Bush Planned to Attack Iraq before 9/11?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

That sort of looks like someone was saying GAME OVER.. we won.

Who was the someone that said game over?

Don't act so dumb.

The Bush apologists consistently redefine objectives and statements to fit what actually happened. Very Orwellian.

Redefining Bush's statements to mean something different is not that hard, of course, because they're mostly unintelligible to begin with.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Seems to me the war part was safer.

a stand up fight against a vastly inferior force (but numerically superior) will always be safer than a 'bug hunt' where the targets are harder to find and you have to restrain your significant advantage in firepower to avoid collateral damage that would undermine the core effort.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

That sort of looks like someone was saying GAME OVER.. we won.

Who was the someone that said game over?

Don't act so dumb.

The Bush apologists consistently redefine objectives and statements to fit what actually happened. Very Orwellian.

Redefining Bush's statements to mean something different is not that hard, of course, because they're mostly unintelligible to begin with.

And the Bush haters are so quick to criticize by reading all sorts of B.S. into everything he says. Much of what they say is simply a reflection on some of the most wacked out hate filled "Perspectives" I've ever seen. Talk about Orwellian.

"Because some pigs are more equal than others"

[AdD 1]

Quote

In any case, let me recommend a few more books that might give a more 'fair and balanced' (i.e. conservative) view. They occasionally leave out things on the other side (like our military support of Hussein in the 1980's) but I would assume such omissions are more acceptable. Overall they're pretty good

Quote

Again, I don't tend to buy books like that...and you really shouldn't assume what is acceptable reading material

Don't you guys have libraries in the states? I think everyone should find their way to one and read 9-11 and Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky. Even if you hate him you should still hear what he has to say. Took me off the war supporters list in about 3 hours of reading. How can it possibly harm anyone to read a hundred page book they borrow for free at the library?
Especially you gravitymaster! If you would read either and still tell me about how the lefties are full of unreasonable hatred for President Bush, I would be shocked. A lot of lefties spew gibberish because they read newsletters with vague accusations and namecalling, but Chomsky is an MIT prof, a genius in the field of linguistics and he has some rock solid arguements. I read it keenly because I thought I could pick them apart and blow my prof out of the water cuz his gibberish pissed me off, but frankly the books are too good to dismis. Read it if for no other reason than to come back here and throw it in our lefty Bush hating anti-american communist sympathizing faces , because as far as the left goes, Chomsky is the best of the best.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[billvon 3,111]

>why not bring them to the DZ the next time we're at the same place
>at the same time, and I'll borrow them from you?

OK, will try to do that.

>And why not include this book in it, as you seem to have already
>read it (you have read it, haven't you?)

No, which is why I don't have much of an opinion on it. I have opinions on the topic, but as I haven't read his book yet, I can't say as to whether it makes good points or not.

>When Clinton and the 105 Congress had already adopted a regime
> change attitude, one can reasonably expect that the Bush
> administration inherited plans to invade.

Agreed. Further, had Gore won the presidency, we would have been in Iraq _before_ March 2003 - he was one of the biggest hawks in the Clinton administration. The issue being debated in the Clinton administration was not whether it would be good to see Hussein gone (everyone agreed it would be) but what the best means of seeing that come about was. Options varied from containment to covert overthrow to overt support of opposition to invasion.

>I should think it's no more than a tempest in a tea pot, designed to
> ruffle the feathers of those who have a predetermined notion of
>Bush and his administration, cuase a media uproar, and create some
> issues.

What I find funny is that if Bush had simply been honest from the beginning, the book would not have made so much as a ripple in the media.

[billvon 3,111]

>And the Bush haters are so quick to criticize by reading all sorts
>of B.S. into everything he says.

Exactly. He speaks plainly, and those dang bush-haters misinterpret everything he says. For example, when he says "the next warning we could get could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" he meant a big thunderstorm; he certainly didn't mean to suggest that Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program. When he said "We found them. We found the banned weapons" in May he really meant "we didn't find them." Crazy liberals think "we found them" means "we found them."

And when he said "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that" he really meant "We're going to build a new regime in Iraq."

Good right-wingers, of course, know that there's no real truth; words change their meaning with time. If we find WMD's, it was a war to remove Hussein's vast stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If we don't, it was a war to liberate Iraq. Then when we capture Hussein, it becomes the war to get Hussein. That way there's always a victory!