the situations are very analogous, except for their scale
gosh a ruddies good job of taking out of context.HitsRus;1585021 wrote:ding ding ding...we have a winner!
good pointisadore;1585137 wrote:gosh a ruddies good job of taking out of context.
but above all we have proof of condi's ineptitude and duplicity
really I was unaware that bill had the blood of thousands of American service people on his hands, we can thank condi and crew for that.HitsRus;1585138 wrote:not anymore than anyone else....probably less than some including Bill who after attacks in '93 and 2000 did nothing to change methods to protect ourselves.
the greatest military power in the history of the world and the most sophisticated intelligence gathering establishment. now that is a rough situation to be inHitsRus;1585160 wrote:two attacks...did nothing to upgrade...look what Condi etal. had to work with.
reorganized and established by GWB and company in the wake of 9/11.the most sophisticated intelligence gathering establishment
so condi and crew could cherry pick through questionable sources to justify claim of WMD threat that was not there.HitsRus;1585330 wrote:reorganized and established by GWB and company in the wake of 9/11.
observing condi in actionHitsRus;1585473 wrote:'Cherry pick' ....you know all about that.
Gosh a ruddies you are dense. They did not go to war because of inaccurate intelligence report. They purposely used reports they knew were inaccurate to justify going to war in Iraq.. First Condi and crew ignored warnings about the threat of 9/11 attack. Their ineptitude lead to the death of 3000 Americans. Then they “cherry picked” through intelligence reports to justify their invasion of Iraq on false evidence. They did this saving the Taliban and Al Queada from destruction in Afghanistan by pulling away resources. And before we had any long range plan for the post invasion period in Iraq, causing the lose of life of thousands of Americans. That is so far beyond the scale of the successor administration as to defy comparison.HitsRus;1585849 wrote:You really are ignorant if you think that they went to war only because of what turned out to be an inaccurate intelligence report. More than that, you want to hold her responsible for not reacting to an intelligence report before 9/11...and then say she should have ignored the one in 2003.???? Same intelligence agency.... What's a national security advisor to do?
Moreover, you want to ignore even more egregrious examples of '"ineptitude" just because it happened on a 'smaller scale' Your duplicity is on display for all to see...and I have to admit, I'm enjoying pointing that out.
Serious question, what qualifies Dr. Carson as Commander-in-Chief?Belly35;1582497 wrote:i could support Condi Rice or Dr. Ben Carson
This I like, but Congress would fight him on everything.ernest_t_bass;1582648 wrote:Ron Paul
IMO, leaving Saddam in power would have actually kept Iran in check. I think Saddam's WMD were all smoke and mirrors to make him look powerful in the region, had he allowed weapons inspector in, Iran would have known how weak Saddam really was. Saddam was a bad guy, however, the entire middle east has plenty of bad guys that are now trying to take his place and Saddam was an enemy of many of our enemies i.e. Iran and Al Qaeda, etc.HitsRus;1583285 wrote:I have no doubt you feel that way.
Rice has on many occasions laid out the rationale for the war...the high suspicion of WMD being only a part of it. The decision to go to war was not made lightly, but was made within the context of 9/11 barely a year removed. No chances were to be taken with a man who was gaining strength, non compliant and in flagrant disregard with multiple U.N. resolutions. shooting at our aircraft, and uncooperative with inspectors for over a 12 year period dating all the way back into the Clinton administration. Of course, we all rue the deaths of American servicemen, but there is no way that we can know what the result of inaction would have been. The chances of Sadaam becoming a model citizen were really not too good.
No. That is a narrative told by Bush haters, that is a lie in itself. Very simply put, ask yourself the question of why they (Bush , Rice, and Powell) would tell such a bald faced lie if they knew there were no WMDs and they were going to be 'caught' and exposed.? Nor was there any evidence of a cover-up, no attempt to 'plant' evidence. Moreover, the actions of the parties themselves afterwards show that there was no purposeful deception. There was a mountain of intelligence, some that said he had WMD's and some that didn't, all within the context of pattern of Iraqi noncompliance and deception...so when they got the Niger yellow cake report, they THOUGHT they had the smoking gun.They purposely used reports they knew were inaccurate to justify going to war in Iraq.
That is a conclusion that may not be far off. There was alot of conflicting intelligence, some of which came from deep within Saadam's camp itself. It was, in hindsight, as if he was attempting to create that doubt.I think Saddam's WMD were all smoke and mirrors to make him look powerful in the region, had he allowed weapons inspector in, Iran would have known how weak Saddam really was.
Condi and gang when presented with “mountain of intelligence, purposely ignored all contradictory evidence and went forward with their all determined inept plan for war. They found what they wanted to find and ignored all else. Just as before 9/11 they had no interest in protecting us from terrorist so they ignored all the evidence of an attack coming. Condi and crew suffered from a willful blindness that cost several thousand American lives.HitsRus;1585925 wrote:No. That is a narrative told by Bush haters, that is a lie in itself. Very simply put, ask yourself the question of why they (Bush , Rice, and Powell) would tell such a bald faced lie if they knew there were no WMDs and they were going to be 'caught' and exposed.? Nor was there any evidence of a cover-up, no attempt to 'plant' evidence. Moreover, the actions of the parties themselves afterwards show that there was no purposeful deception. There was a mountain of intelligence, some that said he had WMD's and some that didn't, all within the context of pattern of Iraqi noncompliance and deception...so when they got the Niger yellow cake report, they THOUGHT they had the smoking gun.
Now let's look at how duplicious the stuff you keep posting is. ...
You want to hold Condi and Bush responsible for not acting/believing two random non specific intelligence reports on Al Qaida in the days before 9/11 activity ...and you also want to crucify them for acting /believing George Tenet, the director himself, who said the case for Saadam's WMDs was a "slam dunk"?
Your motives are pretty obvious, and truth is not one of them.
That is a conclusion that may not be far off. There was alot of conflicting intelligence, some of which came from deep within Saadam's camp itself. It was, in hindsight, as if he was attempting to create that doubt.
After the last 2 elections we have learned that lack of qualifications won't keep someone form the White House.dwccrew;1585890 wrote:Serious question, what qualifies Dr. Carson as Commander-in-Chief?....
gosh one guy and his advisers give usCon_Alma;1586040 wrote:After the last 2 elections we have learned that lack of qualifications won't keep someone form the White House.
This really does nothing to address my question nor is it relevant at all.Con_Alma;1586040 wrote:After the last 2 elections we have learned that lack of qualifications won't keep someone form the White House.
Article II section I of the US Constitution. At least 35yrs old and a natural born US citizen.dwccrew;1585890 wrote:Serious question, what qualifies Dr. Carson as Commander-in-Chief?