America under siege?[just perris in a rant]

[ThePatriot]

Read carefully...

And they still don't. There is a massive problem with our intelligence gathering machina that needs a drastic overhaul and with all the stupid partisan bickering and crap that goes on in this bloated government of ours, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

And this...

there was no breakdown of our inteligence...it was an uncanny success as concerns the events before we were attacked.

EDIT...Had to eat crow...see below...

 

[ThePatriot]

...and now tell me how you two can say in the same breath that our intellingence sucks big time on one hand, you know, the whole "there were no WMDs, we invaded the mighty soveriegn State of Iraq on a lie" bs, blah, blah, blah...but The President was derelict in his duties for not listening to THE SAME INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY about 9/11?????

Ok, I don't know why this post didn't show up, but as I read Sazars post of around the same timeframe I see he does not subscribe to that line of thought as I first assumed, so I must apologize and retract my comment...Perris, it is getting to be quite obvious you just don't like GW, no matter what. That's ok, I just don't like John Kerry, no matter what. I hope the next Pres meets your expectations.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Ok, I don't know why this post didn't show up, but as I read Sazars post of around the same timeframe I see he does not subscribe to that line of thought as I first assumed, so I must apologize and retract my comment...Perris, it is getting to be quite obvious you just don't like GW, no matter what. That's ok, I just don't like John Kerry, no matter what. I hope the next Pres meets your expectations.

getting obvious I think Bush failed this country? I think that was clear from the start...I will abhor any man that does to America what this man has done

and I don't much like kerry either

mccabe will probably be a good president...I think he can bridge the great devide that this president has brought about in this country

as far as the inteligence concerning the wmd's;

thepatriot, inteligence told this president he was "misinterperating and exagerating" his case for wmd's...and once again, he failed in his use of the clear data.

he and rhumsfeld were the only ones that thought invading iraq was a good idea...

inteligence did not break down there either...just the media has you blieving it was intel that failed and not the president...intel did not fail as far as Iraq is concerned either, however the man responsible for useing the intel failed miserably...this is obvious

I am a proponent and supporter of our information gathering resources.

this new "inteligence coordinator" that is bandied about is just going to be doing what the president is supposed to do.

obviously, this president wasn't capable of that job though, so it's a good idea for sure.

 

[tom9042]

I would still like to see Iraq turned into a parking lot with about 8 tactical nukes

hitting the right cities that would do it...

Now we've hit a low point. The US invades a country using a false reason, gets rid of their obusive government, led by the worst of dictators. You would think we would be feeling sorry for the oppressed population (otherwise why would we have gotten rid of their dictator). Instead, we want to take the easy way out and just nuke it.

You make less sense than Johnny.

 

[ThePatriot]

getting obvious I think Bush failed this country? I think that was clear from the start

and I don't much like kerry either

mccabe will probably be a good president...I think he can bridge the great devide that this president has brought about in this country

as far as the inteligence concerning the wmd's;

thepatriot, inteligence told this president he was "misinterperating and exagerating" his case for wmd's

inteligence did not break down there either...just the media has you blieving it was intel that failed and not the president...intel did not fail as far as Iraq is concerned either.

I am a proponent and supporter of our information gathering resources.

this new "inteligence coordinator" that is bandied about is just going to be doing what the president is supposed to do.

obviously, this president wasn't capable of that job though, so it's a good idea for sure.

No, not that Bush failed as you so vehemently claim; that you'd dislike him no matter what...i.e...sour grapes. He can do nothing right, or at least nothing to meet your expectations.

Every piece of information you place at our feet can be argued by a counter piece stating the exact opposite, only you push your information as fact and blow our information off as misguided or misunderstood. Forgive me for being a bit rude, but, what gives you the right to insult my or anyone else on this boards intelligence that way? Why are you so informed and us so uninformed?
Do I look that ignorant?

The media is pro-Bush? Where do you want me to start with the anti-Bush rhetoric? How about the little ditty Eason Jordan, a CNN Executive VP shot off? Look it up. He still has yet to answer for that piece...other than the usual "taken out of context" line.

As far as intelligence...no offense to anyone in the intelligence community here, but at one time being the "boots on the ground" I can SERIOUSLY tell you intelligence can swing waaaaay back and forth. Considering what to take at face value and what not to is as much luck as it is skill. You cannot expect anyone to get it right all the time. And you still argue the point that GW ignored his intelligence when his counterpart Kerry(among many others) has said he would make the same decision. That is 2 men from entirely different backgrounds who would have made the same choices given the same information.

What makes you think anyone else would have done much different? Those 2 were at the top of the food chain at the time. Why do you think you would have done it so differently?

 

[jimi_81]

I would still like to see Iraq turned into a parking lot with about 8 tactical nukes

hitting the right cities that would do it...

well, that would be defeating the purpose of going there in the first place.

 

[Perris Calderon]

No, not that Bush failed as you so vehemently claim; that you'd dislike him no matter what...i.e...sour grapes. He can do nothing right, or at least nothing to meet your expectations.

he's doing a few things right, you just haven't seen me talk about them on this thread...every president I both agree with and dis agree with

Do I look that ignorant?

absolutely not...if my rhetoric offended you, I apologize

th media is pro-Bush?

without a doubt

of course there's anti bush media...the majority is pro.

fthe proof is in the pudding;

or instance, you and just about everybody, even liberals have been force fed the idea that Clinton "let bin laden get away" when by Bush's own aids sworn testimony Clinton did every thing that was asked...when in fact, he did more then any president before him

it's the media, and they've been overwhelming and affective

As far as intelligence...no offense to anyone in the intelligence community here

it's very clear anyone that's claimed on this thread to be part of the intelligence community is definitely not.

for instance, our "CIA operative" didn't even know tenets description of the events when Clinton "let bin laden get away"

he was simply repeating what the media has forced down our throats as if it were true

You cannot expect anyone to get it right all the time.

really thepatriot...what would you do with that briefing the president had when he was given in person that inte?

simple question to ask yourself;

you seem to think Clinton was weak in defense of this country...don't you think you would have done AT LEAST what Clinton did to defend America?...since you seem to think Clinton was weak, don't you think it MIGHT have been a good idea to do AT LEAST what he did?

this president enjoyed his vacation....there is no "you can't expect anyone to get it right the first time" excuse here...he ignored the template that told him at least what to do with that data.

And you still argue the point that GW ignored his intelligence when his counterpart Kerry(among many others) has said he would make the same decision.

there isn't one person that said they would have went on vacation with that briefing.

and kerry never EVER said he would have done the same thing that this president did if he had the intel this president had.

this president hid the fact that his aids told him his case for wmd's was missinterperated and exagerated...and kerry DID NOT KNOW that there was husge decent for the advisors to this president...clark, poowel, etc

so whatever you heard kerry say he was in support of, it was without the vital information that this president hid from me, you, him, and the branches of goevernemet that he was obliged by law to give that information to

What makes you think anyone else would have done much different?

I can't believe anyone would have done less then president clinton in defense of this country...can you?

 

[Johnny]

You make less sense than Johnny.

What the hell does this mean ?? You want to start a flame war ??? I will be more than happy to oblige. I don't care for or will tollerate remarks like this ...

 

[zeke_mo]

What the hell does this mean ?? You want to start a flame war ??? I will be more than happy to oblige. I don't care for or will tollerate remarks like this ...

Random picture coming through.

 

[jimi_81]

Johnny...perhaps you should change up the avatar... i think its making you vulnerable.

hehe

 

[chastity]

one thing from this thread again is the fact Clinton did try to remove Bin Laden from the face of the planet however yet another wonderful matter harmed his attempts namely did not get over flight rights from countries we would have need to get Bin Laden in the 90's. Bush from something I saw somewhere wanted to go after Iraq after the attacks even though there was nothing linking Iraq to the attacks yet lots to link it the Afghanstan and Bin Laden.

I would think it very hard to hit a target in a country when you have to fly in interenational airspace ie not Iraq airspace Iran Pakistan etc and that is provided the target doesn't move but we know Bin Laden moves around it makes it even thougher.

 

[ThePatriot]

Perris, I must say I have never heard you say anything positive about GW. Of course, I may not have said anything negative either so were even(though I do have issues with him in some areas).

Even though our views on the media differ, we both come to the same conclusion...they don't report news anymore, only opinions, which is wrong.

I still believe you are taking alot for granted with the intel. I believe the atmosphere was quite different from what you surmise. I know you despise the term, but hindsight truly comes into play here.

I have personally seen the effects of good and bad intelligence, I'm not trying to judge our intelligence capabilities, just pointing out they can be very good and very bad, alot of things come into play. Yes, there have been colorful statements made!

No, I don't think Clinton was weak per se, but I know he could have done more, and I know he admits to that extent. I just don't agree with touting his "sucesses" and downplaying GW's moves. Very misguided there. But alas, many people cannot see far enough ahead to see the possibilities of what can be accomplished with our position today. And I truly believe many people just don't have the resolve to stick to it when it gets rough, even when the prospects can be so promising.

Presidential vacations have always been questionable, I find it hard to believe this wasn't a "working vacation", but I wasn't there, so I don't know. As far as Kerry, and I quote:

Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq

Aug 9, 5:34 PM (ET)

By Patricia Wilson
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Kerry has been in very deep in the Intel community of this nation for a LONG time. I find it very hard to believe anything was not know to him. That statement alone could be a whole separate thread. Kerry has ahd his nose where it doesn't belong waaaay too often, this time being no different.

Would anyone have done different? Maybe. Seems Kerry is saying in the quote above he would have done it differently, but he still would have done it, so how much different can it be? Maybe I would have, maybe you would have. Maybe not. Again...you and I weren't there, we can only pass our opinions as just that, not fact.

 

[mlakrid]

Now we've hit a low point. The US invades a country using a false reason, gets rid of their obusive government, led by the worst of dictators. You would think we would be feeling sorry for the oppressed population (otherwise why would we have gotten rid of their dictator). Instead, we want to take the easy way out and just nuke it.

You make less sense than Johnny.

a false reason? Perhaps you dont believe the kurds of his own country, who I might add have been found by the thousands in mass graves??

Ring any bells?

And how about Sarin gas? IF thats not a WMD I don't know what is...

Did they find the gas stores.. NO... did they find empty warheads buried which tested positive for Sarin.. YES...

To say we had NO reason is nonsense... did Bush go about it right... absolutely NOT... but lets not pretend he did not need to be removed from power ok..

I would add we will be nothing but a target unless we get Sudan and other countries to give us his weapons stores through diplomatic channels NOT how he did it vs Iraq, we waited too long its simple as that...

I would lastly like to point out that almost every point in the original treaty had been broken by Sadams orders at one time or another, so the 9/11 attacks seemed like a good reason as any other to remove him, especially since alot of the money used to finance Terror came from Iraq.

 

[Xie]

I feel Bush has set us (the US) up for WWIII. He set the precedent for going after ANYONE or ANY country we don't agree with. With diplomacy a LAST resort, if even a thought, I think we are in for a roller-coaster of a ride.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Perris, I must say I have never heard you say anything positive about GW. Of course, I may not have said anything negative either so were even(though I do have issues with him in some areas).

I like the idea of a value added tax instead of an income tax...however, it would have to be very hard to get it right...for instance, I've already paid income tax on my money, so to pay it again would be double tax.

if he presents the right program for that reform, I will support him

Even though our views on the media differ, we both come to the same conclusion...they don't report news anymore, only opinions, which is wrong.

we agree

I still believe you are taking allot for granted with the Intel. I believe the atmosphere was quite different from what you surmise. I know you despise the term, but hindsight truly comes into play here.

no way in my mind to call this lack of action a critisizm in hindsight...the pdb was clear, the determination mentioned to attack us accurate...this data was handled pre eminently before bush came to office...you can't call it a critisizm in hindsight when he does less then the template.

in addition, there were principle meetings because we knew the danger was current and great, we had precise data how to protect the country

this president dismantled the daily meetings designed to avert the attacks described in the daily breif...a brief that was presented and explained in person I might add

this is the main reason the Intel which was clear and precise wasn't acted on as needed.

I have personally seen the effects of good and bad intelligence, I'm not trying to judge our intelligence capabilities, just pointing out they can be very good and very bad, allot of things come into play. Yes, there have been colorful statements made!

we agree

No, I don't think Clinton was weak per se, but I know he could have done more, and I know he admits to that extent.

of course Clinton could have done more...certainly anyone that did less needs to be critisized...no?...especially with the results as occured

Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq

and the article then goes on to disclaim the title statement and contradict itself;

kerry would have still given the authority to act as a final option...this president promised he wouldn't attack unless it was the last option, when all other resources to avoid war were exausted.

nobody would say he kept his promise...this is status quo for the man in office

 

[mlakrid]

this president dismantled the daily meetings designed to avert the attacks described in the daily breif...a brief that was presented and explained in person I might add

I dont know if he dismantled it right before 9/11 and then restarted it, but I can tell you I have a friend that currently works for White House Communications who is one of his A/V people responsible for his teleconference of his "Early Bird Meeting" every morning.

So unless he stopped it and then restarted it, I dont see how he did this....

 

[Johnny]

Johnny...perhaps you should change up the avatar... i think its making you vulnerable.

hehe

Yeah that could be right ... Hmm .. I know what I will change it to ..

Zeke_Mo - You are a wanker lol ..

 

[Perris Calderon]

I dont know if he dismantled it right before 9/11 and then restarted it, but I can tell you I have a friend that currently works for White House Communications who is one of his A/V people responsible for his teleconference of his "Early Bird Meeting" every morning.

So unless he stopped it and then restarted it, I dont see how he did this....

I thought everyone knew it, I guess not;...yes, Bush stopped the principle meetings so he could be on his ranch, then restarted something similar after we were attacked, when he found out how important this resource was...now that IS what's known as an action in hindsight

read the rice testimony

that is not only known as action in "hindsight", it's also known as;

"opening the barn door which was closed, letting the animals get out, closing the barn door so the animals that are gone don't get out in the future"

 

[falconguard]

a false reason? Perhaps you dont believe the kurds of his own country, who I might add have been found by the thousands in mass graves??

Ring any bells?

And how about Sarin gas? IF thats not a WMD I don't know what is...

Did they find the gas stores.. NO... did they find empty warheads buried which tested positive for Sarin.. YES...

To say we had NO reason is nonsense... did Bush go about it right... absolutely NOT... but lets not pretend he did not need to be removed from power ok..

So does this mean we will be at the forefront of the war against genocide?
Like Rwanda, Mayalasia or anywhere else...I know we were in Serbia/Croatia but we were there on Clinton's watch. What happened To Rwanda on Bush's watch?
The excuse or reason, that we are removing an evil despot from power is very flimsy, When you consider that we are not in Rwanda or any other African country where genocide is being practiced. Of course he has plans for a long term democratic revolution in the Middle East, but at the same time he ignores something like Africa?
That bothers me that he would claim to be on the side of humanity, but would ignore devestation and genocide somewhere where it is resource poor.
I Dont believe that we should be the world's policeman, but having the capability and power, gives us that responsibility. I think it is just convenient that Iraq can pump oil, whereas Rwanda can export mango.

 

[Lee]

So does this mean we will be at the forefront of the war against genocide?
Like Rwanda, Mayalasia or anywhere else...I know we were in Serbia/Croatia but we were there on Clinton's watch. What happened To Rwanda on Bush's watch?
The excuse or reason, that we are removing an evil despot from power is very flimsy, When you consider that we are not in Rwanda or any other African country where genocide is being practiced. Of course he has plans for a long term democratic revolution in the Middle East, but at the same time he ignores something like Africa?
That bothers me that he would claim to be on the side of humanity, but would ignore devestation and genocide somewhere where it is resource poor.
I Dont believe that we should be the world's policeman, but having the capability and power, gives us that responsibility. I think it is just convenient that Iraq can pump oil, whereas Rwanda can export mango.

If they find Oil, Bush will be there like a fly around s*it