Bush's Veteran's Day Speech: What did you think of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Any source that's more credible than Al Franken? He's essentially a skinnier. smarter, much less entertaining version of Michael Moore. You wouldn't want me to start citing Ann Coulter books as sources would you?

---

As Melf noted, his work is well documented and researched. You may not like him because he's a liberal, but comparing him to Michael Moore is bullshit. Al Franken doesn't pull the Propoganda shit that Moore does.

But if you want, I'll give you the references that he gives in his book. You'll have to dig up the articles yourself.

LA Times: 8/20/2004: "Kerry Starts Firing Back at Critics of War Record"
Washington Post: 8/22/2004 "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode"
New York Times: 8/20/2004: "Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Attack on Kerry"
William B. Rood's Book titled What I Saw that Day
And here's a link to one more: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote...tory?id=166434

Spodaddy. You wan't to use a little less name calling? It's like hearing a college debate from a college kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Actually, the book bbobb mentions is about as fact-laden as you can get. Fox News sued Franken and was promptly laughed out of court because his facts were so straight.

---

Fox News didn't sue Franken over the facts in his book, they sued him over the subtitle "Fair and Balanced" and were laughed out of court.

Lol, that's right. Jeez, that's even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Were unjustly there because of this administration's obsession since before 9/11[/url]. Several former members of the Bush administration, including former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, have since come forward to reveal the singular mentality with regards to Iraq since 2000. The latest to step forward has been Powell's own former chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.

---

Yet another load of shit that's placed in Bush's lap because a dictator had the audacity to try to assasinate the man's father and then we have to portray the President of the United States as some idiot who has secretly been lusting for revenge for years and years to avenge his dear old dad. Please. Bush was mislead by the CIA, either purposefully or not, who had terrible information and were, for the most part, already in place PRIOR TO BUSH'S PRESIDENCY.

Want to talk agendas? How about Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act, which openly supported and financed opposition to Saddam Hussein with millions and millions of dollars (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm). This supported the Iraqi "democratic" opposition and was made a matter of policy by dear old Bill. So, the democrats decide that through financing and other means they can support a democratic overthrow of an evil dictator who killed thousands of people without getting their hands dirty is a much better plan than actually REALLY doing something about it?

To quote: 'The statement concluded, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of
any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is
the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will
rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and
that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.
Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be
free of weapons of mass destruction."'

Whoa. What does that last sentence say? The INC (Iraq National Congress)says he has WMD's? The same INC that the U.S. pledged 90+ million dollars to help support? Does that mean we believed them then, in the 90's, when Bush wasn't even on the scene? Hrm.

Bush is the fall guy for American politics. Plain and simple. Someone needs to be crucified and rather than acknowledge the truth, that we as a country are responsible for this, it's much easier to blame one lone man than universally accept the blame. If the citizens of the U.S. have gotten really good at something it's placing the blame elsewhere rather than accepting who is really responsible. YOU AND ME.

Christ this country fucking sucks. Don't blame the alcoholic who has 15 beers and drives into a school bus, blame the bartender who served him. Ridiculous, as is the attempt to blame one man for a country's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Bush was mislead by the CIA, either purposefully or not, who had terrible information and were, for the most part, already in place PRIOR TO BUSH'S PRESIDENCY.

---

Bullshit, the Senate Intelligence Committee report flatout says that the CIA never cleared the WMD intel they were given from the Italians. They said it was 'possible' and 'worth looking into', but not something to start a war based solely on. It wasn't the CIA's decision to accuse Iraq in the State of the Union on 'trying to buy large amounts of uranium' from Niger, something that was total bullshit. Nor was it the CIA who sent Colin Powell to the UN to try a "Cuban Missile Crisis" style show-and-tell once again based on warped intel that was ultimately disproven.

The bottom line is that the neo-con agenda has wanted Iraq for a long time, and G.W. Bush was the man they chose to get it done. When 9/11 happened they knew they had their pretext to justify it with, right or wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Want to talk agendas? How about Clinton's Iraqi Liberation Act, which openly supported and financed opposition to Saddam Hussein with millions and millions of dollars

---

-YAWN- It was token help and obviously led nowhere. It was part of the containment strategy alongside the 'No-Fly Zone' and the UN sanctions, which were working. We'd basically turned Saddam into the Castro of the Mid-East. We were just waiting for him to die or be overthrown.

YOU want to talk about agendas? How about Bush 1, after the first Gulf War, inciting the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, and then cowardly backing out on them so they could be slaughtered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Bush is the fall guy for American politics. Plain and simple. Someone needs to be crucified and rather than acknowledge the truth, that we as a country are responsible for this, it's much easier to blame one lone man than universally accept the blame. If the citizens of the U.S. have gotten really good at something it's placing the blame elsewhere rather than accepting who is really responsible. YOU AND ME.

---

Now this is just horseshit. I had no part in arming Saddam, supporting Saddam, or ultimately warring with Saddam. That fuckhead played no part in my life, and I played no part in his. The foreign policy that shaped him, created him, is not my responsibility, yet now I have to pay for it along with the rest of the American public. There is no 'universal blame' at work here, the making of Saddam and the un-making of him is the cause and effect of a certain group of individuals, yet the rest of us have to do the dirty work for them.

You can cradle poor, poor President Bush in your ignorant bossom all you like, but he's part of the agenda, he may not be the ringleader, but he's in on the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Christ this country fucking sucks. Don't blame the alcoholic who has 15 beers and drives into a school bus, blame the bartender who served him. Ridiculous, as is the attempt to blame one man for a country's actions.

---

Completely incompatiable comparison, but thanks for playing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Bullshit, the Senate Intelligence Committee report flatout says that the CIA never cleared the WMD intel they were given from the Italians. They said it was 'possible' and 'worth looking into', but not something to start a war based solely on. It wasn't the CIA's decision to accuse Iraq in the State of the Union on 'trying to buy large amounts of uranium' from Niger, something that was total bullshit. Nor was it the CIA who sent Colin Powell to the UN to try a "Cuban Missile Crisis" style show-and-tell once again based on warped intel that was ultimately disproven.

---

Now, your facts are completely screwed.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...q_Oct_2002.htm This is from the official website of the CIA. Okay?

" Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

That's dated October 2002. Please read the whole thing and then take your foot out of your mouth very, very slowly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The bottom line is that the neo-con agenda has wanted Iraq for a long time, and G.W. Bush was the man they chose to get it done. When 9/11 happened they knew they had their pretext to justify it with, right or wrong.

---

Wrong. With the CIA intelligence pointing to WMD's, as shown above, Bush made the decision to go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

-YAWN- It was token help and obviously led nowhere. It was part of the containment strategy alongside the 'No-Fly Zone' and the UN sanctions, which were working. We'd basically turned Saddam into the Castro of the Mid-East. We were just waiting for him to die or be overthrown.

YOU want to talk about agendas? How about Bush 1, after the first Gulf War, inciting the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, and then cowardly backing out on them so they could be slaughtered.

---

Boy, I could use 100 million in "token help" about now, how about you? I'm saying whether his agenda was right, wrong, or indifferent or whether or not Bush (the first one) also had an agenda. I'm saying that other presidents and cabinets have had agenda's as well and they were also based on WMD's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Now this is just horseshit. I had no part in arming Saddam, supporting Saddam, or ultimately warring with Saddam. That fuckhead played no part in my life, and I played no part in his. The foreign policy that shaped him, created him, is not my responsibility, yet now I have to pay for it along with the rest of the American public. There is no 'universal blame' at work here, the making of Saddam and the un-making of him is the cause and effect of a certain group of individuals, yet the rest of us have to do the dirty work for them.

---

Of the people, by the people for the people. It is our responsibility as citizens and voters of this country. If enough people felt as you and I did and actually excersised their fucking rights, perhaps this would be a very different country indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

That's dated October 2002. Please read the whole thing and then take your foot out of your mouth very, very slowly.

---

LAWL, let's try this again. THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE investigated the CIA reports and talked to the CIA, here's what the report (submitted on June 2004) had to say;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iraq Report pg. 19 paragraph 1

The IC (Intelligence Community) had long assessed that Iraq maintained its ambitions to obtain WMD, and would seek to resume full WMD efforts once UN sanctions and inspections ended. Accordingly, after UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, IC analysts began to look for evidence that was expanding WMD programs. Analysts interpreted ambiguous data as indicative of active and expanded WMD effort they expected to see. The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence...

---

And just so you won't harp on that BS 2002 report, here's the Senate basically debunking that shit;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iraq Report pg. 20 paragraph 2

Intelligence analysts' presumption that all dual-use activity was intended for WMD programs recurs in throughout the 2002 NIE. Analysts believed that that fact Iraq often attempted to obtain dual-use materials surreptitiously, through front companies and other illicit means in violation of UN sanctions, indicated that Iraq intended to use those materials for WMD. Analysts argued that Iraq would have no reason to hide itself as the end user of the materials if they were intended for legitimate purposes. However, analysts ignored the fact that Iraq typically used front companies and evaded UN sanctions for imports of purely legitimate goods. Analysts who monitored Iraq's compliance with the Oil for Food Program noted several reasons that Iraq wanted to avoid legitimate channels for importing including 1.) the UN often denied materials needed for legitimate purposes because the materials had WMD applications, 2.) using the UN's bureaucratic process was more cumbersome and time consuming than using illicit channels, and 3.) transactions using front companies were less transparent, making corruption and profit taking easier for Iraqi mangers and officials.

---

You should really consider reading the Senate Intelligence report, it's free and in .pdf form to d/l from the subcommittee website. Perhaps when you're finished digging YOUR foot out of YOUR mouth you might give it a gander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Boy, I could use 100 million in "token help" about now, how about you?

---

Go to Florida, declare yourself a Cuban Freedom Fighter then sit back and watch the cheques roll in for essentially doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Of the people, by the people for the people. It is our responsibility as citizens and voters of this country.

---

You can't boil down the United States to such a simple statement. It's a great motto, but it's not really how the country works. Foreign policy is less decided by elected officials as it is by appointed ones and by interest groups. Those are the ones to blame. Trying to hoist the blame onto the American people as if they were a party to every phase of it is the kind of trick the neo-cons like to use. It's not the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Christ this country fucking sucks. Don't blame the alcoholic who has 15 beers and drives into a school bus, blame the bartender who served him. Ridiculous, as is the attempt to blame one man for a country's actions.

---

Ah, I get it. It's not the fault of the people in charge who have been playing out a carefully laid agenda. It's our fault for not knowing it before we elected them! Well, not my fault, since the good old US of A doesn't want to let the 4 million U.S. citizens in PR (or any other colonial possession it has) actually vote for president.

Isn't that like saying a person's not at fault for commiting murder, it's society's fault for making him that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Isn't that like saying a person's not at fault for commiting murder, it's society's fault for making him that way?

---

Exactly the opposite, I'm saying individuals should be responsible for themselves instead of blaming someone else.