2nd Insider

[lakewinola]

Second inside source present at meetings, confirms the Bush war plan that began within weeks of entering office. This is very disturbing news for it lends more creed to the thought of Bush exaggerating WMD claims to go to war as a personal vandetta.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

[Spence]

Surprise, surprise.

[rskinsfan10]

Interesting....

[jporterweb]

So you are telling me that the administration doesn't have a plan for North Korea. Doesn't have a plan for hostile nations? I find it hard to believe that this is all about a vendetta. Give me a break. Any administration makes plans on how they would handle a hostile nation. Gotta love it when people add words between the lines that aren't there.

[lakewinola]

No, what I'm telling you is that yesterday the administration said that this was a lie, they said those discussions never happened, that O'Neil was just a disgruntled employee. Now a second administration source confirms the existence of these meetings. Which kind of makes them look bad because of the way they played it off yesterday.

And with N Korea, I highly doubt that Bush was making plans to invade the country within days of being elected. (even though they represent a far greater threat than saddam ever has)

Originally posted by jporterweb
So you are telling me that the administration doesn't have a plan for North Korea. Doesn't have a plan for hostile nations? I find it hard to believe that this is all about a vendetta. Give me a break. Any administration makes plans on how they would handle a hostile nation. Gotta love it when people add words between the lines that aren't there.

[jporterweb]

I didn't see such a denial. As a matter of fact I remember George W himself acknowledging meetings that were slightly similar but not twisted like Mr. O'Neill would like. Course I could be completly wrong, and I may have seen him say something else. But here's what Mr. Bush said.

"I appreciate former secretary O'Neill's service to our country," Bush said, rejecting O'Neill's description of the Iraq chronology. "In the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger or flyovers and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then all of a sudden September the 11th hit."

In other words they were shaping policy. And that was part of the policy. The denial was the form of which O'Neill said these things were run.

[NamVet4]

It's called "putting a spin on it" and both sides do it.....
~sigh ~ Pity....
And Truth is the victim.

[dukeuch]

Of course the administration was out for Hussein form the git go. Bush included a bunch of guys form his fathers administration who had been proponents of invading Iraq for years. 9/11 was just an excuse. It's clear they don't have any wepaons of mass destruciton, but even if they did, they never would have used them on us. They did not use them on us during desert storm nor this past srping. SO, when WOULD they have done it?

Hussein was a tyrant, but not a mad man. NO soveriegn nation would lauch an attack on the US which would virtually assure a response which would wipe the offending country off the map.

[Skinzaholic]

I blame Bill Clinton... somehow.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Of course the administration was out for Hussein form the git go. Bush included a bunch of guys form his fathers administration who had been proponents of invading Iraq for years. 9/11 was just an excuse. It's clear they don't have any wepaons of mass destruciton, but even if they did, they never would have used them on us. They did not use them on us during desert storm nor this past srping. SO, when WOULD they have done it?

Hussein was a tyrant, but not a mad man. NO soveriegn nation would lauch an attack on the US which would virtually assure a response which would wipe the offending country off the map.

Don't forget Clinton set into motion removing Hussein well before he left Office. Bush just finished what he started.

[Keino]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
I blame Bill Clinton... somehow.

LMAO

[DC_Cowboys]

Don't forget Clinton set into motion removing Hussein well before he left Office. Bush just finished what he started.

Hummm, There is perhaps another way to do it. Not every thing have to be done the Texan way.

[Spence]

Uh, yeah. Clinton's policy was to keep Saddam weak, weaponless, starved of funds, diplomatically isolated, and vulnerable to attack at any time. The policy worked. As we now know, Republican accusations that Clinton had allowed Saddam to rebuild his military was a political fantasy. Saddam Hussein was trapped inside a tight box with no hope of escape and the U.S. didn't have to invade and occupy Iraq, thereby leading to the death of thousands of people, alienating virtually the entire planet, and, last but not least, spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money that we don't have!

EVERYTHING the Bush admin said would happen with Iraq has been false. There are no WMD. The Iraqis did NOT welcome our invasion and occupation. A guerrilla war DID immediately spring up to resist the U.S. occupation. Iraq is NOT capable of paying for its own reconstructions--the U.S. taxpayer will have to pay for it.

Everything the Bush admin said about Iraq was wrong. People like me think it is a mixture of incompetence and dishonesty. Bush's defenders say there has been no dishonesty. I guess that just leaves incompetence.

Pretty shabby defense of Mr Bush, but what else can a loyal Republican do? The incompetence is obvious. Perhaps re-election will be easier [and that's the only thing that matters to the Bush White House] if the people think Mr Bush incompetent, but not dishonest.

[SkinsKY]

I started out supporting Bush (I did vote for him), but over the last six months or so I am becoming less satisfied with the job he is doing as President. That said, if I had to choose between Gore and Bush again, I would still make the same choice.

I do agree with Spence's point on Clinton's foreign policy. Clinton was mostly brilliant with his policy even though I despise the man himself. I think Bush made some assumptions about what the American public and global community would swallow and he overestimated. If evidence of this keeps arising, it should make for an interesting election year.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Spence
Uh, yeah. Clinton's policy was to keep Saddam weak, weaponless, starved of funds, diplomatically isolated, and vulnerable to attack at any time. The policy worked.

I'm sorry...exactly who was weak, weaponless and starved? Certainly not Saddam or any of his ilk

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Hussein was a tyrant, but not a mad man.

...tell that to the Kurds

[Keino]

You mean the same Kurds that Bush (The first one) pledged to assist and aid if they had an uprising......only to turn his back on them (If I remember correctly, from a GOLF COURSE) while Saddam plastered them with his bombs?

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Keino
You mean the same Kurds that Bush (The first one) pledged to assist and aid if they had an uprising......only to turn his back on them (If I remember correctly, from a GOLF COURSE) while Saddam plastered them with his bombs?

No! I mean the thousands of dead ones that Saddam gassed

[Skinzaholic]

AGG entering the Politics Ring???? Please be careful... you are needed around here!

[Rileskin]

Saddam wasn't a madman huh? If he's sane you could give me several billion gallons in oil and rest assured I'd be in balance. What kind of K-RAP is that? Hussein is still linked with terrorist factions and I'd personally like to see his own people execute him. You can't make chicken salad outta chicken ----, remember where we found the headcase, in a hole. Too bad we didn't fill his backside with lead and just bury him there.

[AGibbsGirl]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
AGG entering the Politics Ring???? Please be careful... you are needed around here!


I know Skinz...life in my hands and all that!
Keino and Spence intimidate me with the things they say sometimes.

But when people say stuff like Saddam wasn't a mad man and they blame Bush Jr for the problems of his father...

The thing that has me really irked is this: [Not to mention the fundamentalist Dispensationalist Christians who support the occupation because they hope it will lead to war--and from war to the Second Coming.]
Said by Spence in another thread.

It seems as if there is a double standard in here. Not OK to bash Gays or minorities (not that I think that way, but I'm trying to prove a point) but it is OK to attack religious beliefs?

I'm offended Spence. Don't attack what you clearly don't understand.

(Copied this to that thread as well)

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by AGibbsGirl
Keino and Spence intimidate me with the things they say sometimes.


Nothing to be intimidated about... some people are just better at making it sound like they know more then they actually know. Usually when confronted with someone who holds a different position they they do, they usually start contradicting themselves and/or repeating the same useless facts to attempt to support their position.

Spence and Keino are very classy guys... with misguided points of view on a few areas (in my opinion only, mind you).

So just share your opinion with the same conviction that they share theirs... and that's what makes this place so great!

[AGibbsGirl]

Don't get me wrong, Skinzaholic, I love Keino and Spence
...in the Cherokee forum...
but it seems as if some of this is starting to spill over. I think maybe you don't mind (or hadn't noticed) but I'm beginning to mind all the little shots to you about Bill Clinton...it's starting to show up in the other forums and those are supposed to be "safe" zones.

That's why I deceided to come in here and see what was going on.