hour or so, then I'll be on the lake!
 
#591
#591
hog88 said:
Not worried. She would laugh at him.

I let the office staff cut out so I'm holding down the fort. So I'm stuck for another hour or so, then I'll be on the lake!
Click to expand...

Enjoy yourself and be safe. The lakes will be full this weekend.
 
#595
#595
I've seen this mentioned in some new articles after the British vote, but what affect with the British rejection have on the Special Relationship?
 
#596
#596
Burhead said:
I've seen this mentioned in some new articles after the British vote, but what affect with the British rejection have on the Special Relationship?
Click to expand...

The special relationship was over after 0 shipped back the Churchill bust. Remember that one? I do
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top