Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Whose really to blame

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    I've been listening to alot of democrats in the news recently and reading alot from some people on this board about how Iraq not having WMD is an indictment of President Bush and his administration and I just don't get it.

    For one.....lets say that WMD are never found and the intelligence community was completely wrong and Iraq never had the capabilities everyone thought they had, how exactly is that an indictment of President Bush ?.....shouldn't that be more of an indictment on the intel community that was providing the president innacurate information to use to base his decisions on ?.

    And.....if the intelligence community was indeed wrong then it seems to me it would be only natural to investigate and figure out how this could happen and fix the problem so we can provide this and all future presidents the correct information to use to base important decisions on.

    But alot of democrats don't want anything to do with investing the past and holding people accountable for their votes to under fund intelligence which led directly to this situation, instead, they would prefer to just blame the president for acting on faulty intel and give a pass to the people { mostly other democrats } who intentionally reduced our intelligence gathering capabilities.

    I would argue that the people who voted to deplete our capabilities are far more responsible for the current situation than the president and I really think that the people who are all about blaming the president are more concerned with deflecting the criticism they justly deserve and getting a democrat elected to the presidency than actually identifying all the mistakes that were made and fixing the problem and I think that they are doing this to the detriment of the country.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    All of that is possibly and IMO probably true...it is also funny to me that Bush is getting blamed for acting on faulty or flimsy intelligence in Iraq, yet is essentially blamed for NOT acting on flimsy intel prior to 9-11 and is also being held accountable for N. Korea having nukes when it was clearly the previous administration that should have been on top of that situation. Signing a treaty with N Korea, not checking thoroughly to see if they were keeping up the terms of it AND cutting the budgets of the intelligence community is awful, just awful.

    However, I do 100% fault Bush for his glib approach to this current investigation, essentially pushing it off to after the election. First - it's more of the same "detriment to the country" crap because we need to know what is wrong NOW, as soon as possible so we can work to correct the problem. Pushing it off for a year is just absurd, especially for a guy who is so adamant about protecting his people. Partisan politics should not trump national interests and national security...NO ONE's political career or agenda is THAT important.

    Secondly, it is simply bad politics. If Bush launches an investigation, he can clear up this matter before the election. An investigation should only take 3 or 4 months, tops and probably could be done a lot quicker. By stonewalling, all he is doing is giving the Dems ammunition (100% legit ammunition, IMO) to keep hacking away at the "Bush lied" nonsense.

    Finally, the American people...you and I...we all DESERVE to know what happened when we go to the polls in November. IMO, Bush did nothing "wrong" and I feel an investigation will prove that, much as it did in Britain. However, right now we just don't know and we have a right to know this important piece of information prior to casting votes. This is basic stuff about representative governing, and is not a partisan point. If the Bushies on this site get mad at me, so be it. It's how I feel.

    It's really stupid in so many ways I can't believe he's doing it. G*d-damn Bush!!!

  3. #3
    lets call a spade a spade gentlemen...

    how convenient is it that this intel gaffe resulted in US control of the world's second largest oil fields (possibily the largest)?

    also how convenient is it for the president, who's family wealth is based on oil, and who worked in the energy sector (along with his VP)?

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,248
    Jets5, despite Kay's personal belief that nothing will be found, the fact remains that the search for the wmds that were unequivocably known to exist continues (either to find them or determine what happened to them), and coalition inspection teams are still in Iraq acting on the intel. Opening intel up to scrutiny while it is still being acted upon is clearly neither wise nor prudent.

    I don't believe Bush is politicizing the issue, unlike the dems who smell blood and have no compunction over their bald-faced hypocricy. They have no desire whatsoever to discover the truth -- it is 100% a political move to smear Bush, who acted upon the same intel the Clinton administration and the U.N. held as accurate. In fact, it's the same intel that inspired the Clinton administration to define their stated policy goal in Iraq as "regime change."

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Intelligence failures do not take place overnight...they take a long time to create and just as long to detiorate.

    A very good friend of mine has been in the FBI for more than 15-years (BTW: a field I wanted to pursue coming out of college and was told your white/male/single, you have no chance of getting in).

    Obviously he tells me nothing about cases and should I ever see him in my area and jokingly mention it he says, "don't know what you're talking about."

    He did tell me this; intelligence is a dirty business and if you want dirt on scumbags you're going to have to deal with the likes of it. Once you have a source unless you totally leave them hung out to dry you'll have them forever.

    He said the quality of intelligence eroded as cuts in the deparments took hold over the 90's, which is why I have disdain for clinton; he was given a world where the cold war was over and thought he didn't have to do a damn thing. (Oh yeh...he did make 30 requests to the taliban to push out OBL)

    As far as 5ever's comment on the investigation; I totally understand your thoughts but in the present state of things, with an election in November and democrats stating in poll after poll that nominating a candidate with a slight chance of beating the President (kerry) is more important then the candidate they feel is best suited to handle domestic issues (dean), you'll never get the truth anyway. Just a bunch of partisan politicians who want to slant information towards their party.

    Did you watch the questioning of Kay last week? Did they question him to get the truth or try and squeeze answers from him they thought would best fit their agenda's?

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 11:26 AM
    [b] lets call a spade a spade gentlemen...

    how convenient is it that this intel gaffe resulted in US control of the world's second largest oil fields (possibily the largest)?

    also how convenient is it for the president, who's family wealth is based on oil, and who worked in the energy sector (along with his VP)? [/b][/quote]
    yes...you once again make plenty of sense; it was much easier to go halfway around the world and pay for a war rather then fight in congress to drill for oil in Alaska....oh, I forgot- this was done for results that will be felt 20 years down the road according to you.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 10:27 AM
    [b] Jets5, despite Kay's personal belief that nothing will be found, the fact remains that the search for the wmds that were unequivocably known to exist continues (either to find them or determine what happened to them), and coalition inspection teams are still in Iraq acting on the intel. Opening intel up to scrutiny while it is still being acted upon is clearly neither wise nor prudent.

    I don't believe Bush is politicizing the issue, unlike the dems who smell blood and have no compunction over their bald-faced hypocricy. They have no desire whatsoever to discover the truth -- it is 100% a political move to smear Bush, who acted upon the same intel the Clinton administration and the U.N. held as accurate. In fact, it's the same intel that inspired the Clinton administration to define their stated policy goal in Iraq as "regime change." [/b][/quote]
    Shakes -

    I understand all of this and agree with the motives of the Dems. However, there is a problem with the intel, regardless of who acted upon it and who, if anyone, deserves blame for it. The intel and investigation do not have to be even close to public. But it is imperative that we find out why our intel is so bad in this area. Find out why it is bad, and what can be done to improve it. How is that not a pressing issue? How can that wait a whole year?

    Bitonti - I do not agree with your premise. I am not looking to convert you, since I know that is fruitless. But to be honest, I do think Bush is sincere in his belief that Iraq was a threat and that regime change will protect his country in the short and long term and that this is an important front in the larger war on terror.


    Come Back - every party for every election nominates a guy who they think gives them the best chance to win, not necessarily the best candidate on substance. Why do you think the GOP establishment rallied around Bush in 2000?

    I read Kay's answers and his initial report and his quotes. It's obvious to any serious person that they actually EXONERATE Bush, rather than implicate him. This is why I feel strongly that he should encourage a speedy investigation...it's smart for two reasons: It will take that arrow out of the Dem quiver in ANY debate, since Bush can say, "The entire world thought what I thought, the investigation proved we acted in good faith, and YOU, John Kerry, not only used Saddam's WMD in your support of Clinton's bombings, you actually harmed our ability to have good intel bby voting to slash the budget several times."

    Also - it's good for the country since the problem will be addressed sooner rather than later.

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,248
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 11:32 AM
    [b]Intelligence failures do not take place overnight...they take a long time to create and just as long to detiorate.
    [/b][/quote]
    While it's true that intelligence and defense take time to deteriorate if not properly attended to, sometimes there are politicians who take an active, aggressive role in dismantling our country's ability to defend itself.

    Hey, here's one now!:

    [quote][b]SENATOR KERRY FOUGHT TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING BY AT LEAST $2.5 BILLION

    1995: Proposed Bill Cutting $1.5 Billion From Intelligence Budget. Kerry
    introduced a bill that would “reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in
    each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” There were no
    cosponsors of Kerry’s bill, which never made it to the floor for a vote. (S.
    1290, Introduced 9/29/95)

    1995: Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480:
    Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

    1994: Proposed Bill To Gut $1 Billion From Intelligence And Freeze Spending For
    Two Major Intelligence Programs. Kerry proposed a bill cutting $1 billion from
    the budgets of the National Foreign Intelligence Program and from Tactical
    Intelligence, and freezing their budgets. The bill did not make it to a vote,
    but the language was later submitted (and defeated – see below) as S. Amdt. 1452
    to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)

    1997: Kerry Questioned Growth Of Intelligence Community After Cold War. “Now
    that that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence
    apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential
    priorities fall far short of what is necessary? …” (Senator John Kerry Agreeing
    That Critic's Concerns Be Addressed, Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)

    When His Bill Stalled In Committee, Kerry Proposed $1 Billion Cut As
    Amendment Instead. Kerry proposed cutting $1 billion from the National Foreign
    Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence budgets, and freezing their
    budgets. The amendment was defeated, with even Graham, Lieberman and Braun
    voting against Kerry. (Amdt.. To H.R. 3759, CQ Vote #39: Rejected 20-75: R 3-37;
    D 17-38, 2/10/94, Kerry Voted Yea; Graham, Lieberman And Braun Voted Nay)


    [b][color=red]After all the above, he has the nerve to say this, after 9/11

    12 Days After 9/11: Kerry Questioned Quality Of Intelligence. “And the tragedy
    is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States
    of America is intelligence. … And we are weakest, frankly, in that particular
    area. So it’s going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this
    properly.” (CBS’s “Face The Nation,” 9/23/01)[/color][/b]


    SEN. KERRY’S DEFENSE STRATEGY: CUT CRITICAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS

    In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion.
    Kerry’s bill had no co-sponsors and never came to a floor vote. (S. 1580,
    Introduced 2/29/96;
    In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion
    From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

    Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution – Defense Freeze. “Harkin, D-Iowa,
    amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the
    $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training.” (S. Con. Res. 13, CQ
    Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20, 5/24/95, Kerry Voted Yea)

    In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

    Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
    Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
    Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
    Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program
    Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces
    in one year. (S.1163, Introduced 6/24/93,

    Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

    In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay
    Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con.
    Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry
    Voted Yea)
    In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats
    successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending. (S. Con. Res. 106, CQ
    Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 53-40: R 38-1; D 15-39, 4/9/92, Kerry Voted Nay)
    In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To
    Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.
    (H.R. 2707, CQ Vote #182: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 3-39; D 25-30, 9/10/91, Kerry
    Voted Yea)
    In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21 other Senators
    voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated. (S. Con. Res. 29, CQ Vote
    #49: Motion Rejected 22-73: R 1-39; D 21-34, 4/25/91, Kerry Voted Yea)

    Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber. (H.R.
    3072, CQ Vote #203: Rejected 29-71: R 2-43; D 27-28, 9/26/89, Kerry Voted Yea;
    H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310: Rejected 29-68: R 3-41; D 26-27, 11/18/89, Kerry Voted
    Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #208: Rejected 43-56: R 8-36; D 35-20, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted
    Yea; S. 2884, CQ Vote #209: Rejected 45-53: R 9-34; D 36-19, 8/2/90, Kerry Voted
    Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #174: Rejected 42-57: R 7-36; D 35-21, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted
    Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 36-7; D 15-41, 9/25/91,
    Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92,
    Kerry Voted Yea; S. 3114, CQ Vote #216: Rejected 45-53: R 8-35; D 37-18,
    9/18/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 2182, CQ Vote #179: Rejected 45-55: R 8-36; D
    37-19, 7/1/94, Kerry Voted Yea)

    Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense. (S. 1507, CQ Vote #171: Motion
    Agreed To 60-38: R 40-3; D 20-35, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1507, CQ Vote
    #173: Rejected 46-52: R 5-38; D 41-14, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Yea; H.R. 2521, CQ
    Vote #207: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 38-5; D 12-44, 9/25/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S.
    2403, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 61-38: R 7-36; D 54-2, 5/6/92, Kerry Voted Yea; S.
    3114, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 43-49: R 34-5; D 9-44, 8/7/92, Kerry Voted Nay; S.
    3114, CQ Vote #214: Rejected 48-50: R 5-38; D 43-12, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Yea;
    S. 3114, CQ Vote #215: Adopted 52-46: R 39-4; D 13-42, 9/17/92, Kerry Voted Nay;
    S. 1298, CQ Vote #251: Adopted 50-48: R 6-36; D 44-12, 10/9/93, Kerry Voted Yea;
    S. Con. Res. 63, CQ Vote #64: Rejected 40-59: R 2-42; D 38-17, 3/22/94, Kerry
    Voted Yea; S. 1026, CQ Vote #354: Motion Agreed To 51-48: R 47-6; D 4-42,
    8/3/95, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #384: Rejected 45-54: R 5-49; D 40-5,
    8/10/95, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1745, CQ Vote #160: Rejected 44-53: R 4-49; D 40-4,
    6/19/96, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #168: Rejected 39-60: R 4-39; D
    35-21, 7/31/91, Kerry Voted Yea; S. 1507, CQ Vote #172: Motion Agreed To 64-34:
    R 39-4; D 25-30, 8/1/91, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #131: Rejected 59-41:
    R 55-0; D 4-41; I 0-0, 5/13/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1873, CQ Vote #262:
    Rejected 59-41: R 55-0; D 4-41, 9/9/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S 1635, CQ Vote #157:
    Rejected 53-46: R 52-0; D 1-46, 6/4/96, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 2549, CQ Vote #178:
    Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 52-3; D 0-45, 7/13/00, Kerry Voted Nay)

    KERRY OPPOSED WEAPONS CRITICAL TO RECENT MILITARY SUCCESSES

    Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Promised Massive Defense Cuts. “Kerry in 1984
    said he would have voted to cancel … the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64
    Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B
    Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He
    also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the
    Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet.” (Brian
    C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)

    Weapons Kerry Sought To Phase Out Were Vital In Iraq. “[K]erry supported
    cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US
    military might -- the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the
    world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks.”
    (Brian C. Mooney, “Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One,” The Boston Globe,
    6/19/03)

    F-16 Fighting Falcons. “The Air Force would also play an important role
    in strikes against high-ranking officials of the Ba’ath regime. On April 4, two
    Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons dropped laser-guided munitions on the house of
    Ali Hassan al-Majid, a.k.a. ‘Chemical Ali,’ in Basra.” (Abraham Genauer,
    “Technology And Volume Of Sorties Overwhelmed The Iraqis’ Defenses,” The Hill,
    5/21/03)

    B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s. “On the night of March 21 alone, the first
    of ‘shock and awe,’ coalition air forces flew nearly 2,000 missions. … Involved
    were Air Force B-1B Lancers, B-2A Spirits, … F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16
    Fighting Falcons…” (Abraham Genauer, “Technology And Volume Of Sorties
    Overwhelmed The Iraqis’ Defenses,” The Hill, 5/21/03)

    M1 Abrams. “‘[M1 Abrams] tanks were the sledgehammer in this war,’ added
    Pat Garrett, an associate analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. ‘The tank was the
    tool that allowed [the ground forces] to progress as fast as they did.’”
    (Patrick O’Connor, “Revolutionary Tank Tactics Alter Iraqi Conflict, Future Of
    Urban Warfare,” The Hill, 5/21/03)

    Patriot Missile. “U.S. Central Command says the Patriots … have improved
    to the point where they intercepted nine of the Iraqis’ short-range al-Samoud 2
    and Ababil-100 missiles in this conflict.” (Andrea Stone, “Patriot Missile:
    Friend Or Foe To Allied Troops?” USA Today, 4/15/03)

    AH-64 Apache Helicopter. “Recently, Apaches in Afghanistan achieved
    success directly supporting ground troops. … Whether in shaping the battle in a
    combined arms Warfighter-type fight where intelligence of the enemy is known, or
    by conducting close combat attacks in direct support of a ground commander, the
    Longbow Apache provides significantly increased flexibility and firepower for
    U.S. Army forces …” (Maj. David J. Rude and Lt. Col. Daniel E. Williams, “The
    ‘Warfighter Mindset’ and the War in Iraq,” Army Magazine, 7/03)

    Tomahawk Cruise Missile. “The first operational use [of Tomahawk cruise
    missiles] was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile
    has since been used successfully in several other conflicts … include[ing]
    Bosnia … in 1995 and in Iraq again … in 1996 … [and in] strikes against training
    camps run by Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan in 1998. Cruise
    missiles were also fired during the air campaign over Kosovo in 1999.” (Vivek
    Rai, “Cruise Missiles, By Air And Sea,” MSNBC.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

    Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser. “During Operation Iraqi Freedom, [the Aegis
    cruiser] Bunker Hill … was one of the first warships to conduct Tomahawk strikes
    against leadership targets in Iraq. The ship launched a total of 31 missiles
    during the war. Its embarked … helicopter detachment … supported the rescue of
    United Nations workers being forcibly removed from oil platforms in the Northern
    Arabian Gulf and provided medical evacuations from the Iraqi city of Umm Qasr.”
    (S.A. Thornbloom, “USS Bunker Hill Makes Revolutionary Return,”
    NavyDispatch.com, Accessed 7/17/03)

    During 1980s, Kerry And Michael Dukakis Joined Forces With Liberal Group
    Dedicated To Slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of “Jobs With Peace
    Campaign,” which sought to “develop public support for cutting the defense
    budget…” (“Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs,” The
    Associated Press, 6/3/88)

    Running For Congress In 1972, Kerry Promised To Cut Defense Spending. “On what
    he’ll do if he’s elected to Congress, Kerry said he would ‘bring a different
    kind of message to the president.’ He said he would vote against military
    appropriations.” (“Candidate’s For Congress Capture Campus In Andover,”
    Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)
    [/b][/quote]

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 10:54 AM
    [b] However, I do 100% fault Bush for his glib approach to this current investigation, essentially pushing it off to after the election. First - it's more of the same "detriment to the country" crap because we need to know what is wrong NOW, as soon as possible so we can work to correct the problem. Pushing it off for a year is just absurd, especially for a guy who is so adamant about protecting his people. Partisan politics should not trump national interests and national security...NO ONE's political career or agenda is THAT important.

    Secondly, it is simply bad politics. If Bush launches an investigation, he can clear up this matter before the election. An investigation should only take 3 or 4 months, tops and probably could be done a lot quicker. By stonewalling, all he is doing is giving the Dems ammunition (100% legit ammunition, IMO) to keep hacking away at the "Bush lied" nonsense.

    Finally, the American people...you and I...we all DESERVE to know what happened when we go to the polls in November. IMO, Bush did nothing "wrong" and I feel an investigation will prove that, much as it did in Britain. However, right now we just don't know and we have a right to know this important piece of information prior to casting votes. This is basic stuff about representative governing, and is not a partisan point. If the Bushies on this site get mad at me, so be it. It's how I feel.

    [/b][/quote]
    I couldn't agree more that all the information regarding our intelligence shortcomings needs to be investigated and corrected ASAP.

    But.....it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize most if not all of our problems in regards to faulty intelligence are directly related to certain democratic members of congress under emphasizing defense and intelligence and slashing their funding while increasing funding for things they considered higher priorities.

    I'm not saying that the things they considered higher priorities were not noble causes, all things being equal I too would prefer to fund things that helped people a little more who are having a hard time...but...all things weren't equal as it turned out and choosing to fund other things at the expense of the intelligence community was a dangerous risk that proved to be a severe miscalculation by the left and I think they should be called on it.

    It's not like you need a widespread investigation to see exactly who voted time and time again to try to emasculate the military and intelligence communities, all you need to do is look into the Congressional record and it paints a very clear picture as to who was voting to deemphasize our security and who was not { this may prove a bit troublesome to Sen Kerry in the general election }, I wish people would look into exactly whose priorities were misguided when it came to the defense of this country at a time when we may have been able to prevent both the 9-11 tragedy...and...the possible intel mistakes that may have caused our president to mistakenly send troops into battle.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    That's a good point Maryland....

    But again - that solves nothing. While it is useful to acknowledge that the budget was slashed and who did the slashing, I do not think improving our ME intel is ONLY a matter of funding. It could be structural.

    The bottom line is we thought X and reality turned out to be Y. This is part of the risk of dealing with intel since it is by definition about probabilities and not certainties. However, we need to get down to business and find out, in a micro and not macro level, why we and the rest of the world, could have gotten things so wrong. I think it is more than just a simple matter of $. Saying "We would have known for certain about WMD if Kerry didn't vote slash the budget" is as specious and partisan as the "Bush Lied!" charge and in the end, neither style of "gotcha!" rhetoric is going to solve the [i]actual problem[/i] of why we were wrong, it will only help either side to score political points. If the slashing of the funds is a huge part of it, that will also come to light in an investigation which is AGAIN why I feel strogly that Bush and Rove and Co are miscalcuating the politics of this thing.

    But I am FAR from an expert, I'm just a moron at a computer with a loud mouth!

  11. #11
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 11:42 AM
    [b] Bitonti - I do not agree with your premise. I am not looking to convert you, since I know that is fruitless. But to be honest, I do think Bush is sincere in his belief that Iraq was a threat and that regime change will protect his country in the short and long term and that this is an important front in the larger war on terror. [/b][/quote]
    [b]5ever[/b] i do not agree with YOUR premise. I am not looking to convert you, since i know that is fruitless. But lets be honest - Saddam posed NO threat to the nation. He could barely run his own country. As for the "front" on the war on terror business, no one wants to understand the truth - as long as we keep meddling in the affairs of the middle east there will be terrorism, and there aren't enough troops or bombs you can deploy there to change that fact. Terrorists aren't a set number they get recruited and the numbers grow every day. There is about as much chance of Iraq becoming a real democracy as there is winged monkeys flying out of my ass.

    [b]Come Back to NY[/b] if you drill in Alaska you are paying American laborers an American wage. The oil isn't close to the surface its deep down... roads need to be built, drills installed, pipeline extended - all this adds up to a very expensive proposition - per barrell american oil costs over 10 dollars to extract. That's not counting the new infrastructure required for ANWR... thats just CA or TX crude numbers. MEanwhile in Iraq the stuff comes up like beverly hilbillys. the infrastructre needs to be tweaked but by and large its already there. its the cheapest oil to extract in the world... literally around a dollar/barrell or less

    most importantly oil companies would have to pay out of pocket to estabilish an ANWR prescense - meanwhile the taxpayers are paying for the Iraqi adventure.

    why do YOU think energy lobbys gave/give millions of dollars to Bush's campaign? cause they like his marriage plan?

    [b]shakin[/b] its posts like yours which pretty much guaruntee a Bush victory in NOV should the dem candidate be Kerry. The man is incredibly liberal and does not inspire ANY confidence on the national security front. its a trainwreck waiting to happen.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I respect your right to your opinions and admire your passion Bit. Even though we spar, most people in this country don't even bother to be informed about current events....even educated people don't care...it's sad, really..

    I disagree, but hey, what can we do? ;)

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 11:55 AM
    [b] But again - that solves nothing. While it is useful to acknowledge that the budget was slashed and who did the slashing, I do not think improving our ME intel is ONLY a matter of funding. It could be structural.

    The bottom line is we thought X and reality turned out to be Y. This is part of the risk of dealing with intel since it is by definition about probabilities and not certainties. However, we need to get down to business and find out, in a micro and not macro level, why we and the rest of the world, could have gotten things so wrong. I think it is more than just a simple matter of $. Saying "We would have known for certain about WMD if Kerry didn't vote slash the budget is as specious and partisan as the "Bush Lied!" charge and in the end, neither style of "gotcha!" rhetoric is going to solve the actual problem of why we were wrong, it will only help either side to score political points.

    But I am FAR from an expert, I'm just a moron at a computer with a loud mouth! [/b][/quote]
    Point well taken.....However.....I feel it is VERY useful to shine the light on the people who slashed defense and intel funding.

    I believe it's far fetched to think that slashing the intel funding and our sudden inability to provide accurate intelligence information to our president[s] don't go hand in hand... maybe you're somewhat correct...maybe the problem is structural as opposed to lack of proper funding, who knows ?...but...we can both agree that slashing the funding certainly didn't help matters and that it's hypocritical of democrats to blame the president for intel mistakes on one hand, while they did everything in their power to ruin our intelligence gathering capabilities on the other.

    And when the country goes to vote on what may turn out to be the most important presidential vote in the nations history I hope they'll have ALL the facts at their disposal so they can make an informed choice.

    If the democrats are allowed to paint the picture that they're trying to by stating it was a severe miscalculation and mistake by President Bush that led to us erroneously going into Iraq and we don't stand up and tell our side then we'll be in serious trouble.

    I think the country deserves to hear both sides of the story, I think it's extremely important and relevant that the country realize exactly who has a record of trying to look out for our countries security and more importantly, who does not.

    I firmly believe the democrats will do whatever it takes to try to muddy up the facts when it comes to their blatent lack of regard for national security issues, they have to, they've got no choice, they realize that if they can get people to believe the problem is President Bush they've got a shot to actually win the general election.....but.....if people know the truth, if the people know that the republicans for the most part have been consistantly strong on national defense while the democrats were undermiming our security then they're sunk so they've got to continue blaming the president every chance they get whether he deserves the blame or not and we need to keep shining the light on the democrats { and Kerry's in particular } horrible record so the country doesn't make a terrible mistake by possibly voting a president out of office because they mistakenly believe he was to blame for our intelligence problems.

  14. #14
    so lets summarize:

    prior to the war:

    -our allies around the world question whether the Iraqi threat was real

    -the UN questions whether the Iraqi threat was real

    -Cheney and Powell go to arlington to badger the alphabet soup into giving intel they wanted

    -professionals within the CIA question whether war was smart or justified.

    -unofficially 1 in 3 miliary men express doubt on the logic for invasion of Iraq

    fast forward the war is a sham... the PFC Lynch made-for-TV rescue... Iraq is controlled by the US but we won't let them vote on a leader prior to GWB's re-election

    WMD stockpiles are a mirage

    meanwhile Halliburton and Bechtel make HUGE money overcharging the gov't and im sure the carlyle group investors are making a killing

    yet NOW its all the fault of FAULTY INTEL?

    cmon everyone knew Iraq wasn't a threat to this nation a year and a half ago.

    all of you who supported this war on basis of WMD... thats you [b]SHAKIN[/b], [b]Weeb[/b], [b]5ever[/b] and many others - cmon own up guys the war was forced upon the country...

    it wasn't too long ago anyone who questioned the war would be met with either:

    a) shutup you are a commie america hater.
    B) if we don't take them out there will be WMD deployed domestically

    you all bought into the atmosphere of paranoia and fear this admin loves to keep the citizens it...

    we can talk about how its a "front in the war on terror" or some other bULL**** but that's not why we went to war. We went to war for the WMD and you all know it.

    this is so freakin sad its ridiculous

    i love this country but jesus H christ the citizens here are ****in stupid. <_<

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bitonti - your characterizations are glaringly inaccurate and childish, especially regarding why I supported this war. Your lack of understanding of recent history is astounding and your arrogance limitless. What paranoia did I buy into? I supported removing Saddam by force long before Bush was even elected and certainly prior to 9-11 and have said so many, many times, including well before this war. I recognized the threat of terrorism long before YOU did (if you even acknowledge it now)...back in the late 80&#39;s and early 90&#39;s while you were probably smoking bowls in your car and listening to the Fugees. Do you even remember the 93 WTC attack?

    It&#39;s pointless to even debate you point by point because you are so over-the-top with your theories. I don&#39;t mean to insult you, but Weeb&#39;s running joke about the tin-foil hat applies to you.

    It scares me that you can not only be this ridiculous, but also be smug about it.

    If it gives you jollies to actually believe what you typed, go ahead and get them.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Middletown Md
    Posts
    673
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 01:24 PM
    [b] so lets summarize:

    prior to the war:

    -our allies around the world question whether the Iraqi threat was real

    -the UN questions whether the Iraqi threat was real

    -Cheney and Powell go to arlington to badger the alphabet soup into giving intel they wanted

    -professionals within the CIA question whether war was smart or justified.

    -unofficially 1 in 3 miliary men express doubt on the logic for invasion of Iraq

    fast forward the war is a sham... the PFC Lynch made-for-TV rescue... Iraq is controlled by the US but we won&#39;t let them vote on a leader prior to GWB&#39;s re-election

    WMD stockpiles are a mirage

    meanwhile Halliburton and Bechtel make HUGE money overcharging the gov&#39;t and im sure the carlyle group investors are making a killing

    yet NOW its all the fault of FAULTY INTEL?

    [/b][/quote]
    To answer your question IMHO..........YES.....absolutely it was the fault of faulty intel.

    Yes.....Some of our allies and the U.N did question whether or not Iraq was a real threat, they felt they and the weapons we all presumed they had could be contained and going to war was unnessessary because they&#39;d never actually use the WMD&#39;s they had amassed against anybody if they knew the world would come crashing down on them if they tried.

    But.....Everyone was in total agrement that they indeed possessed WMD&#39;s and I mean EVERYONE { France, Germany and Russia included } so if they really truly did not possess the WMD&#39;s.....then it is entirely the fault of faulty intel.

    As for the oil accusations.....I disagree totally.

  17. #17
    [b]5ever[/b] you are a pNAC supporter?

    terrorism will be wiped out by active conventional warfare- boots on the ground and meat for the grinder? :blink:

    at least those who bought into post 9-11 paranoia have an excuse... those who believe that active warfare will neutrilze terrorism haven&#39;t learned from the mistakes of history

    please do me the favor of pointing out ONE instance (JUST ONE) where conventional weapons (bombs/tanks/troops) stopped terrorism.

    it doesn&#39;t have to be from american history... anywhere in the world all i want is ONE INSTANCE where invading another country stopped terrorism.

    and im not talking about weapons used WITHIN the country. im talking about active invasion.

    do that and i promise to shut up about this war for an extended period of time.

    its all well and good to talk about 93 WTC and blah blah blah - my question is what does this war have to do with ANY of that?

    so where is it? all i want is one example where invading another nation stopped terrorism... especially suicide terrorism.

    the gauntlet has been thrown my friend

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,248
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 4 2004, 01:54 PM
    [b] [please do me the favor of pointing out ONE instance (JUST ONE) where conventional weapons (bombs/tanks/troops) stopped terrorism.
    [/b][/quote]
    Okay...

    PROVE to me that if I had left my house five minutes later this morning, I would not have been broadsided by a Hess truck at the intersection on Sunrise Highway.

    Just stop and think about how ridiculous your "gauntlet" is, bit. It&#39;s mind boggling. How can you claim that any act did not prevent another act, if the latter act never happened? What are you, Dr. Mxstyxlplyx?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    What mistakes of history are you referring to? What alternative strategy HAS "stopped" terrorism?

    You don&#39;t even know what the 93 WTC attack has to do with our present strategy in the war on terror? C&#39;mon...are you really that dim?

    You are simplifying a complex issue. Not only did we use conventional force in Iraq, but we are also attempting to provide a better culture there for Iraqis and Afganis. For someone who constantly harps about treating the cause and not the symptoms, why do you leave that part out of the equation

    What WILL &#39;stop&#39; terrorism, and provide examples from history about how that has been effective.....

    Your problem, and it is true of many on the left, is that you ONLY look inward when faced with the threat of terrorism...the way a battered women thinks that if she just doesn&#39;t get her husband mad he won&#39;t continue to abuse her. So you throw around words like &#39;Crusades&#39; or "isolationism" or meaningless phrases like "root causes, not symptoms" and think that the magic of their construction is a substitute for action.


    Terrorism exists today, so it has OBVIOUSLY never been &#39;stopped.&#39; You have asked a loaded question. The current US strategy is not going to "stop" terrorism and no one has ever suggested that it will. There is no way to stop terrorism, not even your vaunted "leave them alone" approach. We have sent billions of dollars in aid to Muslim countries and have intervened on their behalf many time. We have also tried staying out of their affairs. Nothing works.


    Why do YOU think terrorism against the West exists?

    It boggles my mind

  20. #20
    shakin all i want is precidence...

    if this war isn&#39;t about WMD its about terrorism

    well then i want to know when this approach has EVER worked before?

    the british empire was brought down by "terrorists" (our forefathers among them)

    the israelis have been fighting terrorism with conventional weapons since their inception where has it gotten them?

    russia fights terrorism in chechnia with troops, but the chechens can&#39;t seem to kill themselves fast enough

    my point is that if the game has changed and the war isn&#39;t about WMD, now its about terrorism... well i want to know how in hell does anyone expect suicidal terrorists to be stopped by the US Army

    its like trying to kill termites with a pocketknife

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us