"Powell: I’m very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I’m deeply disappointed. But I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it. "
Do you have ANYYYYYYYYYYYY reading comprehension. He said that they were mislead by a source, not that the administration sexed up intelligence to prove their case. That is two COMPLETELY different things. Learn to read.
Do you just selectively distort facts ??? The answer is pretty clear.
I get more news, from a greater variety of sources than you. Being in politics and getting free scribes to every magazine in the world, while being forced to watch news all day pretty much guarantees that I am more informed then you. Perhaps you read a variety of sources…if so I would work on the reading comprehension aspect a little harder next time.
Roy, I’ve tried to make that point before but it just doesn’t sink in with that crew. Apparently the Republican party has now become the Christian Fundamentalist Party. It’s all black and white now and like bushleague has stated “you’re either with us or against us”. You either march is lockstep with the christian fundamentalists, or you’re a bottom-feeding liberal (thanks for that one, zebbie).
You have to agree with bushleague, his corrupt administration and the bible-beaters 100% or you can’t belong. No gray area here, you’re a liberal and have to vote democrat. “Fiscal conservative”? Sorry, that doesn’t count anymore. We’re all about anti-abortion and wiping out those nasty muslims.
I have quoted the author of the following quote in other threads before. He goes by Wazier on other forums, and he is a special forces veteran with an interesting perspective on the current prisoner abuse scandal.
[quote]Has anyone brought up the point of having rules of war? When I was in the military, we were scrupulously taught the Geneva rules so that we would have some leverage in persuading the enemy that violation of the rules might have consequences. Of course, it often made no difference, but we (Americans) tried to set a higher example because it was the best way to bring international pressure to bear when there were serious violations. We knew that we could stick with name, rank, and serial number as the bright line between what we could say or would say. It was a standard of honor. When someone broke, we knew it was because they were subjected to war crimes. We knew that the Conventions were our best, and perhaps only hope for protection.
The same kind of moral sanction implicitly applies to combatants not covered by the Conventions. Certainly, operatives working beyond the guidelines of uniformed warfare are vulnerable to any abuse the enemy can imagine, but the fear of quid pro quo treatment is an ultimate deterrent. When the Germans lined up forty partisans and machine-gunned them in France in 1943, the allies lined up forty Germans and shot them to death in Great Britain. Although brutal, it was an effective countermeasure. I am by no means advocating summary executions, but illustrating why every nation has signed onto international laws of war. One of the greatest problems presented by having a non-governmental association as an enemy is that they have no incentive to follow the rules of war. In fact, their mode of operation is to use the rules of war as a weapon to their advantage.
However, whatever argument may be made about the nature of al Qaida and the rules of war, there is no justification for abusing citizens of a nation under occupation. Conduct of this type is clearly a war crime, and when our forces lose sight of this imperative, they fall into a trap. One of the strongest arguments supporting culpability of senior leadership is having failed to thoroughly prepare for these contingencies. (Apparently, based on early reports out this morning, the discipline of the Marine Corp held fast.) Seasoned military officers are acutely aware of this need to be prepared. I think the shock of recent events is because Americans have an intuitive understanding of this expectation; we know that if we do not stand above our enemy, we will have lost all moral authority. Our response to this kind of situation is an ultimate test of our moral principles. Winning a war is just not about crushing our enemies. If we abandon our commitment to moral conduct, they will have won. [/quote]
I couldn’t have put it better myself on my best day. Jeez,that guy can write!
I am not looking for anger, I am looking for discourse here. This quote perfectly sums up my biggest objections to our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would love the feedback of everyone here.
The Bush Administration has abandoned ANY sense of morality, yet hide behind pseudo-religious soundbytes in an attempt to hold their footing on moral highground. The rest of the world doesnt buy it.
Of course the rest of the world doesn’t listen to Rush, Hannity, Coulter or any other microphone mephistos (good term Lou).
It is quite apparent that you spend most of your time highlighting potential flaws in our war effort. Instead of offering suggestions or alternatives, you seem almost happy during these difficult times.
Your hatred of the Republicans does nothing to help our troops on the ground. Think of what they would think reading your posts. Why don’t you take a deep breath, put aside your hatred of George Bush, and praise the men and women who are opening schools, protecting civilians, and building roads.
I challenge you to say something positive that is happening in this war. I’ll bet you aren’t man/woman enough to do it.
I leave you with this thought: it may be possible that you three have been wrong in your opposition. It may be that this war has averted a catastrophe and sown the seeds of Democracy.
I would like you to take off your blinders and give my last paragraph some honest thought.
JeffR
Apparently, you think that America is a weak and puny place, where honest criticism by concerned American citizens might bring down the whole house of cards. My vision of America is not as pathetic as yours. I think we can withstand (and desperately need) some honest self-criticism.
Al Franken had a good (and funny… ZEB, takes notes) way of describing the differences in the way that the right wing and left wing look at America.
He said that Democrats love America in a mature adult way, the way you might love your wife or husband, even though you realize that they have faults and could do things better. Everyone has shortcomings and faults. Sometimes these people you love disappoint you, but at the end of the day you are still married and committed to each other.
On the other hand, (some) Republicans seem to love America the way a four year old loves their Mommy. Nobody better say anything bad about my Mommy! If you say anything bad about Mommy, then you’re a Bad Man.
Please note that my thread was not directed towards you.
I guessed correctly that you had nothing but partisan ranting to add.
Thanks for living down to expectations.
Seriously Lumpy, you say SOME criticisim can be good, with wich I can whole heartedly agree with you on. But I have never read one post of your thousands that have said one positive thing about anything we are doing. Criticism? To some of us it does not come off that way.
I’ll be the first to admit there are good policies in both parties, Can you make that same admission?
Jeff R
In reference to your comments about what we say demoralizing the troops. I would like to tell you that I live in a military town, about a mile from a major army base. In the complex I live in, I almost feel like I live on post. My friend that lives above me is a Sergeant Major, the guy above me and to the right a first lieutenant, the guy directly to the right of me a sergeant, and the two guys to the left of me PFC’s.
Three of them recently back from Iraq. The Sergeant Major is a pretty good friend of mine, we usually get together on Friday nights and drink a few beers together. He is fully aware of the opinions that I hold and though he does not fully agree with them. He is not falling over demoralized wounded to the core that I don’t agree with him.
Believe it or not Jeff R some of the soldiers, I know feel a lot like I do. No, they are not going to go AWOL. They are still going to and have been doing their jobs, but they don’t all agree with your way of thinking!
Any way, I digress the point is I know a lot of Army guys, some of whom are good friends. They know the way, I feel and they are not slitting their wrists are running off to Canada, no offense to my Canadian bro’s.
[quote]Seriously Lumpy, you say SOME criticisim can be good, with wich I can whole heartedly agree with you on. But I have never read one post of your thousands that have said one positive thing about anything we are doing. Criticism? To some of us it does not come off that way.
I’ll be the first to admit there are good policies in both parties, Can you make that same admission? [/quote]
Vegita, I can understand your desire to hear something positive, but the minor flaw in your logic is that you are equating criticism of the Bush administration with criticism of either America or the Republican party. I don’t think that you realize that many people who rail against Bush are not just rabid democrats, but disgruntled repubs who think that our party has been infiltrated by “neocons” (which technically is a misnomer considering there is really nothing conservative about the Bush crew) who are religious fanatics with a hidden agenda, and who have expanded government and spending beyond comprehension. I admit that Kerry having done a few things that I disagree with, and is not my ideal candidate, but given my choices I won’t think twice at the voting booth. If McCain were running it would be another story. Considering I have absolutely NO respect for Bush, who is truly the stupidest president we have ever had in history, and who dodged combat and even went AWOL, it is hard for me to even recognize positive things that are done by his administration. Is that enough of a consession for you?
I know you guys want this thread to die, probably because you cannot come up with good arguments with clean logic to counter what I said, but I want to throw down some more bad news for all the flag-wavers in this forum. Michael Moore’s new film, Farenheit 9/11, just won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival today. That means that, despite Eisner’s attempt to block it so that he could maintain his tax breaks by GW’s brother Jeb in Florida, it will most certainly get distribution, and will therefore very soon be released in America. That doesn’t bode well for Bush, no matter what you think about Moore (I know that most of you don’t care for him too much). It will influence my prediction in the title of this thread, because it shows a side of the Bush camp none of you even realize is there. The Bush camp does NOT want you to watch this film! It truly is over for Bush. It is the first time in the history of the film fest that a documentary has won the top prize. It is the equivalent to winning an Oscar for best film here. It may be a bitter pill to swallow for many of you, but I don’t think Bush is going to make it in this next election. Even if he were to produce the WMD’s and Osama in the same friggin’ month! When it comes out, I DOUBLE DOG DARE you guys to go watch it! I bet most of you won’t because you hate to have truth revealed to you that isn’t in line with your beliefs. But, who knows, maybe a couple of you will.
Ha! I will never watch a movie by Michael Moore, He’s too fat! (Just kidding. Can’t wait to see it).
Here’s another article I thought my conservative T-Bros would enjoy:
Panic on the Hill Republicans are reassessing Bush’s leadership skills - and confronting the idea that he could lose the November election
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
May 21 - Like the movie, “No Way Out,” Iraq can only get worse; it can’t get better. Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said as much when he testified this week before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the violence would increase after the June 30 handover and that the Iraqis won’t be ready to assume responsibility for security until April 2005.
Who is President Bush kidding when he talks of turning over sovereignty to the Iraqis? No one yet has been identified to give power to, and the Pentagon’s love affair with Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi is over. American troops stormed Chalabi’s residence and offices in Baghdad, a remarkable reversal of fortune for a man who was on the U.S. payroll until this month, and who provided most of the phony intelligence that formed the Bush administration’s basis for war.
The Bush juggernaut looks like the Keystone Cops. What’s going on would be pure farce, except it’s tragedy because so many people are dying. Missiles slam into what Iraqis said was a wedding ceremony, leaving women and children among the dead. Israel is going crazy in the Gaza Strip, bulldozing Palestinian homes and shooting into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators. At home, gas prices are rising to an all-time high and in Canton, Ohio, a steel plant that Bush touted as a model last year announced it was closing, costing another 1,300 jobs in a state that has already lost 170,000 in the manufacturing sector.
Surveying the wreckage, an aide to a prominent Senate Republican termed it a “perfect storm of bad events.”
It came home to Republicans this week in a way it hasn’t before that Bush could lose in November. The disarray is not only about Iraq, where it’s particularly vicious, but spills over into budget negotiations and court appointments, where Bush’s conservative base is turning up the heat on wobbly Republicans. The high anxiety was evident when the normally genial House speaker, Denny Hastert, had the gall to question whether Arizona Sen. John McCain understood the meaning of sacrifice during wartime. “Is he a Republican?” Hastert snidely asked, before suggesting McCain might want to visit some of the wounded if he didn’t think Americans were making sacrifices.
What prompted Hastert’s outburst was McCain’s insistence on spending restraints to pay for future tax cuts, as opposed to simply running up the deficit. Where is the sacrifice, McCain asked, pointing out that no war president has cut taxes while defense costs are mounting. Considering that McCain spent five years as a POW in Vietnam, Hastert’s remarks were particularly impolitic. “He better watch it or he’ll turn our ticket,” chuckled a Democratic strategist, keeping in play the notion that McCain might become John Kerry’s running mate.
That won’t happen. The gulf on issues is too great, and McCain’s party loyalty too strong. But keeping the hope alive sends a signal to Republican moderates that Kerry is acceptable should they bolt from Bush.
What’s going on is a reassessment of Bush’s leadership. It’s not the first time. Before the terrorist attacks, Bush was widely seen as lacking, a genial caretaker with no agenda beyond cutting taxes, a likely one-termer. After 9/11, voters saw him in a different light, and Bush’s handlers have worked hard to prop up the man to match the myth. “Now they’re re-evaluating the re-evaluation,” says a Republican strategist. “People, particularly women, are reassessing, and what looked resolute and decisive now looks wrongheaded.”
Bush is the first president to hold an M.B.A., and the streamlined way he runs the White House and makes decisions won him praise- especially in contrast to his predecessor. Bill Clinton’s White House was more like a graduate-school seminar with issues endlessly debated and discussed, and decisions rarely made in a timely way.
Now Bush’s management style is under fire just as Ronald Reagan’s was after the Iran-contra scandal broke. The week the country learned the Reagan administration was secretly trading arms for hostages in Iran, and that Reagan was allegedly unaware members of his staff were diverting money from the arms deal to fund a rebel uprising in Central America, Reagan appeared on the cover of Fortune as a model CEO. In a similar awakening, The Wall Street Journal this week observed that the traits that mark Bush’s leadership - reliance on a small group of trusted advisors, equating dissent with disloyalty and never admitting a mistake - may not be the right mix given the combustible issues Bush faces.
There is panic on the Hill among Republicans because if the bottom falls out of the Bush campaign, they could lose the Senate. Except for the seat of retiring Democrat Zell Miller in Georgia, which will be an easy pick-up for the GOP, Democratic victories are within reach in both Carolinas, Louisiana and Florida, as well as Oklahoma, Colorado and Illinois. “If it wasn’t for the rape of Texas, the House would be in play,” says a Democratic strategist, referring to the redistricting pushed through by the GOP that ensures them an additional five seats.
Granted, it’s early and a lot can happen. But a Senate Republican said the week’s events convinced him there won’t be a Bush landslide. “And if Bush narrowly wins, think how acrid the political atmosphere will be.” If Kerry wins, Iraq becomes his war, and he’ll have to answer the question he posed more than three decades ago: how do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?
Ha! Jeez, why do you guys all have to be so damn predictable? Read this little article, and pay attention to the text in bold.
[quote]Moore tells Bush to watch the pretzels
Sat 22 May, 2004 22:52
By Paul Majendie
CANNES, France (Reuters) - After winning the top prize at Cannes for his anti-Bush documentary, American filmmaker Michael Moore said he hoped the President had not been eating a pretzel when he heard the news.
Moore admitted to one regret after accepting the Palme d’Or on Saturday – he forgot to thank George W. Bush for providing the funniest lines in “Fahrenheit 9/11”, a blistering attack on Bush’s handling of Iraq and the war on terror.
Moore hopes to release the film this summer and spark heated political debate with his searing diatribe in the run-up to November’s presidential election.
Asked what he thought Bush’s reaction might be to the award, he told a packed news conference: “He is probably choking on a pretzel or something. I hope nobody tells him that I have won this award while he is eating a pretzel.”
Bush fainted in 2002 after choking on a pretzel while watching a football game on television.
“He has the funniest lines in the film. I am eternally grateful to him,” Moore said.
The Oscar-winning director mocked leading members of the Bush administration, saying: "I believe them to be actors.
“I forgot out there on the stage to thank my cast. So if I could do that now, I want to thank Mr Bush, Mr Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. I thought the love scene between Cheney and Rumsfeld brought a tear to my eye.”
[b]Moore predicted that some right-wing media in the United States would portray the award as being given by France, one of the staunchest opponents of America’s war in Iraq.
“The jury was not a French jury. This was an international jury dominated by Americans,” he said.[/b]
Angered by the way Americans had reacted against the French over its resistance to the conflict in Iraq, he said: “We owe the people of this country an apology for the way they were debased in our media.”
Moore, who won an Oscar for his anti-gun lobby film “Bowling for Columbine”, was fiercely proud that a documentary had now won the Palme d’Or, one of cinema’s greatest accolades.
“Non-fiction is taking itself out of its own ghetto,” he said.
[b]And then he proudly quoted what cult director Quentin Tarantino – the Cannes jury president – had told him.
“He said: ‘We want you to know that the politics of your film had nothing to do with the award. You were given the award because you made a great film.’”[/b]
[/quote]
It must be frustrating for you guys to watch these yahoo’s (your hero’s) entire administration unravel before your very eyes. Lumpy, I was just about to quote that exact article. You beat me to the punch! I’m telling you… Whether you want to deny it or not, it is over for Bush.
Hey michaelmoore in france. Anyone else want to help start a fund entitled “Keep the hippies and euro-loving weenies in france.” Join me in this crusade!!!
Roy, once again your research is awful. I know argument by insinuation (i.e.Halliburton) is easier than making factual argument. Hey, you could work for Michael Moore! When you make a movie, people can’t even call you on your bullshit (JFK, Bowling for Columbine, etc). Let the lesson begin.
Let’s start with the Disney-Moore connection. I am from south Orlando and work for Disney as a government liason and know a bit about how this works. I am interested to know how Jeb Bush could possibly rescind tax cuts that don’t exist?
Great logic for two reasons. First, the governor can’t grant or take away tax cuts in this state. I don’t know how that works in other states, but tax laws aren’t imperiously passed down from the executive branch here in FL.
Second, of course, is that the priveledges that Disney enjoys in Florida have to do with certain regulatory freedom on their own property. These were granted over four decades before by the state legislature. These allow thing Disney to do things like have power plants, separate plumbing, etc. They have nothing to do with “special tax breaks”. Disney pays its taxes like other corporations in the state of Florida.
Should we go into big bad Michael Eisner “trying to block” the release of this film, or do you want to do a little more reading on that before the next lesson?
Looking forward to your reply. Once you are thoroughly convinced of your factual incorrectness in that statement – I’m sure you will be man enough to admit it – we’ll move on.