Hate to Say I Told You So.....BUT
Crout
1,238 Posts
This is what I posted a couple of months ago:
> I agree, Beag. My problem with Clinton is that when he disgraced himself, his office and his family he should have done the honorable thing and resigned. That act might...might...have saved us from 8 years of Bush....and Gore wouldn't have even had to do a Jerry Ford and issue a pardon because there was nothing to pardon. You mention Bosnia and Somalia, so my question to you is: did the US military accomplish their missions over there and did they get out in good order? Or were we bogged down year after year with no end in sight? (Actually there will be an end....despite all the rhetoric about "staying the course" and despite the reality, we'll declare "mission accomplished" and start pulling out troops right before the 2006 Congressional elections....just my prediction....and leave the Iraquis to the brutal business of civil war before they end up with a theocracy, much like Iran...again just a prediction.) <
On Wednsday Bush is expected to announce a timetable for troop withdrawls. Jeez, what a surprise. So much for all the rhetoric and so much for the sacrifice of over 2,000 of our finest young men and women.
> I agree, Beag. My problem with Clinton is that when he disgraced himself, his office and his family he should have done the honorable thing and resigned. That act might...might...have saved us from 8 years of Bush....and Gore wouldn't have even had to do a Jerry Ford and issue a pardon because there was nothing to pardon. You mention Bosnia and Somalia, so my question to you is: did the US military accomplish their missions over there and did they get out in good order? Or were we bogged down year after year with no end in sight? (Actually there will be an end....despite all the rhetoric about "staying the course" and despite the reality, we'll declare "mission accomplished" and start pulling out troops right before the 2006 Congressional elections....just my prediction....and leave the Iraquis to the brutal business of civil war before they end up with a theocracy, much like Iran...again just a prediction.) <
On Wednsday Bush is expected to announce a timetable for troop withdrawls. Jeez, what a surprise. So much for all the rhetoric and so much for the sacrifice of over 2,000 of our finest young men and women.
Comments
>On Wednsday Bush is expected to announce a
>timetable for troop withdrawls. Jeez, what a
>surprise. So much for all the rhetoric and so
>much for the sacrifice of over 2,000 of our
>finest young men and women.
Are you saying that the one's that died and the one's that are over there right now have/are accomplished/accomplishing nothing?
To pull out and run home leaving the resident population without a leg to stand on, is to wholly dishonor those that have fallen in the endeavor and make worthless the work they lost their life for.
If he did put a timeline it would be defeatism and lower the moral of all those who are serving & served our nation & the Iraqi people.
John Kerry is saying that the Democrats were not asking for a timeline...flip again.
Are you serious??? A timeline would LOWER the morale? Remember the video of troops in Vietnam when Nixon announced a timetable for US withdrawal from that country? They were ecstatic! Some of them even had an extra doobie to celebrate the occasion!
Facetiousness aside, I think the troops would welcome knowing we had an exit strategy and a timeline.
I did ask for clarification of the last paragraph in your post. I inferred that you felt the men and women who have served in Iraq have done so for nothing. I would believe that many of them would disagree with you and be quite pissed at that opinion.
There is also a reason outlined (so they say, I haven't read it myself) in Bush's 35 page report on the war.
Now if you say you disagree with it, or think it is a lie that's your right.
But I still say there are a vast majority of young men and women over there that know why they are there. They don't give one hill beans whether you know why or not.
edit:
You say Bush and his advisors should have known- so should have every democrat that voted to start this war.
>such a "vast majority" of the troops were so
>happy and content with how they are being used
>why aren't they re-enlisting in "vast" numbers?
I didn't say happy and content. I said they know why they are there and I'll add that they know what their job is. I have recieved letters from one such person, one of which I posted a few months back. To say what they are doing/did is for nothing is a SLAP in the face.
The military
>professionals know full well that the
>politicians...the Bushies....screwed this
>operation up from the git-go when they refused
>to allow adequate force levels to truly
>accomplish the mission.
Yes they screwed up. Run around, wave the flag and stomp your feet, they screwed up. What good does that do?
Your last sentence
>doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The elephant
>in the room that you are conveniently
>overlooking is the fact that no Democrat had the
>intelligence resources the President had prior
>to the beginning of the war. They had to rely
>on Bush's word that we had proof of the
>existence of WMD's. Of course, now we know that Dick Cheney, among others, was very busy
>filtering out the intelligence that didn't fit
>the agenda they had their sights set on since
>2000...the invasion of Iraq.
It is my understanding that democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committe had the same intelligence the President had. So IMHO your statement is false.
The Democrats
>screwed up because they accepted the word of the
>President, but if we can't accept the word of
>the President, then I'd say we need a new
>President.
Don't hold your breath for a President (Rep. or Dem.)that keeps his/her word. They don't make that creature.
>It is my understanding that democratic members
>of the Senate Intelligence Committe had the same
>intelligence the President had. So IMHO your
>statement is false.
Spend a few minutes reading my last post before you start composing your rebuttal. That's why Cheney was so busy FILTERING OUT the intelligence that didn't fit their agenda for invasion. They OMITTED intel reports, and re-wrote others that would have cast doubt on their assertion that Saddam had WMD's. The Democratic Senators....and the Republicans as well....were presented with ONE side of the issue.
If I'm wrong then please read FLHR's post.
EDIT
I see you have nothing to say about my other rebuttal points.
I agree with SMace that the Deomogogs on the Intelligence Committee had the same intelligence the President had. I also want to add the senior member of this committee is a Demogog.
I can't believe that one of your agruments is that the Demogogs accepted the word of the President, so they can't be responsible for anything. That is the typical liberal response - we just did what we were told, the info was bad so t is not our fault. Can't the Dems think for themselves? If the info was so wrong and inconsistent with the intel from other sources, other counttries, etc., why did they not take the time to research and discover the "truth" prior to giving consent? It is because the buy into the same ideological trivel that they try and force down your throat, "you can't think for yourself, you need the government to think for you. You are a victim, you certainly could not know or understand the nature of these things." What a load of BS!
They saw the intel and came to the same conclusion. We had the same intel coming from England, from Australia, heck even the Germans and Russians thought there were WMDs (because they sold weapons to Iraq against the directive of the UN). Give me a figgin break!
Whenever I start to feel blue, I start breathing again!
Bush's people told him what they knew he wanted to hear and like loyal yes-men took the country straight into a destabilizing war that will keep us hamstrung for the next four or five years - minimum!
Never have I said that Bush is right, he didn't lie or he didn't screw up. I'm only one here that is living in reality. The reality is we are at war and the administration has put together for us the strategy of finishing it.
You strutted out in front of everyone and said I told you so and you were wrong and now you go into a diatribe of lying and Bill's sex life. That's not what your original post was about. That has nothing do do with my comments and the mere fact that you can't respond to them is the reason you spin off to another issue.
You asked me to take a few minutes to read your posts. I suggest you do the same with mine before you spew more emotional rhetoric.
>second paragraph of your original post. You
>NEVER have. You disgrace your fellow soldiers
>by implying they died for nothing.
>
No one is challenging the bravery of the soldiers who served and served in Iraq (alive or dead). What is being challenged is the we are there. The disgrace is that the young people are there and dying.
My interpretation of what Crout said is that the soldiers (dead and alive) have fought for nothing. I have repeatedly asked for clarification and have received nothing.
I'll tell you what, next time a group of soldiers come home, go to the celebration and hold up a sign that says, "You fought for nothing and your comrades died for nothing." Then see what happens.
Whenever I start to feel blue, I start breathing again!
Talk about head in the sand.
Please keep up the good work. I have been away again for several weeks but today I took a look and saw that you were dealing with some who fit the saying "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".
Several opinions that were stated as fact in some of the comments to your post that are not true are as follows:
1. Saddam and Ben Ladin definitely had a working relationship. Even the bi-partisan 911 commission stated that no such connection could be made.
2. The Senators had the same intelligence that the President had. Everything I have read or heard except for the Republican talking points and Fox news have said they did not have any of the reports that cast doubt on the possesion of WMDS and none of the reports that stated "CurveBall" was not a reliable source. If you don't already know "CurveBall" was the Iraqi source for much of the erroneours Intel.
3. Another assertion was something to the effect that Bush became energized after 911. If you spend a lot of time studying the PNAC position and who was involved in PNAC, go to thenewamericancentury.org. There you will learn that PNAC believed that Saddam would need to be taken out to bring stability to the Middle East and insure the continued flow of Mid East oil to the United States. Look it up and study it don't just fluff it off.
4. Bush is honest and would not deliberately lie to the American people. Oh Yeah. Don't you think that his response about barely knowing Ken Lay when the Enron scandal broke when it turned out He had been to Enrons parties and had pictures taken with Lay and the senior Bush and that he barely knew who Ahmed Chalabi was and that he may have met him in the rope line when it was later learned that Chalabi and friends were paid millions of dollars by the defense department and was the source of info that the Iraq citizens would be dancing in the streets when our troops came in. Also Chalabi had a choice seat at the State of the Union address, probably not more 2 are 3 seats from the first lady. Don't you think these facts should cast doubt on your belief.
5. I could tell more but perhaps you will gain a little insight from the above.
Keep up the good work, Crout, ParaBeagle, and Whatever. I will be gone again for a short while but hope to return again soon.
Moon in Louisiana