President Bush Fires Back Against Critics

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>They don't read the intel when they do get it.

I agree. They still didn't have access to all the intelligence the president did.

Who has oversight on the intelligence agencies? Three guesses, the first two don't count.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>Who has oversight on the intelligence agencies?

Interesting question. Here's another good one - Did Clinton LIE about getting that blowjob?

Congress did not have access to the same intelligence that the president did, and saying that they did 102 times won't change that.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Please point out where the content of the article is incorrect. Please point out where the sources cited like the Washington Post are incorrect.

Oh, I see... you can't ...so you have to find something wrong with the website. Great debate tactic.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Bad news, he voted against his own resolution over the weekend.

I would have too. Getting out tomorrow would be a bad idea.

WTF? It was his own idea...out in six months. How often do you float an idea and then immediately say, "I don't like it, and I don't support it, but we should do *this*"...

Quote

>He was all about partisan politics, nothing more than another
>"Cindy Sheehan". He has done his constituency a grave disservice.

Perhaps, but he has done the troops a great service by bringing this issue to the forefront of political discourse. Perhaps now we will hear more than "we're turning the corner!" "Mission accomplished" "they're on the run" "they're in their last throes" when it comes to planning for the future of Iraq.

I'll firmly disagree with you there. A lot of senior enlisted and officers were talking about this this morning. There was a resounding reminder to the lower level folks that this debate served no one. If anything, Congress loses the respect of the military when we hear the rhetoric, see a put-up-vote, and see everyone do the opposite.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Who has oversight on the intelligence agencies?

Interesting question. Here's another good one - Did Clinton LIE about getting that blowjob?

Congress did not have access to the same intelligence that the president did, and saying that they did 102 times won't change that.

Well, you might want to let Senators Roberts and Rockefeller know, the Select Committee's jurisdiction is pretty comprehensive:

Quote

Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

>Do the people who jack off to this stuff realize how they're being
>played? Or am I totally missing something here?

Ever been to a football game, and watched fans get so worked up they get into fights over a football team?

Nope.

Sounds really sad, though. Really fucking depressing.

[billvon 3,118]

>It was his own idea...out in six months.

Right. And the house resolution was for an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. Immediate does not equal six months. The exact wording:

"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Nice try though. Sure does make him sound like a hypocrite if you leave out the details!

>If anything, Congress loses the respect of the military when we hear
>the rhetoric, see a put-up-vote, and see everyone do the opposite.

As that's not what's happening, I suspect it doesn't have the impact you claim.

BTW are you going to go after the Iraqi government now? From bloomberg.com:

---------------
Iraqi Leaders Urge a Timetable for Eventual Troop Withdrawal

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.

In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for ``the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces.'' No date was specified.
-----------------

The Iraqi government seems to support Murtha's desire for a withdrawal timetable.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Please point out where the content of the article is incorrect. Please point out where the sources cited like the Washington Post are incorrect.

Oh, I see... you can't ...so you have to find something wrong with the website. Great debate tactic.

I wasn't debating you, dude. My post was definitely tangential. Sorry for not making that clear.

EDIT: Whilst I understand that there's such a volume of material presented to Congress that it would be ludicrous for each word to be read personally by each legislator, it is absolutely deplorable for any legislator to not give personal attention to materials regarding an issue of this magnitude, in my opinion.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>They don't read the intel when they do get it.

I agree. They still didn't have access to all the intelligence the president did.

>Pointing this out 100 times won't change this mantra, apparently.

Nope, because it's not what I was talking about.

Also incorrect according to the Robb-Silberman Report:

Quote

The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not "Markedly Different" Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE. "It was not that the intelligence was markedly different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, p. 14)

The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence In "More Alarmist" And "Less Nuanced" Language. "As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community's biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long periods of time in the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, p. 14)

But it doesn't matter if it's said 103 times, apparently.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The Robb-Silberman Commission Reported That The Intelligence In The PDB Was Not "Markedly Different" Than The Intelligence Given To Congress In The NIE.

What the fuck does that have to do with the intelligence the president gets, which was what Bill was talking about??

[billvon 3,118]

>The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence . . .

So it did not contain the same intelligence, but rather similar intelligence; indeed, the PDB contained much less filtered language. Thanks for proving my point.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>The Robb-Silberman Commission Found The PDB To Contain Similar Intelligence . . .

So it did not contain the same intelligence, but rather similar intelligence; indeed, the PDB contained much less filtered language. Thanks for proving my point.

Great, now lets debate the definition of the word "is"

Pretty piss poor argument on the part of the Dems. On one hand they claim they didn't get the same intel while on the other, they didn't read it anyway. Good of you to defend them though.

[billvon 3,118]

>Great, now lets debate the definition of the word "is"

OK, so "the same" = "similar."

>Good of you to defend them though.

Well, hey, someone has to. The democrats and republicans have to work together, if for no other reason than to get a sane policy on Iraq troop withdrawal. Calling half the congress "piss poor" "pitiful" "hypocrites" does little other than cause that half to start calling names back. It's time to stop thinking up new ways to belittle one's opponents and start working with them.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>It was his own idea...out in six months.

Right. And the house resolution was for an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. Immediate does not equal six months. The exact wording:

"It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Nice try though. Sure does make him sound like a hypocrite if you leave out the details!

You don't know how long it takes to move an army do you?

Quote

>If anything, Congress loses the respect of the military when we hear
>the rhetoric, see a put-up-vote, and see everyone do the opposite.

As that's not what's happening, I suspect it doesn't have the impact you claim.

It did in my company, I heard my CO talking with a couple of platoon leaders and platoon sergeants, while I was organizing orders for our deployment, first hand.

Quote

BTW are you going to go after the Iraqi government now? From bloomberg.com:

---------------
Iraqi Leaders Urge a Timetable for Eventual Troop Withdrawal

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.

In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for ``the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces.'' No date was specified.
-----------------

The Iraqi government seems to support Murtha's desire for a withdrawal timetable.

Amre Moussa was the Egyptian Foreign Minister and is the Secretary General of the Arab League, not an Iraqi leader.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's delegation said:

Quote

"The Iraqi people look forward to the day when the foreign forces leave Iraq, when it's armed and security forces will be rebuilt and when they can enjoy peace and stability and get rid of terrorism,'' the leaders said in the statement.

Telabani also said he would meet with insurgents and former Ba'ath party members.

The whole Bloomberg article is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/economy/politics.html Nice try parsing the article though, and I give kudos to Bloomberg for a truly misleading news-headline.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,118]

>You don't know how long it takes to move an army do you?

Quite a long time. Which is why terminating a deployment immediately is a stupid idea.

>I heard my CO talking with a couple of platoon leaders and platoon
>sergeants, while I was organizing orders for our deployment, first
> hand.

Did they believe the same misinformation you were posting here?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>OK, so "the same" = "similar."

Funny, you've worked with engineers - "similar" has to = "completely and absolutely identical" or the analytical types get very frustrated.

Of course in politics, "similar" can mean whatever each particular politician wants it to mean. Instead of bantering about semantics, the point is are they similar enough to draw the same conclusions? And we will never know that because if one single word is different, then the world will be divided into whether it's substantially different from another version, based on politics, not content.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Did they believe the same misinformation you were posting here?

What misinformation is that? Since all of those in the conversation were combat veterans, I'd have to say their information is the real deal, not the rhetoric of a bunch of guys in DC doing the 180-degree spin.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Great, now lets debate the definition of the word "is"

Quote

OK, so "the same" = "similar."

The difference is, was it so different that they came to a different conclusion? I highly doubt it.


>Good of you to defend them though.

Quote

Well, hey, someone has to. The democrats and republicans have to work together, if for no other reason than to get a sane policy on Iraq troop withdrawal. Calling half the congress "piss poor" "pitiful" "hypocrites" does little other than cause that half to start calling names back. It's time to stop thinking up new ways to belittle one's opponents and start working with them.

I called their argument piss poor, and it is. How is that calling anyone a name?
I would also suggest that if the Dems truely want to start working with the President, they stop calling him a liar and some of the other disrespectful rhetoric.

• Quote

[matthewcline 0]

Max,

Although I commend you for speaking freely on behalf of your beliefs, please be careful on how you represent the climate of your command.

The recent classes you and I have taken do address this specifically.

Continue to debate freely with a bit of a wary eye to your next task.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

What would you have the President do..?

Don't tempt us like that!

...

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

[TheAnvil 0]

Senate leaders know how to get the WH's attention - the letter of which you speak was a political gimmick. If you've proof of there being no dissenting opinions within the Cabinet or any group of people, then by all means present it. By stating 'listen to people who disagree with him' what leftists really mean is do as people who disagree with him wish, i.e. GWB should do what he thinks is NOT best for the country. Not going to happen.

The only propaganda war I've really noticed has been that of the Dems against anything the president says or does - and their newest one of proclaiming that Bush intentionally misled the country to generate support for an invasion. Which one are you talking about, Bill?

Anyone trying to set a timetable for a US withdrawal with temporal milestones really needs to get a clue. Political conditions and facts of life seldom comport with such things. To even insinuate we are not supporting the current Iraqi government is ludicrous to the point of absurdity.

Not every member of Congress holds clearance to read the PDB nor should they. People who drink & drive young women off of bridges into creeks and cheat on Spanish exams in college really aren't trustworthy enough to hold such clearances - wouldn't you agree? Some don't hold clearances because they compromised information when they had clearances in the past. I don't want such a dirtbag having access to the PDB - do you? Despite that, given the FACT that the majority of congressmen/women who held sufficient clearance to read what was proferred did not even take the time to do so, why do you think that they would have read copies of the PDB were they rendered unto them on a daily basis? If they can't handle a trickle, what makes you think they're ready to drink from a firehose?

This Dem attack ploy is humorous yet sad.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,118]

>The only propaganda war I've really noticed has been that of the Dems
>against anything the president says or does.

Yes, that's one side of the 'war' as you put it. A war requires two sides. The president's attacks on democrats are quite easy to read with a simple Google search; these are the same attacks that GOPers lauded as "it's about time!"

Whenever these discussions turn down the tired old "the dems are losers for attacking; the GOP is showing backbone by attacking!" road, I am reminded of a friend's father who was a staunch republican. Had a signed picture of GWB over the dining room table. He used to watch the Tonight Show, and whenever Leno would make a joke about a democrat, he'd laugh and slap his knee. Whenever he'd make a joke about a republican, his face would get stony and he'd say something like "Hmmph. I guess he didn't read the XXX on what REALLY happened."

He'd be right at home here.

>Not every member of Congress holds clearance to read the PDB nor should they.

I am not claiming that every member of congress has clearance to read what the president read. I am merely claiming that they did NOT have all the intelligence that was available to the president, a point on which you seem to agree.

>People who drink & drive young women off of bridges into creeks and
> cheat on Spanish exams in college really aren't trustworthy enough to
>hold such clearances - wouldn't you agree?

Former cocaine addicts/drunk drivers who thinks god talks to them would seem to be more of a risk, but that's a different topic.

>If they can't handle a trickle, what makes you think they're ready to drink from a firehose?

A novel defense. "They didn't get the same information because they're too dumb/lazy to read it all." Ironic that would be used to defend Bush, one of the less intellectual of presidents.

[TheAnvil 0]

Oh, far from one-sided Bill - at least now. GWB stayed silent far too long, in fact. I'm glad he's firing back.

It's quite odd that you give credibility to those claiming the President misled the American people with regards to the war on Iraq whilst simultaneously admitting that those same people neither had access to all the same information the President had nor even availed themselves of the information they DID have. How can they be considered credible in their accusations when they did not even avail themselves - then or probably even now - of the intelligence that was/is available to them? It would be akin to going to a book club and telling the author of a book he was misleading the fellow book club members about the plot of his/her book without having read the book yourself.

The 'drink from the firehose' analogy isn't mine, though it is apropos in this case. It was also used when describing the endless requests of the democrats for Harriet Miers' writings. The Dems were screaming for more only a couple of days after only 20K pages or so were released. Humorous then - and now.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,148]

Let's be very clear about something here, Bush DID mislead the American people about the justification for the war.

The issue is not whether or not he did it, but whether he did it knowingly.

Given his record of misleading or lying on the deficit, social security, veterans benefits and the medicare prescription drug benefit, I see no reason to suppose he is trustworthy on anything at all.

...

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

[Channman 2]

>I see no reason to suppose he is trustworthy on anything at all.

I agree, Senator Reid can't be trusted for shit.