A Prayer for Obama

[Roscoe]

Sigh....You're kidding right?......Tell me you're kidding.......

Roscoe

[Excaliber]

Well I wouldn't dismiss Sharrol Celbys comments as completely out of line. It's not like Bush was exactly forth coming on why we needed to attack in the first place. Colin Powell sure felt like an idiot as the truth of the matter became more clear. He too was "duped" into believing we HAD to attack NOW! He put his reputation on the line and ended up with his foot in his mouth.

As far as an additional attack. Was it prevented by the aggressive security measures taken by the Administration? Possibly, maybe, we'll never know for sure. Darth Vader Cheney is 100% convinced they stopped another attack. Just like he was 100% convinced we would find WMD's. I don't believe a word the guy says myself, his credibility is shot.

[Ron61]

This isn't really following the original post but it does have to do with more attacks on American soil. Over the weekend they had a TV show on called Day After Disaster in which they showed the scenarios that would play out if a terrorist managed to explode a 10 KT Nuclear bomb in Washington DC. And the cold facts are that between Russia and the United States there is enough unaccounted for enriched weapons grade uranium to make several bombs of that size. They could be assembled in place in any city and hauled to their detonation point in a delivery van. A gun type detonator is not that hard to make and they showed a lot of the means that the Govt. has taken to make sure we still have some type of Govt. if this happens. It started long ago, Regan really upped it to a workable solution, and Clinton finished the polishing of the system. These are highly trained teams of people including military that spend months in secret bunkers well out of Washington DC and in case of such thing happening, all succession and other standard measures are suspended and whichever team is in the bunkers takes control of the Govt., no matter if some of the normal succession people do survive. It was an interesting show I thought.

Ron

[Joe Wicked]

I saw the previews to that Ron, but I missed the show. As far as terrorist attacks, the FBI arrested a 19 year old Jordanian man just outside of Dallas who was attempting to blow up a sky scraper here in the last couple of weeks. He was not part of a cell, but was trying to prove his worthiness to join a cell by committing the act. He was only a day away from the planned attack when he was caught. They caught him using measures that were put into place after 9/11 by Bush, so he did prevent future attacks. That is not to say that any other president would have done the same or not, but the fact is Bush's decisions, prevented attacks.

Edit: I also wanted to say that Bush's decisions were not necessarily the best decisions, but at least on some levels they were effective.

[rollinggeorge]

Hind sight clearly shows that Congress was inept not to have allowed GB Sr. to finish the task at hand back in 93. Hussein, sore loser, lite the desert on fire after he retreated with all the goods he could carry from Kuwait.

Hell I would have thought even Al Gore preaching from his Global Warming Pulpit would have been upset with the fires. The world is a better place without Hussein and his sons....they encouraged suicide bombings and rewarded families of those retards with a pile of cash. .

It has been a heavy price to pay and could have been avoided if we finished the job in 93. Idiot legislators in Congress prove to be the enemy of logic and our Nation's well being. Look what we allowed to happen with Korea...This threat could have been avoided way back when.

My conclusion is lawmakers delight in chaos that requires further legislation giving them a false hope of job security....Has anyone heard of term limits?

Of course I may be wrong as the Good Book states in prophesy that the end will come and it probably is out of man's hands. The insanity we see daily supports this notion.

For What it's Worth...(Buffalo Springfield)....this retort has been therapeutic

[Roscoe]

First: There have been no terrorist attacks on our soil because we have been diligent. We've uncovered dozens of attempts. AQ cells are here. There have been, in the last couple of weeks three cells broken up. They planned to bomb federal and public buildings in Dallas, New York and Springfield, IL. These are just the recent ones. In the New York one, feds are still trying to locate the explosives.

As far as Iraq, there were several reasons for the invasion. Iraq was known to harbor AQ operatives. Training at Salmon Pak (look it up). Both the liberals and conservatives were claiming WMD's were in Iraq. It was not isolated to the Bush Administration (look it up.) Iraq was connected to the first World Trade Center bombing (look it up.) Iraq was given years prior to the invasion to remove and WMD's which could have wound up in Syria or elsewhere. Small amounts of nerve gas and botulinus were found in Iraq. Iraq was working on a nuclear program.

To begin with, it's important to put the war in context. We must remember that we have been trying to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Gulf War. Here's part of what David Frum had on that subject,

"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991."

So the idea that we should go after Saddam Hussein was nothing new. But after 9/11, removing Saddam Hussein suddenly became an essential part of the global strategy in the war on terrorism. Why so?

Well, after September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.

George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said,

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

[Excaliber]

While a strong case can be made for the 2nd Iraq invasion it is the methodology of how that case was made to the world that is troubling. The administration gets a huge "fail" on that aspect for bending if not outright lieing about "why" we had to do this. We live with the impact of that today in terms of more distrust of the Government than ever before and loss of respect on the world stage. And for good reason.

[Roscoe]

It was also Democrats like Hillary and Big AL who were calling for invasion and claiming WMD's. Our CIA also confirmed. I don't think we can point the finger at any one party. If the intelligence was wrong then it was wrong but it's not the only reason we went in.

Roscoe

[Dan40]

FACT: Saddam used WMD's[poison gas] against Iraq BEFORE the 1st Gulf war.

FACT: Saddam used WMD's [gas again] against Kurds [300,000plus dead] after the first Gulf war.

FACT: Saddam CLAIMED to have Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear, weapons BEFORE the second Gulf war.

So we have a rogue dictator that is completely Amoral. He claims to have the full arsenal of WMD's and we KNOW he HAS already used them against Iraqi's and Iranians.

Intel says he does have them,

Republicans say he DOES have them!

DEMOCRATS say he DOES have them.

BUSH DOES not declare war on Iraq,

CONGRESS authorizes war on Iraq with BOTH Dems and Repubs voting FOR the war!

It may be an "inconvenient truth" to Liberals and Democrats NOW. But that is the ACCURATE history.
And that history in the making was being viewed through the smoke and dust of 9/11. That smoke and dust makes for a very different view than self serving 20/20 hindsight viewed through today's political bullsh!t does!
IF Iraq was a mistake, it was made by BOTH parties in the HOUSE and SENATE, not by the White House.

[Excaliber]

...we have a rogue dictator that is completely Amoral.

We have a lot of those around the planet, we can't clean them all up and by itself is no reason to go to war, or invade, or what ever term you want to use for "going into" Iraq. Sniff, sniff, smells like war, sounds like war,,,

So everyone agreed he had WMD's, well not everyone, but a bunch of people did. Including Colin Powell, until he too discovered the so called "intel" was largely based on speculation, miss leading statements and downright lies.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone in, but I AM saying we were seriously miss lead as to the justification! Which causes me RIGHT NOW to question Gen. McChrsytal's assessement of Afghanistan. I'd like to believe, want to believe, but we've been burned before by these kinds of reports.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

We have a lot of those around the planet, we can't clean them all up and by itself is no reason to go to war, or invade, or what ever term you want to use for "going into" Iraq. Sniff, sniff, smells like war, sounds like war,,,

So everyone agreed he had WMD's, well not everyone, but a bunch of people did. Including Colin Powell, until he too discovered the so called "intel" was largely based on speculation, miss leading statements and downright lies.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone in, but I AM saying we were seriously miss lead as to the justification! Which causes me RIGHT NOW to question Gen. McChrsytal's assessement of Afghanistan. I'd like to believe, want to believe, but we've been burned before by these kinds of reports.

You pick out the least significant part of my recount of the actual history. The fact that Saddam was amoral is tiny. The KNOWN FACT that he ABSOLUTELY did have AND USED WMD's is important. It is known that he had C & B, the only question was Atomic. For all politicians alike, WHY would they think he did not have what he claimed to have. Remember in the EARLY 40's, in only a couple of years. We built Atomic bombs when there was no one and no where to search for existing technology, since there was none.
In Saddam's time that PROVED AND TESTED AND USED technology had been around for 50 years. And we know he had 'yellowcake, enough to build a few bombs.

I find it VERY hard to believe that Iran does NOT have a bomb. They know it can be done since it has been done for over 50 years now. They have scientists that they have sent off all over the world to get the best educations available. Pakistan could and did build a bomb. Why so hard to believe that Iran does not have one or that Saddam did not? Not finding it is not proof it didn't exist.

[Excaliber]

Here is the point, again, in bold so it is clear:

The administration LIED to the public and the WORLD about WHY we should invade Iraq.

Regardless of WHY, in hindsight now or then, regardless of whether it was or wasn't a good idea to invade Iraq. It doesn't alter the fact they lied, profoundly, to the world, with pictures and laser pointers. They snookered the whole dam country, Repubs and Demo's alike!

OK, so we let it go, that was then, this is now, let's move on. Not that easy, we still have to deal with the LEGACY they left behind. The wound's of miss trust continue to fester, the investigations are still under way. In time they will heal, but it hasn't happened yet.

Maybe Iran has a bomb, maybe not. I'm not ready to believe it because some administration says it and then determines we HAVE to invade NOW. Only to find out, oop's, dam, guess they didn't...

[Sharroll Celby]

I agree with Ernie's CORRECT assessment of the reason we went to war with Iraq.
Another reason that the war with Iraq was a bad idea from the get-go is that when we disabled Iraq, we strengthen Iran's capability by taking away Iran's largest foe in the area, Iraq.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Here is the point, again, in bold so it is clear:

The administration LIED to the public and the WORLD about WHY we should invade Iraq.

Regardless of WHY, in hindsight now or then, regardless of whether it was or wasn't a good idea to invade Iraq. It doesn't alter the fact they lied, profoundly, to the world, with pictures and laser pointers. They snookered the whole dam country, Repubs and Demo's alike!

OK, so we let it go, that was then, this is now, let's move on. Not that easy, we still have to deal with the LEGACY they left behind. The wound's of miss trust continue to fester, the investigations are still under way. In time they will heal, but it hasn't happened yet.

Maybe Iran has a bomb, maybe not. I'm not ready to believe it because some administration says it and then determines we HAVE to invade NOW. Only to find out, oop's, dam, guess they didn't...

So 5 or 10 or 15 COMPLETED investigations,with no negative findings, aren't enough? Does it take 40 or 50 or until one is done by pure liberal idealogs that finds wrongdoing? Then you can say, Finally a proper investigation. 100% biased but finally correct. Shades of the Minn. Senate count, recount, re-recount, ACORN fraud recount!
You plan is disgustingly obvious.

[Excaliber]

I have a plan? Is it sinister? Insidious? It sounds ominous...

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Here is the point, again, in bold so it is clear:

The administration LIED to the public and the WORLD about WHY we should invade Iraq.

Regardless of WHY, in hindsight now or then, regardless of whether it was or wasn't a good idea to invade Iraq. It doesn't alter the fact they lied, profoundly, to the world, with pictures and laser pointers. They snookered the whole dam country, Repubs and Demo's alike!

OK, so we let it go, that was then, this is now, let's move on. Not that easy, we still have to deal with the LEGACY they left behind. The wound's of miss trust continue to fester, the investigations are still under way. In time they will heal, but it hasn't happened yet.

Maybe Iran has a bomb, maybe not. I'm not ready to believe it because some administration says it and then determines we HAVE to invade NOW. Only to find out, oop's, dam, guess they didn't...

With all due respect...bullsh!t!

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Sharroll Celby

I agree with Ernie's CORRECT assessment of the reason we went to war with Iraq.
Another reason that the war with Iraq was a bad idea from the get-go is that when we disabled Iraq, we strengthen Iran's capability by taking away Iran's largest foe in the area, Iraq.

Again, bullsh!t!

Read some history, bro...after the so-called Muslim Bomb was developed in Pakistan, and offered up to anyone/everyone (including North Korea, BTW), Iran started developing their own "alternative energy source" to counter Iraq's use of gas and development of other "stuff." The "balance" you warmly embrace now would have most certainly led to faster development of WMD's by both countries...or did the Cold War teach you nuthin?

I will never understand anyone saying we should have left the despot in power in order to keep a balance. Same thoughts Kennedy (the old prick) had in thinking Hitler was a good stabilizing effect on Europe.

[Excaliber]

I'm going with Colin Powell on this one. HE felt like he was duped with the supposed "facts" he used to justify an invasion during his presentation to the world audience.

Again, I'm not saying we should not have gone in, I just don't like the way it was justified with questionable data. If a new administration lay's out an "air tight" case as to why we should invade Iran, I will be considerably more skeptical of their data. I think a LOT of people will as result of the legacy of Iraq.

[Jamo]

I have had a real problem with a guy (Powell) who is supposed to be a military genius and had to rely on and analyze intel during the first Gulf War and as part of his job saying he was "duped" in order to curry favor with everyone after he left office thinking he might be the next Eisenhower.

It bothers me that he is bending Obama's ear.

[Dan40]

Riiiight! Colin Powell, low level flunky that he was, would NEVER have access to the highest level Intel. Poor fella was just kept in the dark like all the other HIGHEST ranking flunkies were.

When you spend 8 years and the time since, calling Bush a DUMMY, how is it that you now assign him such brilliance that he and he alone was able to con all of the long list of Intel recipients? Is "Genius Dummy" a new oxymoron?

Mistakes were made, doesn't make them lies!
You want mistakes AND lies, listen to the obummer. And not knowing he is lying doesn't make him truthful.