Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:33 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: U.K. Parliament Snubs Obama Back to Topics
mudtoe

Champion Author
Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 10:52:25 AM

As I said in another thread, our allies no longer respect us and our enemies no longer fear us. For this we have B. Hussein Obama to thank.

Looks like Obama is going to have to take a play from the Bush playbook and take unilateral action, something he railed against constantly as a Senator and candidate, in order to save face because his "red line" has been thrown back in his face by Assad. I guess his pride is more important than his principles or the interests of the United States, because he wasn't willing to do that in other situations, but now because he's been made a personal laughing stock on the world stage by Assad's flaunting of his red line, he's willing to consider what was supposedly unthinkable before.

What an utter disaster this President is.


British lawmakers reject military action in Syria, in setback for Obama administration



mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/30/2013 10:55:24 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,354
Points:625,555
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 12:49:53 PM

Any body who thinks the U.S. has not been spying on the rest of the world for many decades is naieve,
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 9:54:18 AM

RN: "Nah, the world is leery of the united states because thanks to Mr. Snowden, the world has found out that the NSA has basically been spying on the globe for almost the past 10 years..."


ROFL!! Gotta make sure the # of years you picked goes back well before Obama, huh?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
kiatoindos
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:2,224
Points:402,275
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 8:09:48 AM

They sure take it from Bloomberg!!!!
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 6:39:11 AM

Sure it's an insult. But it's in response to YOUR insult.

Do you think that only conservatives are allowed to insult and liberals should just shut up and take it?

If you were honest, you'd see that anywhere I insulted a conservative, it was the conservative who insulted me first. I didn't even direct it to you personally although you did to me.It looks more to me like the one who wants to run to the teacher is therefore you.

The way you could have known that I wasn't just posting to "get a rise" would be if you'd paid a little more attention, you'd see that I was being agreeable with you and that I'd been using the name "Iraq" instead of "Iran". But I guess that would be too conscientious for a conservative to do. They'd rather shoot first and try to find out what was really going on later.

And please, I invite you to point out anywhere I've told a lie. (Other than pointing out the lies some conservatives have told.)

[Edited by: BabeTruth at 9/9/2013 6:42:05 AM EST]
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,862
Points:517,725
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Sep 9, 2013 6:31:24 AM

BabeTruth: "I thought it was odd seeing a conservative being honest for a change."

That's NOT an insult I suppose?
You're a real piece of work.
You like to dish it out but when its served up at you, you want to run to the teacher and say "That kid doesn't play nice"
Besides, how did I know you weren't posting just to get a rise out of conservatives?
Its not as if you have a solid record for truth. Despite what your handle is this time around in the GB forums.



[Edited by: theTower at 9/9/2013 6:34:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 8:46:07 PM

Nor apparently can conservatives help being insulting. Such childish behavior must be in their genes.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:51,546
Points:1,135,435
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 6:38:51 PM

"Very few people will follow someone that is uncertain of themselves, which is exactly the impression the world has on the United States right now. "


Nah, the world is leery of the united states because thanks to Mr. Snowden, the world has found out that the NSA has basically been spying on the globe for almost the past 10 years...
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,862
Points:517,725
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 6:34:49 PM

I suppose you're correct.
I shouldn't be insulting.
It's not as if you can help being what you are.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 4:49:13 PM

My mistake theTower. I thought you'd said "Iraq" when you'd actually said "Iran".

I thought it was odd seeing a conservative being honest for a change.

But then, just as usual for conservatives, you start to throw the insults instead of looking and actually READING what I'd said, which should have made it obvious that I thought you'd said Iraq.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,862
Points:517,725
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 3:39:48 PM


"As per what theTower pointed out, Obama is basically following the same scenario as Bush."

Where did I compare Syria to the Iraq invasion?
Just another attempt by a twisted liberal to put something in my posts.
I see where YOU said that's what I was doing and then agreed with something I didn't say.
Then you ran with it from there.
How pathetic.
I certainly don't have to support president peace prize if I choose not too.

[Edited by: theTower at 9/8/2013 3:43:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Happyherman
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:22,408
Points:1,577,045
Joined:Apr 2002
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 2:23:33 PM

So now it's a Bush versus Obama thing. My how this topic has flipped
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 2:17:38 PM

bt: "So if you supported Bush, then it's a double standard not to support Obama for doing the same thing."


The difference is that there were some viable alternatives to Hussein, and Iraq has large oil reserves. There are no good guys in Syria and there is no oil. We also had a game plan of what was going to happen when we finally went in, whereas here we have absolutely no goals or objectives. Lastly, we had a real Commander-In-Chief to lead us rather than, well, what we have now.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,258
Points:2,167,955
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 2:11:06 PM

BabeTruth: <<<"So if you supported Bush, then it's a double standard not to support Obama for doing the same thing.">>>

--OK, now I understand, your falsely assuming I don't support the same thing. The difference between Bush and Obama, is that Bush followed through with his warnings, Obama has not (so far). Obama made his statement of a hard line position on chemical WMDs during a campaign stop in August 2012. He stated this to give the impression of having a tight grip on foreign policy. So far he is demonstrating having a rather weak grip, he has allowed this situation to run away, and is now solely leading by reaction. Very few people will follow someone that is uncertain of themselves, which is exactly the impression the world has on the United States right now.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 2:00:13 PM

Simple EXExit.

You supported Bush when he invaded Iraq because of their use of chemical weapons, correct?

As per what theTower pointed out, Obama is basically following the same scenario as Bush.

So if you supported Bush, then it's a double standard not to support Obama for doing the same thing.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 1:57:03 PM

mudtoe "So they were angry at Bush and snubbed Obama to pay Bush back? Am I missing anything?"

Yes, because of ODS, you're missing it completely.

Because of the lies and misdirection of the intelligence community under the Bush administration, they don't trust what US tells them any more. So they don't want to have anything to do with starting another war unless they can verify everything themselves.

And they don't trust conservatives (Cameron) in general any more because they've found that cons are always too eager to go to war.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,258
Points:2,167,955
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 1:54:13 PM

BabeTruth: <<<"Same with you. If you supported Bush for attacking because of chemical weapons, then why the double standard if Obama wants to do the same thing?">>>

--What double standard? :::confused:::
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 1:45:18 PM

"If Obama attacks Syria anyway without congressional consent wouldn't that be the same as when Bush supposedly was going to attack Iran without consulting Congress?"

Yes, it is the same. And yet I'll bet you supported Bush's adventure in Iraq. So if it's the same, why are you not supporting Obama? Is it just because you're against him because he's a Democrat?

"Either we don't stand for chemical extermination, or we do. Either we do as we say, or don't. We are either a party to a convention or we are not. It's really that easy."

Same with you. If you supported Bush for attacking because of chemical weapons, then why the double standard if Obama wants to do the same thing?

Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,258
Points:2,167,955
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 8, 2013 1:07:50 PM

Norm: <<<"It says that talk is cheap">>>

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

Obama's red lines in the sand was all talk.
The assault on Bush when striking at Iraq when chemically exterminating Kurds was all talk.

Either we don't stand for chemical extermination, or we do. Either we do as we say, or don't. We are either a party to a convention or we are not. It's really that easy.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 11:46:02 PM

passer: "The UK did not "sub Obama", they snubbed Bush and this lapdog Tony Blair."


ROFL!! So they were angry at Bush and snubbed Obama to pay Bush back? Am I missing anything? By that logic I hope they were mad at Bush for a whole lot of other things too, and decide that now's the time for payback on those old debts as well. :) :)


mudtoe
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:51,546
Points:1,135,435
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 3:32:17 PM

"What does this tell you?"


It says that talk is cheap:

"The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.

The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.

As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not yet ratified the convention."


Either being a signatory to an international agreement means something or it doesn't...(this has been in force since 1997 and gee, Obama wasn't president then either)

Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,363
Points:2,333,270
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 1:37:10 PM

To continue, I'll give a few of examples:

I disagree with McCain on almost all issues, and he is way past his prime and losing his best, but he is and always has been among the most courageous. Jeff Sessions from Alabama is no less IMHO, than a coward (not to mention an intellectual lightweight) and the people of Alabama should be ashamed that he "represents" them. Maco Rubio from Fl. is another courageous Republican (from FL) and will be a formidable opponent for Democrats in the future, if the GOP can get rid of its "stupid" wing.

The UK did not "sub Obama", they snubbed Bush and this lapdog Tony Blair. And you don't need to be psychic to see that they were haunted by Bush and Blair's ghosts and finally got their vengeance on that pair and hopefully that fully exercised their demons.

That vote in Commons was nothing less than an Exorcism on their past demons!





[Edited by: Passer at 9/7/2013 1:42:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 1:03:32 PM

passer: "Many Republicans still don't understand the nature of Courage. Until they do, no matter the issue, they will remain losers."


Oh, sort of like Harry "This War is Lost" Reid? Is that the kind of Courage you are referring to?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,363
Points:2,333,270
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Sep 7, 2013 12:55:28 PM

"If he gets rebuked by the House on this his Presidency is effectively over."

Many Republicans still don't understand the nature of Courage. Until they do, no matter the issue, they will remain losers.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,258
Points:2,167,955
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 5:16:14 PM

Obama stated that the "redline" comment was the position of 98% of the world's population, not his personal view, but cannot put together any sort of coalition of the said "98%".

What does this tell you?

It tells me that Mudtoe might be right, Obama is spending political capital faster than the US blows through future taxpayers money (and that is pretty doggone fast!).
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 3:17:38 PM

RN: "LOL, wow, you guys are really out there with this...."


I don't think so. If he's rebuked like this, and doubly so if he's rebuked with any appreciable number of democrat vote against him, he becomes a lame duck immediately rather than after the 2014 elections. Some very important issues are going to come up in the next year, like the deficit issue and when Obamacare starts to take effect there is going to be a huge cry to do something about it. These things will happen before the 2014 elections. A damaged, lame duck Obama will be in no position to try to cajole votes out of Congressmen and Senators on these issues, and he will be in no position to campaign for candidates in 2014 or inspire people to vote for democrats in 2014.


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 9/6/2013 3:18:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:51,546
Points:1,135,435
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 3:10:19 PM

""If he gets rebuked by the House on this his Presidency is effectively over.""


LOL, wow, you guys are really out there with this....
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 2:59:25 PM

RN: "You just can't please some conservatives... "


Actually we are very pleased. Obama has done the Presidential equivalent of: READY! FIRE! AIM!, and what the bullet hit was his own foot (or maybe I should say his mouth). He's in a no win situation, and the best part about it is that he put himself there with his redline comment, thinking that he adroitly extricated himself from having to make a tough decision at the time. What's not to like if you are a conservative?

Like the CEO of the fortune 500 company I used to work for would tell us: "If your competitor is floundering around in the water, don't throw him a life raft, throw him a boat anchor."


mudtoe
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,862
Points:517,725
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 2:47:35 PM

"So if he "loses big on syria" you'd be happy...but then if he launches some missiles anyway, you'd still be complaining..."

Wouldn't you?
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,862
Points:517,725
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 2:44:33 PM

"If he gets rebuked by the House on this his Presidency is effectively over."

If Obama attacks Syria anyway without congressional consent wouldn't that be the same as when Bush supposedly was going to attack Iran without consulting Congress?
I seem to remember Joe Biden guaranteeing an impeachment of Bush if he did that.

Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:51,546
Points:1,135,435
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 2:26:11 PM

So if he "loses big on syria" you'd be happy...but then if he launches some missiles anyway, you'd still be complaining...

You just can't please some conservatives...
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 1:51:55 PM

EZ: "...Obama really does not want to do anything, but needs vindication for his "red line" comments during the re-election campaign,..."


He undoubtedly will play it that way if the House rebukes him, but I don't think that was his game plan from the start. His ego is too big for that. As I posted in another thread I have no doubt that under normal circumstances he wouldn't want to do anything; but his redline bluff was called and now his personal credibility is on the line; and because of that I believe he really does want to punish the person who insulted him on the world state.

If he gets rebuked by the House on this his Presidency is effectively over.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,258
Points:2,167,955
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 10:22:39 AM

Mudtoe: <<<"Obama could lose big on Syria in House">>>

--Yes, everything is going to plan, Obama really does not want to do anything, but needs vindication for his "red line" comments during the re-election campaign, so he is now in a position to state, "I was ready, willing, and able, but congressional republicans blocked my attempts". :)
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,218
Points:1,739,355
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 9:20:00 AM

Looks like the House is also on track to get it right.


Obama could lose big on Syria in House


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Grizdad
Champion Author Montana

Posts:7,711
Points:1,113,815
Joined:Oct 2010
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 8:32:53 AM

The Brits got it right!
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,247
Points:1,993,915
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 6:06:54 AM

He's a spineless wonder!
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,247
Points:1,993,915
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 6:06:13 AM

I would too!
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 5:49:34 AM

Ah yes, another conservative supporter of the "blame everything that ever happens on the liberal and never, ever let a conservative take responsibility for anything" mantra.

Read the link I posted Bell30012. It's from a European news agency so chances are they're a little bit closer to understanding the British than Fox is.

Not once does it blame Obama, but it makes it very clear that the vote was against Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister. Like here, the Brits are realizing that far right conservatism doesn't work and starting to move to the left. The vote in Parliament was accordingly against Cameron, not against Obama.

And yes, there's a good chance that even though Obama is into his second term, that it's the memory of Bush sucking them into a pointless war in which a lot of BRITISH soldiers died for no British gain that's making them leery of going back to the Middle East again. That worry can only come from Bush, since they haven't joined the US in an attack on anybody under Obama.

But carry on and shift the blame to liberalism / Obama / Democrats / whatever, because that's what conservatives would always rather do instead of looking at their own faults and trying to correct them. And then think it's all liberalism's fault that the country's turning more to the left. (After all, it could never be far right conservatism's fault, could it.)

[Edited by: BabeTruth at 9/6/2013 5:54:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 6, 2013 5:37:36 AM

Ah yes, the blame it on Bush strategy. Never mind that Barrack H Obama is into his second term. The UK Parliament snubbed the United States of America. Barrack H Obama happens to occupy the White House but that doesn't make him the leader of our country. No one, not even those on the left look at President Obama as a leader. Leaders bear responsibility. This President has done nothing but cast blame.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,363
Points:2,333,270
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 6:24:22 PM

What Parliament snubbed was George Bush and his puppet, Tony Blair.

This was the first real chance to show their Independence. No Democracy likes being a puppet. Even Bush can understand as he broke his strings from Cheney, albeit too late.

Bush was Cheney's lapdog and America (as well as Britain) got fleas.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 5:07:22 PM

EZExit "It spells out the OP's message right there! Obama asked for, and did not receive,British military support."

You're reading into the article something which it doesn't say.

When the articles says:

"..most Britons thinking (Cameron)"reckless" and support for his party falling."

"..59 percent of those asked thought (Cameron) had been reckless to organize last Thursday's vote on military action without knowing whether he had lawmakers' backing."

"..the opposition Labour party had increased its lead over Cameron's ruling Conservatives to 10 from four percentage points after the parliamentary defeat, setting back his hopes of being re-elected in 2015."

"Britain's lower house of parliament voted against Cameron's Syrian plans .. inflicting a shock defeat on him.."

"It had long been clear that most Britons .. did not agree with Cameron.."

"In Cameron's case, losing another vote on Syria could trigger a leadership challenge against him.."

It should be very clear to anybody who knows anything about how British Parliament works and who doesn't have ODS, that the vote was specifically against Cameron and not against Obama.

In fact, that it says "..fears that Cameron's defeat could damage Britain's 'special relationship' with the United States given that President Barack Obama had asked for and not got British military support." suggests the exact opposite, that the biggest worry in defeating Cameron (or the conservative mindset) is that it might upset relations with the US. IOW, the only thing stopping the vote against Cameron being even more of a defeat was that they did NOT want to go against Obama.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,258
Points:2,167,955
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 4:00:20 PM

From BabeTruth's link: <<<" Many politicians and commentators have also expressed fears that Cameron's defeat could damage Britain's 'special relationship' with the United States given that President Barack Obama had asked for and not got British military support.

However, another poll showed most Britons did not share that fear. The survey, by the BBC, showed that 72 percent of those asked did not think UK-U.S. ties would be harmed, and two thirds of respondents would not care if they were.">>>

--It spells out the OP's message right there! Obama asked for, and did not receive,British military support.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,463
Points:604,725
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 2:49:02 PM

UK's 'reckless' Cameron pays political price for Syria vote loss

This article from Reuters, which should be more in tune with what's going on in Britain than any US source, clearly lays the blame at Cameron's feet and that of his Conservative Party.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:15,597
Points:3,440,175
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 6:43:12 AM

good news
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,363
Points:2,333,270
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 1:45:20 AM

"Sorry Charlie, George W. has to take the blame for what HE did."

BabeTruth, you don't beat around the Bush do you? Keep telling it like it is and hitting it out of the park.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:29,960
Points:2,998,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 5, 2013 12:20:28 AM


Happyherman, "The British Parliament don't trust the information coming from the USA, based upon what they were given by Bush"

As demagogued by the left.

Now that bad reputation is attaching to the ones that created it in the first place.

Profile Pic
Happyherman
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:22,408
Points:1,577,045
Joined:Apr 2002
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 2:30:19 PM

Panama, your quote said it better than I could have ever said.

"they didn't want a repeat of the American intelligence mistakes of the past."

The British Parliament don't trust the information coming from the USA, based upon what they were given by Bush.


[Edited by: Happyherman at 9/4/2013 2:30:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
therder
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:3,008
Points:2,053,745
Joined:Feb 2007
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 11:50:31 AM

A lot of pundits are on TV saying that military action against Syria is necessary because the United States would look weak without doing it. So let's bomb Syria because we’re in the eighth grade. Military action, taken simply to save face, is not a wise use of force.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:51,546
Points:1,135,435
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2013 2:57:07 PM

"There is no proof that Bush cherry-picked intelligence reports."



Yes, there is.

"The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.

***

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate. "


Again, Bush lost the trust of allies because he knowingly misled them into the fiasco known as Iraq.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:29,960
Points:2,998,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2013 2:45:27 PM


RNorm, "LOL, they didn't call it "Obama's Recession" for nothing...."

Kind of like the "Bush Recession" that started under Clinton?

Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:29,960
Points:2,998,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 3, 2013 2:44:02 PM


RNorm, "When you cherry pick over intelligence to tell people only what you want to hear and believe, then that IS misrepresenting the WHOLE of the facts and soemthing that the person doing so (i..e, Bush) SHOULD be held responsible for"

There is no proof that Bush cherry-picked intelligence reports.

All intelligence reports are compilations of many smaller reports, many of which are contradictory. It was the best assessment of the intelligence services of all of our allies that the WMD were present, not just our own.

And there are indications that the Russians removed special weapons and critical components prior to the outbreak of the war - when we were fooling around at the U.N. trying to get another resolution similar to the other U.N. resolutions that Saddam consistently ignored.

Post a reply Back to Topics