-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Obama adopts a conservative approach!
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
Werbung:
Not my point. My point is that talking does overt occupation and war in many serious instances and history shows that we should be continued with countries that we do not get along with.
As far as the missiles located 20 off the Russian border... that will only create an the to be expected escalation. Hopefully with President Obama we can create better policies and work this... just as the plethora of other Bush messes out to a better conclusion.
It's my understanding that the removing of them off of the terror list was contingent on certain actions by the North Korean government.
But that was not the case. Yes there was conflicting intel but Bush picked through it with only one objective in mind... the invasion of Iraq. I've posted several documents and media videos and we've all heard on TV from people directly involved confirming this.
Trying to bash the honor and/or the honesty of General Powell is beneath you my friend.
The fact is it is you (you as in the Right Wing) that are now trying (failed badly but still trying)
to promote bad intel, in the form of misinformation on the past actions of the Bush administration. I actually welcome this as I have had many a moderate Republican in talks with me says the fact that the Bush administration still continues to promote now widely know falsehoods on the matter it's become extremely difficult for them not to turn away from the Party as they are embarrassed.
As far as we are where we are... true. Thank God for President Obama that we now can now begin to regroup and rebuild what has been so badly broken over the last 8 years.
You're right I apologize I pulled out the wrong number on the death toll. I was looking at several numbers including casualties and various categories of deaths, American, Coalition and even Iraqis in total.
Here are the correct very sobering numbers.
Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Margaret Griffis :: Contact American Military Casualties in Iraq
Date Total In Combat
American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4209
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 4070
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3749
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3350
Since Election (1/31/05): 2772
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: Official 30852... Estimated over 100000
Latest Fatality Dec.4, 2008
Page last updated 12/10/08 11:50 pm EDT
List of U.S. Servicemembers killed since 5/1/03
Put a Casualty Counter on Your Website
U.S. Wounded
Daily DoD Casualty Release
320,000 Vets Have Brain Injuries
War Veterans’ Concussions Are Often Overlooked
How Many Servicemembers Were Wounded?
18 Vet Suicides Per Day?
Iraqi Casualties
Others
Other Coalition Troops - Iraq 316
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan 628
Other Military Deaths - Afghanistan 398
Contractor Deaths - Iraq 445
Sources: DoD, MNF, and iCasualties.org
The Faces The List Sources American Casualties Iraqi Casualties Contact
U.S. lacks mechanism to accurately track troops wounded in Iraq
Also see The Missing Wounded.
American Count
Dates and sources of Americans killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 are documented in this file. Admittedly the file is incomplete, for the Department of Defense does not maintain old records.
Iraqi deaths due to US invasion 1,297,997
We maintain a daily count based on news reports. It is not intended to be complete. There is no agency that keeps track of accurate numbers of Iraqis killed. JustForeignPolicy maintains a running estimate based on the Lancet study with the rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count.
Agree in part... that's it's been working here toward the end because they know it will speed up or departure and turnover of their country with less bloodshed of their own fighters and that there will be a continuing Civil War once we leave.
I know you're doing the best you can to support the worst President ever (literally by polling not just by my biased interpretation). And I also realize that is a very difficult position to be in. Your frustrated in a loosing battle and I understand that.
We have not had any aggression into it's neighbors by the North Koreans nor have we had to invade their country. The case could even be made that the United States is not the dictator of who can or cannot have nuclear power in the first place. Talks do work in many instances. There would have been hundreds of more wars without diplomacy... that's just a fact. Do talks always work... No. Is there a point at which you must use ground forces... of course.
But not as a preemptive strike on a situation already under control such as in Iraq. Hussein was completely trapped in a no fly zone where he couldn't even fly a crop duster and if he even just locked on to any aircraft that site was immediately (and super easily) taken out.
Well that's you.
The fact is there has been rearms of information and personal eyewitness and inside the administration reports & testimony since.The American people are very repulsed at this administrations lies and outright deceitfully ways. And this contributed to the Republicans losing not just one but the last two 2 elections badly.
There's a difference between not liking Saddam Hussein (even wanting to kill Hussein) and actually doing what Bush did in purposely picking and choosing various intel to create a scenario to get our nation to go along with an invasion. And there was also lie on top of lie promoted as well.
President Clinton did not invade Iraq and going back even further when Bush #41 was asked why he didn't go into Baghdad after Hussein in the first Gulf War he said intelligently as former CIA... Because once you get in there there's no acceptable exit strategy.
Bottom line just as I said there would be a President Obama we WILL also see an extreme ramping up of American troop redeployment quickly after President Obama takes office... and that's a very good thing!
Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
I know you're doing the best you can to support the worst President ever (literally by polling not just by my biased interpretation). And I also realize that is a very difficult position to be in. Your frustrated in a loosing battle and I understand that.
Polling is not a basis for truth. Only ignorant fools base their views of the world, on polls. No I didn't lose any battle. At least not to someone who can't determine truth without a poll.
Thanks for admitting you are wrong. You need to do that more often. Start with every post you've made thus far.
Well that's you.
Idiocy is when presented with facts, you take politically motivated rhetoric instead.
You are lying again. There were no lies, nor deceitful ways. The Rockefeller report proved that conclusively.
Clinton cited many of the same claims that Bush did. Explain?
Great, you hate a warmonger, and then vote and praise another. You liberals are never consistent on anything.
We talked to Iraq for over a decade. They ignored 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. We talked to North Korea for over a decade. They have broken every agreement they made, tested a nuclear bomb, and have restarted their reactor. What is "talking" anyway. You do not just sit down and "talk." It does not work like that. You have to go in with an agenda. We offered our position to Iran, they said no. What else do you want to tell them?
It should not have resulted in the escalation it did. 10 interceptors is not match for an entire nuclear division (which is what Russia did in response). Also, if you want to have any chance of taking out a potential Iranian threat to Europe, you have to put the missiles there. It also reassures Poland that we support them (which is vital after we abandoned Georgia).
Yea, it was. And it all failed. Our North Korean approach is a disaster. Right now we view the talks as more important than any real solution.
I personally talked to someone involved (believe it or not, doesnt matter) and after that discussion, I, in no way shape or form, buy the manipulating intelligence garbage.
I am not bashing him. He plays politics same as everyone else. Seems to me the honorable thing to do would be not go "lie" to start a war. He is backtracking and it is clear.
The fact is it is you (you as in the Right Wing) that are now trying (failed badly but still trying)
You clearly have no connection to the intel community. Bad intelligence is a way of life.
Widely known "allegations." People can believe what they want, however wrong it might be. When the director of the CIA says "slam dunk" are you supposed to say oh wait, what if its wrong. Its the job of the CIA to give you info, they did, and we went on it. Stop blaming Bush.
I was really sold on this whole "One President at a time bit." Is Obama in yet? No. I believe it was Bush that set the withdrawal in Iraq, not Obama.
The tribal strategy has been working since 2005. And before that we captured the Al Qaeda battle plans for Iraq in a raid and changed strategy late 2006. This made a world of difference. The tribes are not happy that we are leaving. The tribes are happy that we are there to give them money and guns. When we leave, that is when their problems begin.
Andy;78096]Polling is not a basis for truth. Only ignorant fools base their views of the world, on polls. No I didn't lose any battle. At least not to someone who can't determine truth without a poll.[/QUOTE]
Not the ONLY basis for truth. But a scientific way to gage the opinion and judgment of the masses. I could state case by case why Bush is seen as one of the or the worst President of all times... but I'd be typing forever and never get off this subject.
You think Bush is great fine keep promoting that. We win easier that way.
I said... we HAVE been negotiating (talking) and it has proven much better than invading North Korea. I'm wrong about nothing.
I know but you keep posting the rhetoric. That's why you guys have been loosing so badly. The secrets out... everyone knows you fed them nothing but total BS for the last 8 years.
You need a new horse... you beat that one to death long, long ago. Everyone knows Bush/Cheney was the administration of lies. Again the inside eyewitness people have come forward. There are even books about it. No one but a handful of Right Wing zealots are even trying to dispute it anymore.
There WAS some bad intel floating around. Mainly because Hussein was trying to bluff off it's enemy bIran. But there was also intel to the contrary. And the contrary intel became even more prevalent under Bush.
Clinton did not invade on his intel... Bush invaded and was wrong.
There's a difference between a Liberal and a pacifist. While some Liberals are pacifist the vast majority are not. If there is a defined need such as going to a location to try and seek out and kill or capture a Bin Laden that admitted attacking us on 9-11 we will spare no effort in doing just that.
What we won't do is make up a story about say Venezuela because we don't like their leader and invade & occupy that country for years when we know that there's no connection to the person we're actually after.
That would forever be known as the Bush move.
Not the ONLY basis for truth. But a scientific way to gage the opinion and judgment of the masses. I could state case by case why Bush is seen as one of the or the worst President of all times... but I'd be typing forever and never get off this subject.
You think Bush is great fine keep promoting that. We win easier that way.
I said... we HAVE been negotiating (talking) and it has proven much better than invading North Korea. I'm wrong about nothing.
I know but you keep posting the rhetoric. That's why you guys have been loosing so badly. The secrets out... everyone knows you fed them nothing but total BS for the last 8 years.
You need a new horse... you beat that one to death long, long ago. Everyone knows Bush/Cheney was the administration of lies. Again the inside eyewitness people have come forward. There are even books about it. No one but a handful of Right Wing zealots are even trying to dispute it anymore.
There WAS some bad intel floating around. Mainly because Hussein was trying to bluff off it's enemy bIran. But there was also intel to the contrary. And the contrary intel became even more prevalent under Bush.
Clinton did not invade on his intel... Bush invaded and was wrong.
There's a difference between a Liberal and a pacifist. While some Liberals are pacifist the vast majority are not. If there is a defined need such as going to a location to try and seek out and kill or capture a Bin Laden that admitted attacking us on 9-11 we will spare no effort in doing just that.
What we won't do is make up a story about say Venezuela because we don't like their leader and invade & occupy that country for years when we know that there's no connection to the person we're actually after.
That would forever be known as the Bush move.
Iraq did at one time let inspectors in... and eventually ignored Resolutions because they KNEW they didn't have any WMD's in the first place.
The North Korea thing has been ebbing and flowing. I myself have watched them blow up nuclear cooling towers etc. We are much, MUCH better off by keeping those talks alive.
I'm reasonably confident you are not a mind reader. Are you seriously arguing that people or circumstances never change? Invading & occupying another sovereign country is not something to be taken lightly my friend.
There is a time to talk and a time to attack. All I'm saying is we had no need whatsoever to have to invade Iraq.
This is the "If we do it it's right if they do it it's wrong argument". As you know my wife has been involved in Russian Studies for the last 29 years some of that as a US Army Intelligence Russian linguist who's job was to break down intercepted messages from the former USSR. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
So you think the prudent course of action would be to now attack, invade and occupy for what 6,7,8 years or so?
Thank God we had an election!I believe you. You talk to who you talk to, I talk to who I talk to. I'm just very certain you were being misled.
That's just a shame you take the course because you are bashing him. General Powell is a very honest & honorable man. I do see how he doesn't not fit into your propaganda stream though.
Well yes if my wife's Army Intel career and Scott's active duty 3 tour Iraq 1 tour Kuwait Intel experience means nothing.
The truth (from a once very inside perspective) is my wife often sees certain markers of deception from both sides. I know this is COMPLETELY UNTHINKABLE... but our military services lie to the American people sometimes! Vietnam for a fairly recent example was riddled with many such now unclassified cases.
Of course there's always some bad intel. No one's disputing that. I'm simply saying there was enough from the other side to not warrant Bush to invade and that he purposely wanted to Invade Iraq for other reasons from the start.
And his administration came out and tried to make connections with 9-11 that they knew were totally untrue to build public support for their invasion plans.
What could he do? First Obama was already saying that long before Bush Flip Flopped plus the Iraqi government wouldn't sign the agreement allowing us to legally stay after the first of the year without that agreement including a US withdraw time-line.
I mean Bush's only other option would have been to slap the government of Iraq in the face an say... We're staying no matter what you say!
Bush and the Republicans already had enough egg on their face. They couldn't afford anymore that's for sure.
It's called trying to cut your political loses and give clones a reason to post exactly what you just did.
You're right Iraqi reporters throwing their shoes at an American President in an official press conference is absolutely the highest form of respect for a job well done.
What's next shooting at us is really just unloading their guns... COME ON!
Saddam knew, his generals did not. In captured documents from Iraqi cabinet meetings you have generals asking why they do not use WMD during the invasion. His own generals did not even know, and other intel agencies all around the world are confirming they do, it is hard to say no they dont.
They do indeed ebb and flow. However we have gained nothing from the decade long talks other than a nuclear North Korea. That is not a gain. I am not advocating for an invasion, but we have to understand that talking is the final solution, something has to come from the talking.
Again did not advocate for an invasion, but we need a change of strategy other than "talk." That means nothing. As for people "changing," I can agree people change. However, after well over a decade, it does not look like North Korea is changing much.
As you say, people and circumstances changes. Iran is not Iraq. North Korea is not Iraq, and they must not be viewed as such. We have offered our deal to Iran, they said no, what will "talking" do now. What do you even want to talk about?
It is not that argument at all. It is simply a credibility issue. The situation is a dramatic overreaction by Russia. If we abandon Poland, after abandoning Georgia, the rest of the world notices. Japan will notice. South Korea will notice. Taiwan will notice. Europe will notice. Our credibility with our allies will be diminished even more. (Yes we will have it)
So you think the prudent course of action would be to now attack, invade and occupy for what 6,7,8 years or so?
I did not advocate for an invasion anywhere. There are more courses of action than "talk" and "invade."
I sincerely doubt it, perhaps you are being mislead.
Yes he is deserving of respect. Yes I admire his service. But if he did not believe the argument on Iraq, he could have resigned at any time. I just do not buy this argument that once it goes badly he decides he did not like the case for it.
I am not going to throw out credentials, I appreciate their service. At present however, our intelligence community is akin to a bound, blind animal if you ask me.
What you will get from the CIA is "we have medium confidence that X has occurred." Can you confirm this? "We have medium confidence." Whatever that means. That's what you get.
As I pointed out in another thread, the typical briefing is this:
A memo says Pakistan has lost a nuclear weapon. We have high confidence this is the case.
That is all you get. So now, make a decision.
I have no problem with an intelligence community using deception. The problem is now people feel they need to know everything.
When the CIA director looks at you and says "It is a slam dunk Mr. President" I take that to mean we have meaningful intelligence. I do not take that to mean, well maybe it is this or that.
Depends on how you look at it.
Obama was calling for withdrawal in 2006, well before it was practical. After opposing additional troops and a strategy change, which has at least brought short term peace, Obama takes credit? I think not. If we followed Obama we would have been out before the surge and before Baghdad was secure. That was not an option. The change is strategy caused short term security, which allows for us to even think about a pullout.
I mean Bush's only other option would have been to slap the government of Iraq in the face an say... We're staying no matter what you say!
Bush and the Republicans already had enough egg on their face. They couldn't afford anymore that's for sure.
It's called trying to cut your political loses and give clones a reason to post exactly what you just did.
I think winning in Iraq is more important than "cutting political losses." We need a strong central government in Iraq or they will most likely have another civil war. I am not prepared to tell 4,000 dead soldiers that we did not have the resolve to finish what they died for because it became "politically inconvenient."
You're right Iraqi reporters throwing their shoes at an American President in an official press conference is absolutely the highest form of respect for a job well done.
What's next shooting at us is really just unloading their guns... COME ON!
Not sure what any of this has to do with the tribal strategy.
Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
Not the ONLY basis for truth. But a scientific way to gage the opinion and judgment of the masses. I could state case by case why Bush is seen as one of the or the worst President of all times... but I'd be typing forever and never get off this subject.
You think Bush is great fine keep promoting that. We win easier that way.
You can't win. There is no way for you to "win" unless either you or I leave the country. As long as we're both in the same country, if the president does something good, we both win. If he does something bad, we both lose.
When Obama runs the economy into the ground, and causes us to lose in Iraq, we will both lose. Not just me, not just you, both of us.
Oh and by the way, I never said Bush was so great. He supported that crappy Bail-out the democrats wanted.
You are right about nothing either. The talks have done nothing. North Korea is gaining nuclear weapons, and you are here flapping on about how well talking has worked. Talking worked wonders to stave off WW2 as well. Instead of nipping Hitler in the bud before he became a massive threat to nearly the whole world, we talked and talked.
Now we're doing the same thing with North Korea, and you think it's great.
Yes blaw blaw, you have nothing. As long as it is true, I will repeat it until the end of time, in every post, in every thread in which you lie about it.
Rockefeller report proved you wrong, and conclusively. Time to grow up and admit your mistakes. Clinton supported the same thing. We have quote from him using the same intel to support his attempt to go to war. Yeah that Clinton administration was full of right wing zealots. Apparently the same people that set him up with Monica I suppose.
Clinton fully supported invading Iraq based on that Intel. The only difference between Bush and Clinton is, when Bush was faced with terrorist acts, and intel showing an out of control Iraq, he acted, where Clinton was a lame president who would rather screw with Monica than deal with the public.
They can't use weapons they DON'T have... bottom line. Hence no threat.
There have been concessions. Until there is some act of aggression we really have no right to take military action anyway. If you don't want to talk anymore... then there's not even a chance for a change in position... the only option you leave on the table is to attack. Not smart.
You leave the door to communication open. Many Iranian leaders are not all that popular even in their own country. Anything can happen politically where a deal could be struck.
At some point if you know an actual nuclear weapon is being built Israel or us may have to take out that particular site. But this whole idea that we can have domestic nuclear power for energy and tell others they can or cannot is ridiculous.
Oh I can tell you it ABSOLUTELY is not an overreaction by Russia. After how we've cowboyed all around in Iraq! There will for certain be consequences. There will be some escalation by the Russians.
Don't get too big for your britches.
They still have enough fire power to blow the entire world up 300 times. Those missiles on their border mean little if they really ever felt threatened and went postal. BELIEVE ME!
I sincerely doubt it, perhaps you are being mislead.
I'll leave that possibility open. But I'm about as sure as it gets.
And I respect you even though we often disagree. But I'm still disappointed in you on the way you've spoke on this matter.
I'd say they do a pretty good job and come up with a lot of important information all be it certainly not fail proof. But that's what Intelligence & Counter Intelligence is all about. The spy game is certainly not cut & dry. It's ALL about misdirection.
But as my wife has told be when her unit was attached to NSA you see patterns over and over from different sources and a picture of probability becomes more clear.
Well whatever you get... Bush #41 was absolutely correct on this one. No acceptable exit strategy.
Good... then you also have no problem when people don't believe them.
That's really funny.
How about we start at the beginning. President-elect Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq FROM THE START. He was not taken in by the false statements of the Bush administration in the first place and was able to make a better assessment of the true situation at the beginning. Once you see a group of liars thug there way into an invasion & occupation it doesn't seem at all (NONE) odd not to trust anything they say from then on.
Even General Colin Powell eventually came to this same conclusion after he was tricked and realized he was put out as the fall guy to present false information to the UN.
All this is over. We have a honest, intelligent, well intended President in a President Obama.
We won years ago on the original mission, remember MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! We killed Hussein... there were no WMD'S.
My wish is you had the same concern for not sending our brave troops into that meat grinder in the first place for a big NATION BUILDING lie!
You know exactly what that means. They hate us. They never wanted us to come and they now most certainly want us to leave. I see huge rallies in the streets of Baghdad today and bombs being set all over the place in support of the shoe throwing Iraqi reporter.
Bush is a fool and people will not soon forget just how hated, dishonest and incompetent he was.
But that has nothing to do with the overall judgment of the American people and the rest of the world that President George W. Bush was the worst American President of all time... or at the very least since modern scientific polling was implemented.
I am in total agreement with the vast majority... like 75%. You choose to wallow in the mud down there with the few people zealots that support the undeniable train wreck called the Bush administration.
I'd call that loosing.
Andy your Conservative Republican cronies have run this country so far into the ditch that we have to reach up to kiss a snakes belly. We can't do any WORSE!
I don't see that. You spend a lot of time carrying Bush's water for him trying to give him the cover of excuses. WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
We have gained various concessions with North Korea. I personally watched them on TV recently blow up their newly constructed nuclear facility cooling tower and Bush himself also recently took them off the supporters of terrorist list.
As far as Hitler there was nothing wrong with talking. The problem was appeasement once he left his borders to invading other places.
I'm all or stopping any invasion. I was all for the First Gulf War because Hussein invaded Kuwait. All for Invading anywhere Bin Laden is.
Not a fan of the Bush/Cheney fraud and trickery getting us into Iraq.
President Clinton never authorized any invasion of Iraq. The 9-11 terrorist act had nothing, zip, zero, notta thing to do with Iraq in anyway. Bush fraudulently manipulated his Intel to say what he wanted it to say. He is a liar.
As far as Clinton's affair at least he had it with a woman. Don't see that much these days with Republicans!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_zE00NSEKE
When you think they have them, your point is pretty meaningless.
What do you mean by "talk" exactly. No one simply goes to North Korea, or anywhere, and says "let's talk." That gets no one anywhere. You can also "talk" without holding formal meetings. We can "talk" through Europe, or back channels. We do not have to sit down face to face to "talk", whatever "talk" means anyway.
The door is wide open. Through Europe, in the United Nations diplomats talk (yes they still talk there, even though they are not technically supposed to).
Do you believe that Iran's program is peaceful? I will tell you who does not believe the program is peaceful. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Both of these nations have flat out told us that if another country in the Middle East goes nuclear they plan to follow suit. That is a disaster in the making.
Another problem is that there is no way to verify if the program is peaceful, and the difference between a peaceful program and military program is quite small. How do you plan to tell the difference? And more importantly, how do you plan to convince Egypt and Saudi Arabia of that difference?
Is it absolutely an overreaction. Us "cowboying" around is not threatening Russia. If anything it puts us in a weaker position. The Russian escalation is ridiculous in this sense. You do not need a nuclear division to counter 10 interceptors and a radar site.
I think any further Russian escalation and the United States should move to get Ukraine in NATO and threaten to recognize Chechynia.
Don't get too big for your britches.
You just proved my point. The interceptors on the Russian border are no threat, and the Russians are overreacting to their presence.
Well my opinion is my own, but it was widely shared at the State Department when Powell was there believe it or not.
Do not even get me started on the US counter-intelligence program... or should I say lack of cohesive strategy by anyone...
Part of the problem is that NSA does one thing, CIA does another thing, and the other 15 intel groups all do different things, all overlapping, and all engaging in turf wars at the same time. DHS did not fix this problem.
The NSA does a relatively good job, but they are not the only ones involved, which becomes part of the problem.
The lack of plan for occupation was the problem in my view.
People can believe whatever they want. It still makes half of them wrong.
That's really funny.
Obama made a better assessment without access to much of the intel? I find that hard to believe.
I separate issues on an issue by issue basis. Every President will lie to you about something, it does not mean everything they say is a lie.
To follow this it would seem we can never trust the Army, or any intel group that engages in any form of counter-intelligence.
You don't kill people because you think they might have something. There's always plenty of time for killing when you're the Super Power and the other guy is not.
By direct contact you often over time build understandings... if not full blown friendships. Only a coward is afraid to talk. You don't have to give in on one single thing but there's a certain amount of chutzpa about being face to face.
I don't believe that the leaders they currently have would stop there no.
I have no problem with taking out a nuclear reactor in Iran by air strike. Hopefully Israel will do that if it needs done and we can stay out of it.
But to me this is all the more reason to be sparing no effort at letting the world know we really tried to avoid any bloodshed.
You present the basic old Cold War approach at escalation. I believe you'll see you'll get just that. We'll see who's right... I'll be around.
And you're entitled to it. I just see political face saving coming before your general support of good honest leaders of our military. And I see that as a shame. Just my opinion.
Well we are in somewhat of an agreement here I guess.
I'll just pass along my wife's personal experience. She had no problem with other intelligence organizations... but the main reason she eventually got out of the Army was because she liked things much better when she basically worked for the NSA than she did when things evolved to where she was back doing basically the same thing under Army Command.
Just imagine how GREAT he'll be when he has it all!
OH PLEEEEEEEASE! Now you're just making yourself look bad. OK... they all hate Bush as much as some did Hussein.
Stop it.Might go from a 23% approval rating to a 25%... seriously he really was one of our worst!
Werbung:
You also do not have time to waste if you have intel that confirms that Iraq has a WMD program.
This sounds fine, but it is not the way (nor has it ever been the way) the United States handles diplomatic meetings. Typically the US goes in, says here is our position. The other side (knowing we have 10 fall backs positions) says that is not good enough 10 times until we cave on everything.
We should go in not with the mentality of "if it is not good enough what else can we offer" but rather "why is this not good enough, you have to make changes as well." Right now we fail miserably on these fronts.
The reason the Libyan WMD program was eliminated was due in large part to the fact that the US went in with 1 position and instructions of "do not mess this up."
Then why will "talking" to them change their minds?
If Israel attacks Iran, we are going to get blamed for it, and we will be retaliated against. In Iran, an attack by Israel is the same as an attack by the United States. Further, an airstrike on a reactor in Iran does not stop the program.
The world (for the most part) does not want to see a nuclear Iran either. Sadly economic interests between Iran and Security Council members mean that it is up to us.
I present this logic because it is the correct response.
I support his service 100%. I do not support his political backtracking. A distinction can be made. Obama made one with McCain, why am I not entitled to make one with Powell?
Seeing the light finally I see.
Other intel groups do not have a "problem" persay. They just need to be unified and given a clear, cohesive strategy in my view. Counter-Intelligence is especially important, and we do a terrible job at it. I have had a conversation with the National Counterintelligence Executive (former) and it is really sad how bad we are at it.
Or be glad that he might finally be able to make a rational informed decision, unlike his original war opposition.
OH PLEEEEEEEASE! [/I]Now you're just making yourself look bad. OK... they all hate Bush as much as some did Hussein.
They do not "all" hate Bush as much as you make out. Vocal minorities hate Bush. Most of them are glad Saddam is gone and now just want to run the country themselves, which is coming rapidly.
Bush will be tied to Iraq and probably not much else. The economy will be Obama's in a few months. Given the outcome of Iraq, that will be the Bush legacy.
