"jps" wrote in message
news

You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did?

Not a bloody chance.


Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news

You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did?

Not a bloody chance.


Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch

Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six
years ago.

Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who
were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good
idea Saddam was bluffing.

This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode.

You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you
were doing.

To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've
done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job
retention in our country.

Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership
took over from there.

Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth.

Congratulations again.

jps wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
news
You think Obama can screw it up as badly as Bush did?

Not a bloody chance.

Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch

Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six
years ago.

Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who
were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good
idea Saddam was bluffing.

This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode.

You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you
were doing.

To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've
done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job
retention in our country.

Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership
took over from there.

Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth.

Congratulations again.


It is important to note that whatever Clinton believed, he was smart
enough to not invade Iraq.

Bush had a hard-on for Saddam before he even presumed his office. He was
looking for excuses, no matter how tenuous, to invade Iraq and get
Saddam. So he, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a war of convenience, and
this country and Iraq paid and are paying the price for his hotheadedness.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various
intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush
would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch

Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six
years ago.

Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who
were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good
idea Saddam was bluffing.

This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode.

You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you
were doing.

To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've
done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job
retention in our country.

Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership
took over from there.

Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth.

Congratulations again.



Were you vacationing on Jupiter or something when this was happening?
You don't recall Saddam kicking the inspectors out?
You don't recall him letting them back in, but the Chief Inspector threw in
the towel due to restrictions imposed by Saddam?
You don't recall about 6 months of UN hearings and calling for Saddam to
come clean?

The left didn't catch on to anything. They have simply rewritten history
for convenience.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:33:27 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:
Reminds me of something.

Did you happen to read the summary of the FBI report that was just made
public.
This is very recent. Obama's FBI. Didn't make major headlines, of
course.

It reports the results of a major post mortem of the Iraq issue, from
beginning to end.
It focuses on Saddam's activities, his state of understanding, his
realization that Baghdad was lost and his hiding until captured.

It also recounts the pre-war mindset of Saddam and the various
intelligence
agencies (ours and other nations) information and beliefs at the time.
Simplified, the story was this:

Saddam promoted the perception that he indeed was in possession of weapons
of mass destruction.
He was not concerned about the UN or the USA. He didn't believe Bush
would
pull the trigger and invade.

His concern was Iran. He wanted to keep them at bay by perpetuating the
rumors and stories of his WMD stockpiles.

So, Saddam said he had WMDs.
The CIA believed he had WMDs.
The FBI believed he had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of other countries believed he had WMDs.
Clinton believed he had WMDs.
Kerry believed he had WMDs.
In fact, most of Congress believed he had WMDs and are on record as saying
so.
Why not? Saddam said he had WMDs.

But when Bush said Saddam had WMDs, he lied.

Eisboch
Congratulations Richard. Most on the left had this figured out six
years ago.

Everyone believed Saddam had weapons but there were a ton of folks who
were arguing to let the inspectors do their job and had a pretty good
idea Saddam was bluffing.

This **** really started to stink when Bush went into full-rush mode.

You probably didn't notice with all that flag waving and rah rah you
were doing.

To what end? We're ****ed for 3 trillion, everyone hates us and we've
done nothing to rebuild education, infrastructure or ensure job
retention in our country.

Osama bin Laden just had to tip the first domino and our leadership
took over from there.

Good thing it only took you six years to discover the truth.

Congratulations again.



Were you vacationing on Jupiter or something when this was happening?
You don't recall Saddam kicking the inspectors out?
You don't recall him letting them back in, but the Chief Inspector threw in
the towel due to restrictions imposed by Saddam?
You don't recall about 6 months of UN hearings and calling for Saddam to
come clean?

The left didn't catch on to anything. They have simply rewritten history
for convenience.

Eisboch




You don't recall a U.S. president named George W. Bush who was eager to
start a war of convenience?

"HK" wrote in message
news


You don't recall a U.S. president named George W. Bush who was eager to
start a war of convenience?

Nope.

I remember a U.S. president named George W. Bush who patiently utilized the
UN for over 6 months to call upon Saddam to come clean on his WMD's, to
allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq as agreed to and stipulated at
the conclusion of the first Gulf War, to stop firing at UN endorsed no fly
zone patrols, all while the CIA, FBI, and other national's intelligence
agencies reported the existence of WMDs and Saddam not protesting much.

Only after none were found and election time was on the horizon did the "He
lied to us" BS start.
If he lied to us, he also lied to and convinced people like Colon Powell,
who I don't think lowers his integrity to support a "lying" president.

Eisboch

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:35:58 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
news


You don't recall a U.S. president named George W. Bush who was eager to
start a war of convenience?

Nope.

I remember a U.S. president named George W. Bush who patiently utilized the
UN for over 6 months to call upon Saddam to come clean on his WMD's, to
allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq as agreed to and stipulated at
the conclusion of the first Gulf War, to stop firing at UN endorsed no fly
zone patrols, all while the CIA, FBI, and other national's intelligence
agencies reported the existence of WMDs and Saddam not protesting much.

Only after none were found and election time was on the horizon did the "He
lied to us" BS start.
If he lied to us, he also lied to and convinced people like Colon Powell,
who I don't think lowers his integrity to support a "lying" president.

He lied to us and he lied to Powell. To this day it's Powell's
biggest failure of his career and the event he most regrets.

Bush knew the intelligence was bull**** and used it anyway.

Petulant child running the country. The guy you voted for twice.

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:59:59 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:




Were you vacationing on Jupiter or something when this was happening?
You don't recall Saddam kicking the inspectors out?
You don't recall him letting them back in, but the Chief Inspector threw in
the towel due to restrictions imposed by Saddam?
You don't recall about 6 months of UN hearings and calling for Saddam to
come clean?

Being a news junkie of sorts here's part of what I remember.
I've seen it is often forgotten, or maybe not even noticed.
The Congressional vote to give GWB war powers was touted
as a cudgel to get the UN to pass a further resolution.
That worked.
As the U.S. military built up and the engine was warming up,
I saw a live CNN report from Iraq where Hans Blitz, the chief UN
arms inspector, was asked some questions.
This was about 2 weeks out from the invasion.
It only lasted a couple minutes.
He said he could go anywhere now with his choppers, even Saddams
presidential palaces, to look for WMD.
He was asked why he wasn't inspecting the sites that Colin Powell
had marked at the UN on big maps.
He said,
"Because General Powell won't give me the locations."
He was very frustrated.
A few months into the war our guys examined a location that Powell
has pointed his pointer at and told the UN, "This is a WMD production
and transportation point."
Now a news crew was showing that site. It was a field that contained
a bunch of abandoned old semi-trailers, rusty and with flat tires.
So much for me ever believing a word Colin Powell ever spoke again.
The biggests element of us going into Iraq was the closeness of 9/11
and trust in GWB to do the right thing.
The leaders, both political and in the press, fell down in their duty
to raise questions.
Too many people not thinking.
I was against going in until Blitz had his chance, but I happened to
see that interview with him.
If that had been more widely broadcast, the story may have been
different.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:59:59 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:




Were you vacationing on Jupiter or something when this was happening?
You don't recall Saddam kicking the inspectors out?
You don't recall him letting them back in, but the Chief Inspector threw
in
the towel due to restrictions imposed by Saddam?
You don't recall about 6 months of UN hearings and calling for Saddam to
come clean?

Being a news junkie of sorts here's part of what I remember.
I've seen it is often forgotten, or maybe not even noticed.
The Congressional vote to give GWB war powers was touted
as a cudgel to get the UN to pass a further resolution.
That worked.
As the U.S. military built up and the engine was warming up,
I saw a live CNN report from Iraq where Hans Blitz, the chief UN
arms inspector, was asked some questions.
This was about 2 weeks out from the invasion.
It only lasted a couple minutes.
He said he could go anywhere now with his choppers, even Saddams
presidential palaces, to look for WMD.
He was asked why he wasn't inspecting the sites that Colin Powell
had marked at the UN on big maps.
He said,
"Because General Powell won't give me the locations."
He was very frustrated.
A few months into the war our guys examined a location that Powell
has pointed his pointer at and told the UN, "This is a WMD production
and transportation point."
Now a news crew was showing that site. It was a field that contained
a bunch of abandoned old semi-trailers, rusty and with flat tires.
So much for me ever believing a word Colin Powell ever spoke again.
The biggests element of us going into Iraq was the closeness of 9/11
and trust in GWB to do the right thing.
The leaders, both political and in the press, fell down in their duty
to raise questions.
Too many people not thinking.
I was against going in until Blitz had his chance, but I happened to
see that interview with him.
If that had been more widely broadcast, the story may have been
different.

--Vic

Blitz changed his tune as the world's mood changed.
People forget that at one time he was expressing the loudest complaints of
Saddam's restrictions imposed on his inspection teams. In fact, shortly
before the war started, he threw in the towel and announced they could not
do their job. I don't recall the finger of blame being pointed at Powell.
I recall it being pointed at Saddam.

When the "Bush lied to us" routine started, that's when Blitz suddenly
joined the bandwagon.

Eisboch

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:40:52 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:



Blitz changed his tune as the world's mood changed.
People forget that at one time he was expressing the loudest complaints of
Saddam's restrictions imposed on his inspection teams. In fact, shortly
before the war started, he threw in the towel and announced they could not
do their job. I don't recall the finger of blame being pointed at Powell.
I recall it being pointed at Saddam.

When the "Bush lied to us" routine started, that's when Blitz suddenly
joined the bandwagon.


We are entitled to our flawed memories, then there are recorded facts.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../09/le.00.html

--Vic