Garfield1966
Veteran
Yea you heard!
Manipulation is different from cherry picking data. Are you saying Cheney manipulated data?
The Truth about Iraq
- Thread starter local 12 proud
- Start date
Manipulation is different from cherry picking data. Are you saying Cheney manipulated data?
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
cherry picking?
So you think it was a war to get revenge for 'Dada'?
oil?
We dodged another bullet today at JFK yet you think its all a right wing conspiracy to take your freedoms away?
Who ya gonna blame in 2008?
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
local 12,
GARFIELD, very simply asked you; "Are you saying Cheney manipulated info."
I'M ASKING,..."IS YOUR ANSWER...YES...or...NO" ?????
Quit dicking around, and SIMPLY answer the mans question !
NH/BB's
GARFIELD, very simply asked you; "Are you saying Cheney manipulated info."
I'M ASKING,..."IS YOUR ANSWER...YES...or...NO" ?????
Quit dicking around, and SIMPLY answer the mans question !
NH/BB's
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
NO
we went in with the intel. that was given not only from our sources but from the allies as well.
Heck even the dems voted for it, before they voted against it!
Garfield1966
Veteran
What they voted on was what was presented by Cheney. Congress voted on half truths and out right lies. Even Republicans have come out and said they would not have voted for it. Then again, they are politicians who are trying to get re-elected so they would say anything just as dems would.
Not sure why we went to war in Iraq. It would seem that given the number of times Cheney flip flopped on the reason, he does not know either.
I would guess that there were numerous reason that we went in t Iraq, the least of which was for our safety. I have heard/read that resources (oil), permanent military bases, revenge, diversion from failed domestic policy were all possible reason for going into Iraq. Of course it could have been simple arrogance and stupidity but that just seems so simple.
So taking away civil liberties is the only way to catch the bad guys. One would have thought america and all it stands for would have progressed beyond that.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
B Franklin.
Not sure why we went to war in Iraq. It would seem that given the number of times Cheney flip flopped on the reason, he does not know either.
I would guess that there were numerous reason that we went in t Iraq, the least of which was for our safety. I have heard/read that resources (oil), permanent military bases, revenge, diversion from failed domestic policy were all possible reason for going into Iraq. Of course it could have been simple arrogance and stupidity but that just seems so simple.
So taking away civil liberties is the only way to catch the bad guys. One would have thought america and all it stands for would have progressed beyond that.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
B Franklin.
Duh....whaaaat?
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Exactly what liberties have you lost?
These 'guys' (Islamic Terrorist) are not just looking for a good fireworks show, they have vowed to destroy America at any and all cost and your worried uncle sam may check your muslim neighbors background?
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,466
- Reaction score
- 2
That is a misquote Gar... this is the actual quote.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Garfield1966
Veteran
Did not know that. The site I got it off had it wrong I guess.
Isn't all liberty essential? Or am I missinterpreting what he said? I know language usage and meaning has changed over the years.
Isn't all liberty essential? Or am I missinterpreting what he said? I know language usage and meaning has changed over the years.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"BULL ####".....local 12 ......."BULL ####" !!!!!!!!!
(Taking you back to the UNDISPUTED SOURCE again..."HUBRIS")
(Dirty) DICK (Cheney) made numerous trips to LANGLEY(CIA), and everytime he was told their was no connection linking Sadam to 9/11, (Dirty) DICK REFUSED to accept the answer, UNTIL(after BRUTAL PRESSURE FROM "D D"....(Dirty DICK), "Info" was SPUN/Cooked up, that "DD" took to "meet the press"/Tim Russert, and made a BIGGER A$$ HOLE of himself(Cheney), when TR produced FACTS to expose "DD's" facts as Incorrect.
"DD"..THEN began his ..."UM--ER--AH--WELL".....ROUTINE !!
The "Rest"(as they say)...Is HISTORY !!
And I'm betting you (DAM* WELL) Know it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary/08
NH/BB's
Smitty
Member
local 12 proud
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Reaction score
- 4
Yea I think Im standing about knee deep in it!'Something has to be taken away from some people' 😛
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=1208
...At least she makes no bones about her Socialist Agenda! 😉
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
Hey Cuz Wise,
And 'EVERYONE' should have known better.
I wonder how much $$$ and pork was distributed to get the 'OK' for this? Our 'elected' officials should have seen this fiasco coming and chose to 'kow tow' for some reason. That's why I'll never respect McCain, Kerry and Murtha (among a plethora of others).
Love,
Cuz Pain B)
Now 'THAT' IS FUNNY
B) UT
...... 😛
Garfield1966
Veteran
Here is my theory(s).
First, for Murtha, Kerry and who ever else voted for the authorization to go to Iraq, given the political environment of the time, it would have been viewed as political suicide to vote against it. Bush had snowballed the public into believing it was a noble fight. Given the spineless nature of politicians in the first place, I am not sure I could expect them to vote against it in that climate. Also, if they are elected to carry out the will of their constituents, would they not have had to vote for it regardless of their personal feelings. They are after all, supposed to represent we the people, right?
Which leads me to my next theory/question. Hypothothis: I, being a layman in a particular field hold belief "x". Along come several experts in said field who say that I am incorrect in my belief and they have the proof. Do I continue to hold my belief even in the face of 'proof' that my belief is not correct?
I do not know what level of access Senators or Congressman have in terms of intelligence access (I suspect not the same as POTIS/VPOTUS) so who do you trust? I would hope that the leaders of a country based on the rule of law would not lie about a issue as sensitive and important as going to war. Apparently we the people were wrong with that assumption.
I would like nothing better than to blame someone and say they 'should have known' something but I am not sure I can jump on that wagon. Part of being a good leader is surrounding your self we quality help. Another part is to ask the right questions. Bush Co. did neither. Most inside accounts from the Bush Co. indicates that he surrounds himself with people who will give him the answers he wants to hear. The end result is that the right questions are not asked or addressed such as; Is Rumsfled delusional when he says we will be welcomed like liberators? What do we do after "mission accomplished"? Will the american people support a drawn out conflict with thousands of our troops coming home in body bags? What are the political and religious dynamics in the region? Is there a governmental proposal which has broad support? Do the factions in Iraq get along? And the list goes on.
In my opinion, the POTUS did not want to know, the intelligence agencies did not make their opinions clear, no one gave answers to the questions that were not asked. Most importantly, no one wants to commit political suicide by voicing an unpopular opinion.
I believe you and I had a discussion a while back about a group (I forget who) who you and everyone else wanted censored. I gave the opinion that as long as no laws are violated, you cannot isolate one group even though their views are completely contrary to beliefs that most people hold. I despise the KKK but I will fight for their right to exist. My point being, I took a lot of grief (I think I finally got you to understand my position) but can you imagine a politician coming out with an unpopular view? Only since the war went down hill did the nay sayers come out of the wood work.
Yes, the politicians are cowards, but we elect them, we let them stay, and we hold them to standards that are out of whack. We expect them to vote against something we want, but would run them out of town on rail if they did.
First, for Murtha, Kerry and who ever else voted for the authorization to go to Iraq, given the political environment of the time, it would have been viewed as political suicide to vote against it. Bush had snowballed the public into believing it was a noble fight. Given the spineless nature of politicians in the first place, I am not sure I could expect them to vote against it in that climate. Also, if they are elected to carry out the will of their constituents, would they not have had to vote for it regardless of their personal feelings. They are after all, supposed to represent we the people, right?
Which leads me to my next theory/question. Hypothothis: I, being a layman in a particular field hold belief "x". Along come several experts in said field who say that I am incorrect in my belief and they have the proof. Do I continue to hold my belief even in the face of 'proof' that my belief is not correct?
I do not know what level of access Senators or Congressman have in terms of intelligence access (I suspect not the same as POTIS/VPOTUS) so who do you trust? I would hope that the leaders of a country based on the rule of law would not lie about a issue as sensitive and important as going to war. Apparently we the people were wrong with that assumption.
I would like nothing better than to blame someone and say they 'should have known' something but I am not sure I can jump on that wagon. Part of being a good leader is surrounding your self we quality help. Another part is to ask the right questions. Bush Co. did neither. Most inside accounts from the Bush Co. indicates that he surrounds himself with people who will give him the answers he wants to hear. The end result is that the right questions are not asked or addressed such as; Is Rumsfled delusional when he says we will be welcomed like liberators? What do we do after "mission accomplished"? Will the american people support a drawn out conflict with thousands of our troops coming home in body bags? What are the political and religious dynamics in the region? Is there a governmental proposal which has broad support? Do the factions in Iraq get along? And the list goes on.
In my opinion, the POTUS did not want to know, the intelligence agencies did not make their opinions clear, no one gave answers to the questions that were not asked. Most importantly, no one wants to commit political suicide by voicing an unpopular opinion.
I believe you and I had a discussion a while back about a group (I forget who) who you and everyone else wanted censored. I gave the opinion that as long as no laws are violated, you cannot isolate one group even though their views are completely contrary to beliefs that most people hold. I despise the KKK but I will fight for their right to exist. My point being, I took a lot of grief (I think I finally got you to understand my position) but can you imagine a politician coming out with an unpopular view? Only since the war went down hill did the nay sayers come out of the wood work.
Yes, the politicians are cowards, but we elect them, we let them stay, and we hold them to standards that are out of whack. We expect them to vote against something we want, but would run them out of town on rail if they did.
Gilding the Lily
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,466
- Reaction score
- 2
Interesting article the other day.
U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces.
Maybe this will turn some tables in Iraq; perhaps it will give the US more strength in numbers. It is always important to determine our #1 enemy and do what it takes to rid ourselves of that enemy, which the military seems to be doing here.
It is interesting, however, that we are now arming people who were the "bad guys" only a few years ago. Could things have changed so soon? Perhaps the analysis of our true enemy had changed?
So I guess Saddam loyalists actually do have a "connection" to Al Queada after all: They want to fight against them!
U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces.
Maybe this will turn some tables in Iraq; perhaps it will give the US more strength in numbers. It is always important to determine our #1 enemy and do what it takes to rid ourselves of that enemy, which the military seems to be doing here.
It is interesting, however, that we are now arming people who were the "bad guys" only a few years ago. Could things have changed so soon? Perhaps the analysis of our true enemy had changed?
So I guess Saddam loyalists actually do have a "connection" to Al Queada after all: They want to fight against them!
