Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Go back and search the old thread, Slave and I have exhausted ourselves posting on this.

The "so what" is important because it is Wilson that raised the 16 word issue, which I submit was the spark that set the "Bush Lied" crowd ablaze.

I have no problem with you or anyone else criticizing the president's policies. That is fair game, though I think the rhetoric should be toned down a notch when it comes to foreign policy. But this "Bush Lied" shit was WAY over the top, and I believe has harmed our efforts abroad.

If Wilson has a credibility problem, that hardly saves the President from his, except in a crude political sense. Nothing that Wilson putatively has lied about makes the administration look any better. To put it in your terms, even if Wilson hadn't been the spark, the administration was a fire hazard waiting to burn.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Wilson has a credibility problem, that hardly saves the President from his, except in a crude political sense. Nothing that Wilson putatively has lied about makes the administration look any better. To put it in your terms, even if Wilson hadn't been the spark, the administration was a fire hazard waiting to burn.

What do you think makes Bush not credible? Are you referring to his budget estimates?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you think makes Bush not credible? Are you referring to his budget estimates?

If he announced this morning that Syria posed a threat to us because it was developing WMD and aiding terrorists, the majority of the country would not believe him.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you think makes Bush not credible? Are you referring to his budget estimates?

An early contender for POTD.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If he announced this morning that Syria posed a threat to us because it was developing WMD and aiding terrorists, the majority of the country would not believe him.

Putting aside the substantive issue, that seems to be a US intelligence credibility problem, rather than a Bush specific credibility problem, which would not change under Kerry.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I have no problem with you or anyone else criticizing the president's policies. That is fair game, though I think the rhetoric should be toned down a notch when it comes to foreign policy. But this "Bush Lied" shit was WAY over the top, and I believe has harmed our efforts abroad.

Remember what you said to me when I posted that the GOP-led campaign against Clinton, culminating in his impeachment, had damaged our national security by severely constraing the administration's ability to accomplish anything for several years?

Consider it returned. Too bad, so sad.

If the invasion and resulting occupation had turned up anything CLOSE to the key allegations made by the administration and its supporters beforehand, you wouldn't have the issue at all. i.e. If we had found actual stocks of WMD, and/or hard links with al Qaeda, the anti-war crowd would have been reduced to muttering ("But is was STILL bad, and ILLEGAL.") which would have got them nowhere.

The abject failure of intelligence and/or diplomacy and/or policy-making is what has hurt the administration and our efforts abroad. [Effete liberal metaphor] The rest is just froth on the latte. [/Effete liberal metaphor]

S_A_M

I leave you with the words of Gen. (Ret.) Zinni in response to Secretary Rumsfeld's expression of surprise over the course of the occupation and the Iraqi insurgency. [Paraphrase] "I don't understand how he could be surprised. People were telling him for years that this would happen."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Putting aside the substantive issue, that seems to be a US intelligence credibility problem, rather than a Bush specific credibility problem, which would not change under Kerry.

The buck stops here.
-- Harry S Truman

It was the CIA's fault.
-- George W Bush

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The abject failure of intelligence and/or diplomacy and/or policy-making is what has hurt the administration and our efforts abroad.

Our intelligence didn't fail. The administration decided it wanted to invade Iraq, and it wanted the CIA to give it good reasons. The CIA did the best they could without -- as we now know -- much to work with. If Bush or Cheney had wanted to hear that Iraq had no WMD or meaningful ties to Al Qaeda, doubtless someone would have been happy to tell them.

Now the administration wants the CIA to take the fall, and it looks like it's going to do that job well, too.

Proof that the White House is good with all of this: Heads are not rolling at the CIA. Tenet stepped down before the Senate report came out, after an incredibly long tenure, considering, but the administration is resisting the 9/11 commission's calls for reform.

[sgtclub]

WASHINGTON - President Clinton (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation after admitting he removed highly classified terrorism documents from a secure reading room during preparations for the Sept. 11 commission hearings, The Associated Press has learned.

Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI (news - web sites) agents armed with warrants. Some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...be_2&printer=1

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Remember what you said to me when I posted that the GOP-led campaign against Clinton, culminating in his impeachment, had damaged our national security by severely constraing the administration's ability to accomplish anything for several years?

Consider it returned. Too bad, so sad.

This is just pure and utter crap that is being peddled as an excuse for the failure to act by the Clinton Administration, and if anything, it was Clinton's actions had constrained their ability to act. I have never blamed Clinton for 9/11, mainly because I think it could not have been prevented. But I do think he was thoroughly uninterested in foreign policy, and uncomfortable with military strength, and we are paying for that now.

If the invasion and resulting occupation had turned up anything CLOSE to the key allegations made by the administration and its supporters beforehand, you wouldn't have the issue at all. i.e. If we had found actual stocks of WMD, and/or hard links with al Qaeda, the anti-war crowd would have been reduced to muttering ("But is was STILL bad, and ILLEGAL.") which would have got them nowhere.

Perhaps not in Iraq. But it's hard to fight a war, even harder when you don't have super majority support, and still harder when you are being criticized at home as being a liar, murderer, etc. But, I guess many on the left don't really consider this a war.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If he announced this morning that Syria posed a threat to us because it was developing WMD and aiding terrorists, the majority of the country would not believe him.

what if Clinton, the entire senate and the UN all backed him up?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The buck stops here.
-- Harry S Truman

It was the CIA's fault.
-- George W Bush

Kerry
--The buck stops here and it was the CIA's fault

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Our intelligence didn't fail. The administration decided it wanted to invade Iraq, and it wanted the CIA to give it good reasons. The CIA did the best they could without -- as we now know -- much to work with. If Bush or Cheney had wanted to hear that Iraq had no WMD or meaningful ties to Al Qaeda, doubtless someone would have been happy to tell them.

Now the administration wants the CIA to take the fall, and it looks like it's going to do that job well, too.

Proof that the White House is good with all of this: Heads are not rolling at the CIA. Tenet stepped down before the Senate report came out, after an incredibly long tenure, considering, but the administration is resisting the 9/11 commission's calls for reform.

This line of reasoning may have worked before the Senate Report and 9/11 report, but it is just hot air now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub But I do think he was thoroughly uninterested in foreign policy, and uncomfortable with military strength, and we are paying for that now.

Right -- because his military did so poorly in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Perhaps not in Iraq. But it's hard to fight a war, even harder when you don't have super majority support, and still harder when you are being criticized at home as being a liar, murderer, etc. But, I guess many on the left don't really consider this a war.

We consider it a war all right, but we think the President should have approached it as a war, not a political campaign. That means leveling with people about the reasons instead of trying to snow them. That means not using foreign policy for political advantage. That means making the war effort bipartisan. That means asking everyone to share the burden.

If the President didn't want to be accused of lying, he could have tried telling the truth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kerry
--The buck stops here and it was the CIA's fault

That's a pretty convincing defense of Bush you've got there, son.

When Kerry is elected President, I hope you're willing to put aside the personal attacks for a little while in the spirit of national unity. Or maybe that only cuts one way.

And I hope Chinaski's still around to pay for the board in December.