TPS Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Interesting UPI article speculating on the direction Fitzgerald is going. You couldn't write a novel this good... Niger Docs forgery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I believe that the Italian documents were known to have been forgeries in 2003 and the press ran with the non-story for months until it died. This is news now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 I believe that the Italian documents were known to have been forgeries in 2003 and the press ran with the non-story for months until it died. This is news now? 485317[/snapback] did you read the article? Here's the nugget: "Nonetheless, the forged documents appeared, on the face of it, to shore up the case for war, and to discredit Wilson. The origin of the forgeries is therefore of real importance, and any link between the forgeries and Bush administration aides would be highly damaging and almost certainly criminal." Yes, I believe it was Elbaradei who said they were forgeries back in 2003; however, this article indicates the forgeries may have ties back to the White House. Do you think that's not news now either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 did you read the article? Here's the nugget: "Nonetheless, the forged documents appeared, on the face of it, to shore up the case for war, and to discredit Wilson. The origin of the forgeries is therefore of real importance, and any link between the forgeries and Bush administration aides would be highly damaging and almost certainly criminal." Yes, I believe it was Elbaradei who said they were forgeries back in 2003; however, this article indicates the forgeries may have ties back to the White House. Do you think that's not news now either? 485340[/snapback] And even back then there was talk about Mossad being involved with the forgeries and the common link between Mossad and the cabal in the White House & Pentagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Its' the Joos and their Joo gold, not the fake Joo gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 24, 2005 Author Share Posted October 24, 2005 And even back then there was talk about Mossad being involved with the forgeries and the common link between Mossad and the cabal in the White House & Pentagon. 485354[/snapback] whoa! YOU actually call it a "cabal in the White House& Pentagon"? Next we're going to hear about how you never believed the Neocons to begin with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 whoa! YOU actually call it a "cabal in the White House& Pentagon"? Next we're going to hear about how you never believed the Neocons to begin with... 485536[/snapback] Just saving you the trouble of finding those news scoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 Just saving you the trouble of finding those news scoops. 485576[/snapback] Seriously, you act like all of this is trivial; do you really think so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Seriously, you act like all of this is trivial; do you really think so? 485581[/snapback] Well, You're acting like a two year old with a new poopy in your diaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Well, You're acting like a two year old with a new poopy in your diaper. 485602[/snapback] Have some experience in that area, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Seriously, you act like all of this is trivial; do you really think so? 485581[/snapback] You'll have to elaborate on what you think I think is trivial. The interagency infighting of career beaurocrats & administration officials over the foreign policy of the country? The fun catfight at NYT? Or the need for administrations to spin foreign policy decisions that can be boiled down to 2.5 minute snippets for Dan Rathers to digest just in time for the microwave to ping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Have some experience in that area, do you? 485618[/snapback] A little. Also, when I see someone start about four or five threads about one political party in one day, I'd say they need some imodium for their keyboard, you? Three, sorry, seemed like five Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Its' the Joos and their Joo gold, not the fake Joo gold! 485434[/snapback] Man, was that a great episode or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 A little. Also, when I see someone start about four or five threads about one political party in one day, I'd say they need some imodium for their keyboard, you?Three, sorry, seemed like five 485621[/snapback] No, I think you were right...it was five (unless some were deleted)**. I was going to suggest that he just start combining all this new issues under one big "BUSH BAD!" thread. *** Edit: Sorry...it's seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 You'll have to elaborate on what you think I think is trivial. The interagency infighting of career beaurocrats & administration officials over the foreign policy of the country? The fun catfight at NYT? Or the need for administrations to spin foreign policy decisions that can be boiled down to 2.5 minute snippets for Dan Rathers to digest just in time for the microwave to ping? 485620[/snapback] The possibility that the top aides to the president and vice president may be indicted for the outing of a CIA officer; the cover up of that outing; the possibility that the vp may go down with them; the use and cooperation of a reporter for the nation's major newspaper to market the war; taking the nation to war on falsified/inflated information (possibly behind the creation of the Niger documents); and on, and on... Because you right-wingers have trusted and defended this administration to no end, it puts you in an a no-win situation: you either have to go down with the ship (acting like this is trivial), or admit you were wrong, which means that you bought the PR (lies) these schmucks peddled about Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Because you right-wingers have trusted and defended this administration to no end, it puts you in an a no-win situation: you either have to go down with the ship (acting like this is trivial), or admit you were wrong, which means that you bought the PR (lies) these schmucks peddled about Iraq. 485811[/snapback] Or could it be that I'm more upset that the case to go to war needs to be boiled down to a 2.5 minute segment on the local news, when the background of the action has been developing for the last 50 years, and that old realpolitik standards do not apply anymore. Or that 3 years of discussions on the real reason for the war are obviously lost on you because you go back to the "Bush Lied" credo. People think that Bush fell for the svengali influence of Wolfowitz, when Cheney & Wolfowitz have been fearing Saddam's influence in Mid East since the end of GWI, and have been less than quiet about it. Interesting that Congress Democrats are wrapping themselves in the "Bush Lied" cloak, when they gave him carte blanche to attack Iraq. Interesting how most of the anti-war talking heads aren't sying that we wouldn't have had to deal with Saddam eventually, it's that 2003 was the wrong time to go in. Interesting how no one is talking about the consequences of inaction, as Saddam was peddling influence in the UN to drop sanctions & potentially resume his fun & games without UN "oversight." Meanwhile, have a BBQ at the commemoration of the 2,000 serviceman being killed, because #378 certainly didn't deserve as much attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 Or could it be that I'm more upset that the case to go to war needs to be boiled down to a 2.5 minute segment on the local news, when the background of the action has been developing for the last 50 years, and that old realpolitik standards do not apply anymore. Or that 3 years of discussions on the real reason for the war are obviously lost on you because you go back to the "Bush Lied" credo. People think that Bush fell for the svengali influence of Wolfowitz, when Cheney & Wolfowitz have been fearing Saddam's influence in Mid East since the end of GWI, and have been less than quiet about it. Interesting that Congress Democrats are wrapping themselves in the "Bush Lied" cloak, when they gave him carte blanche to attack Iraq. Interesting how most of the anti-war talking heads aren't sying that we wouldn't have had to deal with Saddam eventually, it's that 2003 was the wrong time to go in. Interesting how no one is talking about the consequences of inaction, as Saddam was peddling influence in the UN to drop sanctions & potentially resume his fun & games without UN "oversight." Meanwhile, have a BBQ at the commemoration of the 2,000 serviceman being killed, because #378 certainly didn't deserve as much attention. 485988[/snapback] Your argument for the war is the neocons feared Saddam way back when. I'd say they were plotting how to pursue their interests way back when. As it turned out, Saddam was a minor threat. The UN inspections were working. Read the article on the link "selling the war." Your cabal wanted to overthrow Saddam for their own reasons, and over-stated his threat. They wouldn't listen to anyone else; it was their way or the highway. It was their bloviations in 1998 that got congress and Clinton to pass the "Iraq Liberation Act." Of course, you'll rely on the "experts" here who have argued over the past 3 years that everything we thought about Saddam was true. Is it not now obvious that Saddam was not a threat? Is it not now obvious, as Scowcroft said in his interview, that invading Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism and destabilized the ME? This cabal had a grand vision that if they took out Saddam they could revolutionize the ME, and get a few goodies for their buddies along the way (control of Iraq's oil and eliminate one of Israel's major threats). It ain't working. Yes, quite a few people fell for the svengali influence of this cabal, and now it's coming home to roost--the sane people who run/ran foreign policy want these idiots out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Or could it be that I'm more upset that the case to go to war needs to be boiled down to a 2.5 minute segment on the local news, when the background of the action has been developing for the last 50 years, and that old realpolitik standards do not apply anymore. Or that 3 years of discussions on the real reason for the war are obviously lost on you because you go back to the "Bush Lied" credo. It looks a lot like you're saying you are more concerned with a societal attention deficit disorder than you are a fabricated cassus belli. People think that Bush fell for the svengali influence of Wolfowitz, when Cheney & Wolfowitz have been fearing Saddam's influence in Mid East since the end of GWI, and have been less than quiet about it.As evidenced by his coordination of the 9/11 attacks? Or was it the WMDs? Interesting that Congress Democrats are wrapping themselves in the "Bush Lied" cloak, when they gave him carte blanche to attack Iraq. There are two ways to look at that. It could be that the GOP and Dems in Congress had planned on using the resolution to demonstrate strength in a diplomatic setting. The cynic in me just thinks that they were trying to win votes in the next election. You're not saying that only Dems are guilty of political double talk to get elected/re-elected, are you? I would love to get into shrub's flip-flops if you'd like... Interesting how most of the anti-war talking heads aren't sying that we wouldn't have had to deal with Saddam eventually, it's that 2003 was the wrong time to go in. Assuming that diplomacy and sanctions were ineffective (which they oftentimes are when US contractors subvert them), the concept we'd "have to deal with him eventually" was only used in the context of his non-existant WMD program. As there was no WMD program, it becomes moot. Interesting how no one is talking about the consequences of inaction, as Saddam was peddling influence in the UN to drop sanctions & potentially resume his fun & games without UN "oversight.""Peddling influence to potentially resume fun and games? Or perhaps the sanctions were based upon certain criteria, like WMDs, that he obviously was meeting. Meanwhile, have a BBQ at the commemoration of the 2,000 serviceman being killed, because #378 certainly didn't deserve as much attention. 485988[/snapback] That's a pretty !@#$ed up thing to say. Just because some of us oppose the war, or because some of us are able to admit that some of our nation's leaders and their policies are flat out wrong for the country (if they're not illegal), does not mean that we want our soldiers, our fellow citizens, to be killed. The world isn't black and white. Just because we oppose the war doesn't mean we hate America. I guess the right-wing's media rhetoric has convinced you otherwise. And that's just sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Or could it be that I'm more upset that the case to go to war needs to be boiled down to a 2.5 minute segment on the local news, when the background of the action has been developing for the last 50 years, and that old realpolitik standards do not apply anymore. Or that 3 years of discussions on the real reason for the war are obviously lost on you because you go back to the "Bush Lied" credo. People think that Bush fell for the svengali influence of Wolfowitz, when Cheney & Wolfowitz have been fearing Saddam's influence in Mid East since the end of GWI, and have been less than quiet about it. Interesting that Congress Democrats are wrapping themselves in the "Bush Lied" cloak, when they gave him carte blanche to attack Iraq. Interesting how most of the anti-war talking heads aren't sying that we wouldn't have had to deal with Saddam eventually, it's that 2003 was the wrong time to go in. Interesting how no one is talking about the consequences of inaction, as Saddam was peddling influence in the UN to drop sanctions & potentially resume his fun & games without UN "oversight." Meanwhile, have a BBQ at the commemoration of the 2,000 serviceman being killed, because #378 certainly didn't deserve as much attention. 485988[/snapback] ? I must have missed something since I can't actually find a post in this thread in which TPS actually referred to the number of US servicemen killed in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Seriously, you act like all of this is trivial; do you really think so? 485581[/snapback] The defense of this basically follows these steps. Step 1: It didn't happen. Step 2: It happened but we didn't do it. Step 3: It happened and we did it but its not a crime. Step 4: It happened, we did it, it's a crime but it's no big deal. Most defenders have moved past step 1 and 2 while the rest seem to alternate between steps 3 and 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts