Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
And I'm guessing come election day the American people will
demonstrate how ****ed off they are too, nitwits like you
notwithstanding.

--
Ken Fortenberry

you had me agreeing right up to this part, Ken....I suspect
you might be disappointed at how glacial the overall change will be, and how
underwhelming the level of "****ed off" is transmitted. Hope I'm wrong, but
I see numbers that depress me in some key areas.....
Tom

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

O.k., I realize that under the circumstances it may not be wise to
ask.......but, what the hell.......did either of you boys graduate from
high school?

Wolfgang
who, after due consideration, puts the odds at about one in three.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.
You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.
And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

Who was the President on the eve of the invasion ? You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
We can agree on that point. Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

Er, no.

HTH,
R

geez, RDean, I was in agreement for about 5 straight posts by you(the stuff
on the underwhelming 'caring' out there), then you came up with this. Where
do you think our resources should have been focused?
Tom

wrote in message

Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

my guess is that the battlefield officers are of as diverse a range of
opinions from branch to branch, unit to unit, as the rest of us. Maybe more
informed about some things, less about others. Why the **** should we be
fighting a war in Iraq, and what on earth does it gain us, long-term?


Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Tell me we aren't going to get the Walter Cronkite/Tet Offensive reporting
analogies going.....please.
Tom

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
...Hang out with the National Guard down to the local watering
hole quite often do you ?

Actually, it was at the southern Mississippi school of law and auto
salvage.

LOL !! You're so full of **** you're
almost endearing.

Something else for you to aspire to.

Wolfgang
ain't politics fun?

wrote in message
Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

why is this chestnut(wrong on a few levels) surfacing so commonly on the
Internet over the past 2 months??
Tom

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.

You're trying
to blame Clinton again but what you're stubbornly trying to avoid
is that what Clinton believed in 2000 doesn't have diddly-squat
to do with the misinformation US intelligence spread in 2003.

For once I'm not blaming anyone. ;-) The point is
your revisionist history.

If what was believed in 2000 was the same as what
was believed in 2002-2003 then that pretty much
undercuts your assertion. If other countries' believed
what our intelligence community believed, that does
as well.
- Ken

On 30 Oct 2006 13:29:41 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
IAC, Saddam and his gang's possible connection to 9/11 was only one a
laundry list of reasons he needed to go.

That Saddam Hussein (not to mention his sociopathic offspring) was an
undesirable sort with a lengthy rap sheet seems to be a point of
general agreement amongst everyone from Coulter to Carville . The
point of disagreement, and the nit I pick with your sentence above was
whether or not his removal was *needed* at all, much less his
*immediate* removal by military means. Would the US and world
interests and stability have been better served by his departure
through diplomatic means?

Do you honestly think there was any chance _at all_ of getting Saddam
and his gang out of power through _any_ non-military means, including
diplomacy...would another 15-plus years done it, in your opinion?

We'll never know; but things look pretty
lousy down the road we chose. Heck, even Bush 41 saw this coming.

Er, no. He and his advisors were worried about the conditions _then_ -
they made comments on the future possible need to take Saddam out. Based
on "the past situation is an absolute future map" logic, it would have
always been ill-advised to have gotten rid of Saddam and his gang, no
matter what he/they did.

Uh-huh. Let's assume that's true - why aren't you asking the same of
Dems - they had the same information.

The *same information* talking point is a myth. While Dems had a some
of the same information, they did not have all of the same information.
Just as BushCo stovepiped the stuff favorable to their aims, they
obfuscated the dissenting opinions. While BushCo saw it all, the Dems
did not. The "Downing Street Memo", while not proof in itself, is
certainly damning corroboration of the testimony of others. The
intelligence was being fixed around the policy, and the Dems got the
fixed stuff, not the same stuff.

No, it isn't a "myth." Who do think provides (official) info to the
Executive and the Legislative? And I'll suggest that you consider the
legal concept in which knowledge of the agent is deemed knowledge of the
principle. Did every Congressperson, GOP or Dem, avail themselves of
all information officially available to them? I can't say absolutely,
but I will go so far as to say I find it extremely unlikely, and if they
failed to do their homework, that's on them.

And actually, I'd offer that top members of both parties, and a few
other select members, also of both parties, had at least the same info
as "BushCo," through channels or otherwise. Presidents get 8 years max
- Congresspeople aren't even through decorating their offices in that
time. And staffer networks are so entrenched that there's probably info
on John Adams bowel habits, um, floating around DC. If a senior member
had really wanted to know about anything, officially or otherwise,
they'd have gotten all they wanted and then some. Hell, some, including
Kennedy, probably had in-depth investment info on the whole deal.

I'm disillusioned with many Dems for their spineless rollover for
political expediency; but how can you vote against action when the Sec.
of State is threatening mushroom clouds over US cities? They were
powerless in either case. No honest evaluation or debate was possible.
I am well aware that many made a political vs. principled choice, and
I will remember those names as 2008 approaches. I think Dems, far more
than Repubs, are willing to honestly and openly criticize their own.

Which explains why Foley got run out on a rail the minute he was, um,
exposed as having traded emails and Studds got a half-assed censure for
actually having sex with a page, right? And thinking that Dems in
Congress are willing to honestly and openly criticize their own,
especially in the wake of Bill Clinton, is something I'm glad I don't
understand.

Lieberman's primary defeat in CT is a good example.

And when he wins, as it appears he will, what will that be?

IAC, the UN weapons inspectors
simply could not be relied upon credible, informed sources - regardless
of any other potential reasons, they simply didn't have the access such
as that would indicate their reports could have been fully-informed.

I disagree that the UN inspections were not yielding substantially
reliable information. True, just because you don't see it doesn't mean
it isn't there; but enough other measures were in place to mitigate the
need for immediate military action.

Such as?

I believed then, and I am more
confident now, that this was not a war of necessity.

And when would it have become such? IIRC, you said you thought
Afghanistan was a war of necessity. If I do remember correctly, why was
it so?

TC,
R

Joe F.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:40:56 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
Look at the actual conflict
and damage inflicted by the US forces vs. casualties suffered, and then
look into what CBS/Cronkite (and others) reported, followed by the
reaction of the general public.

why is this chestnut(wrong on a few levels) surfacing so commonly on the
Internet over the past 2 months??
Tom


I didn't know that it was. AFAIK, this is simply another example
(non-partisan) of "the power of modern media."

Why, in your opinion, is it wrong?

TC,
R