Post #178,442
10/8/04 11:42:21 AM
|
Shessh.
Is your position really that Bush II and the retreads from Bush I he brought to Washington with him didn't have an already laid out plan for Iraq? Hell, Cheney even brought it up in the sleeper that was the VP debate in 2000.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant
|
Post #178,445
10/8/04 11:52:44 AM
|
I think they had a plan laid out
immediately after 9/11 based on the continued violations of the UN resolutions (and the world's beliefs re: wmd) and the state sponsorhip of the suicide bombers.
I think this plan was a more detailed version of plans that existed under Clinton based upon the US's continued insistance on "regime change" as a policy.
I don't think they tried to tie it to 9/11 (as the press insists)as much as they feel that this is indeed a continuation of the "wah on terra"...based on the intel that everyone had, based upon reports from [link|http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/|Russia], based upon information that now has proven false...but at the time everyone believed..including one John Kerry who supported the disarming of Saddam Hussein and the Presidents actions right up until the defeat of Howard Dean in the primaries.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,447
10/8/04 12:00:45 PM
|
Yawn. YAN "9/11 changed everything" rant. U can do better.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant
|
Post #178,450
10/8/04 12:12:24 PM
|
Not quite.
But it did create a supportive enviroment for pre-emption that Bush was more than happy to leverage.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,448
10/8/04 12:02:25 PM
|
So what do you make of the "pipelining" charges made?
I.E., the charges during the lead-up to war coming from within the CIA that intelligence that suggested Mr. Hussein was not hiding WMDs was being bypassed or overlooked?
I don't argue the point on Kerry, I do think he's the wrong man for the job, he's just less wrong for the job than Bush IMO. :)
All I want for my birthday is a new President!
|
Post #178,452
10/8/04 12:13:00 PM
|
That is indeed an issue
There were reports coming from Intel that landed on both sides. That would create a problematic environment if that were the only intel we were dealing with. Most of that that I remember were challenges to some of the more widely held "smoking guns"...such as the aluminum tubes and the "secret meeting" in eastern europe.
However, we still had the UK intel, the Russian intel, and years of active subtrefuge of UN agreements...which now appear as more likely the root cause being Saddam funneling cash in the billions into his own coffers...but definitely giving credence to our and our allies claims that he was hiding something. We assumed it was WMD. Well..you know what they say about those that assume.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,459
10/8/04 12:50:09 PM
|
I guess you haven't (re)read your PNAC recently, then...
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #178,473
10/8/04 2:08:20 PM
|
I know what those documents say.
And I know that Paul W had a hand in their creation.
But without the change in environment, nothing but the old "lob a cruise missile" policies would have had any support.
And the PNAC theory of esablishing democracy in region was country agnostic if I remember correctly...but they were very emphatic since their creation on regime change as a policy for Iraq.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,506
10/8/04 4:56:47 PM
|
Ohhhhhh.....
...so you do admit, then, that regime change in Iraq as a policy of this gubmint antedated 9/11.
Good start!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #178,515
10/8/04 5:49:55 PM
|
Um...when did I ever deny that?
Theres nothing for >me< to admit. I knew that to be the policy before this administration was elected.
I know it was a suggested policy of PNAC before it was Clinton's policy.
It should have been a policy starting in 91...it just took a while.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,517
10/8/04 6:09:35 PM
|
Well, you DID say...
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=178445|here:] I think they had a plan laid out immediately after 9/11 based on the continued violations of the UN resolutions (and the world's beliefs re: wmd) and the state sponsorhip of the suicide bombers.
One would read that to say that they didn't have a plan before 9/11, byt thay had one immediately after. See? jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #178,543
10/8/04 9:35:36 PM
|
What're you smoking?
Next line after the quote you pulled. I think this plan was a more detailed version of plans that existed under Clinton based upon the US's continued insistance on "regime change" as a policy. boggle If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,636
10/9/04 5:04:03 PM
|
This plan.
Your original implication was that "this plan" did not exist before 9/11. Your new implication is that it is a mere modification of a plan that existed during Clinton's term (link please, and I object to the modification inference). The conclusion of these is that this plan, the PNAC plan, was not a policy of Bush before 9/11. Thus the congratulations.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
|
Post #178,639
10/9/04 6:37:16 PM
|
Go back to the bong hits.
Here my implication is that your meds are wearing off..as opposed to your implication that I implied that our governments implied policy was not regime change at some point, even though I stated it directly, as opposed to your implication of my implication that I did not directly say it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,641
10/9/04 7:53:13 PM
|
It appears you are in need of them more than I.
You still haven't clarified the "this plan" portion of your spin. You know, the one where we bomb the fuck out of them. The implication that the plan to invade Iraq was a mere modification of a Clinton plan is right there in your post. Maybe it's just your subconscious working though and it wasn't intentional.
Naah.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
|
Post #178,643
10/9/04 7:59:38 PM
|
You doubt that?
You think we establish a position of regime change and >don't< have a military plan to remove him?
You >are< on drugs, aren't you?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,645
10/9/04 8:30:04 PM
|
Sorry.
"Regime Change" != "Invasion & occupation"
It was called "regime change" when this policy wasn't for mass consumption, too - that means that it isn't NECESSARILY a phrase meant to whitewash, to decieve.
I can well believe that we would have supported rebels within Iraq. I can believe that would have looked the other way if another 'acceptable' country had invaded as 'liberators'.
Invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern country was (from an oilman's/'energy policy' perspective) THIS administration's dream.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #178,647
10/9/04 8:37:29 PM
|
Not you too?
Hell we wargamed Canada once, ferchrissakes.
We had just invaded and liberated Kuwait 10 years prior.
You mean to tell me that you don't think the Pentagon had an invasion scenario in hand prior to Bush Jr taking office?
I did not say that the pre and post 9/11 plans were identical. I did say that the post 9/11 plans of this administration were modified versions of plans already in existance.
I also said that there was no support at implementing anything of the sort until after 9/11.
But if you are telling me we hadn't wargamed Iraq prior to Bush Jr, y'all are nuts.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,657
10/9/04 9:56:17 PM
|
*sigh*
Wargamed THIS scenario?
No. I doubt it. It might have been better planned, then.
But if you think this is largely a plan dreamed up in some other administration, OK.
I don't buy it.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #178,668
10/10/04 1:19:33 AM
|
Not the point
I'm not blaming this on Clinton, if thats what your getting at.
This administration definitely had eyes on Iraq unlike previous administrations...my point is that it wasn't as drastic a shift as many here seem to think it was in our policy...and that 9/11 gave it life that it could never have had otherwise.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,684
10/10/04 4:06:34 AM
|
'Life' as in... Frankenstein, perhaps - Mr. Apologist
An artificially-urgent rush via hyped minimal-intel.. not to judgment - but to an agenda; via the pointed ignoring of all surrounding competent sources of 'judgment' re military necessities and all which could be anticipated to follow even a successful penetration.
(We did get average Murican level of knowledge of the ME though: could any group intent upon such a fantasy - have been more ignorant of the warring clans and their history, such as to imagine the Welcoming of an Occupation Army? .. for more than about 3 days?)
Anyone who imagines the events since 3/03; the rampant looting, the firing of the only available force to maintain order (Iraqi Army) etc. etc. -- to have been just "a pattern of normal errors by able people" - surely has a naively channeled imagination.
I know. I Know.
WDYHNSM
Why Do You Hate Neoconmen So Much?
First - they confuse fantasy with human probabilities. It's their Nature.
Second - they lie, unabashedly because They Know Our Destiny\ufffd -->
Third - like all zealots, they lack (that.. often-salvaging) sense of humor.
Fatal, that last. Look at them speak, up-close: Rove, Wolfie, Rice-y, Perle, Cheney! Ashcroft!!
cha cha cha
|
Post #178,688
10/10/04 7:09:42 AM
|
No, Bill.
I find 'regime change' to 'invade and occupy' to be a drastic shift.
Moving from the support of removal of Saddam from office to taking Iraq by force - bearing the overwhelming cost in lives and dollars ourselves - IS drastic. It is not merely a continuation of policy, as the republicans have billed it.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #178,689
10/10/04 8:53:48 AM
|
Maybe so.
Drastic or not. I don't think the merry men in the Pentagon had to dig too deep in the files to unearth this "drastic new neocon plan" (if that choice of wording suits you better).
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,696
10/10/04 10:30:54 AM
|
Indeed. jb, you are NOT paying attention.
Haven't you learned anything over the past 12 years? Everything is Clinton's fault.
bcnu,
Mikem
"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant
|
Post #178,697
10/10/04 11:00:38 AM
|
Not everything
Just everything bad :-)
regards,
daemon
|
Post #178,698
10/10/04 11:23:50 AM
|
You're not reading.
[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=178668|Post #178668]
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #178,751
10/11/04 10:35:56 AM
|
Sorry, My bad!
Mebbe BeeP is Right...my meds are wearing off.
More Soma, please!
(Ooooops! Wrong prediction...)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
