Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PornoDoggy
Now hang on a minute, hoss ...
I know that you like to pretend to be non-partisan, but gimme a break here.
Some Democrats (and some Republicans, too) who originally supported the war are beginning to question it. Some have broken ranks entirely and called for withdrawal.
Not all Democrats have broken with the war. Not all Republicans are supporting it whole-heartedly.
If they believe that part of the reason for their initial support was that they were fed bad/manipulated intelligence, how does stating that now make them mindless twats?
Are you saying that the House/Senate Intelligence Agency failed to give them good independent information?
Oh, wait ... there is no House/Senate Intelligence Agency, is there?
|
When have I ever claimed to be non-partisan? There is a difference between partisan politics and objective reality. I have always admitted that my thinking favors the conservative side... ok.. i made a simple fucking mistake and could not think of correct name of the committee that that the CIA etc is accountable to. big fucking deal! Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Is that good enough for you? I watched all the testimony on CSPAN. They were presented with all the intelligence and they have access to almost ALL intelligence that the president does. Do you even know how your own government works? Do you think the CIA answers to no one? I watched them asking questions. I watched as much of the hearings as I could when they were presenting the case to go to war. Its all a matter of public record.
Everyone voted to authorize the use of force in dealing with Iraq. Everyone knew what it meant. Bush was very upfront about his agenda for regime change in Bagdad from the first days of his presidency. Everyone in the country supported it after 9/11 except Michael Moore and Sean Penn and the Dixy Chicks The evidence surrounding the idea that they were some sort of "immenent threat" was ALWAYS WEAK. Colin Powells presentation to the UN was even more pathetic.
My point is simply that no normal person could possibly say "you know, i was on the fence about the whole war thing... until Bush made a clear and solid case for it" - people had opinions before that. People wanted it. My personal belief is that Bush had little to nothing to do with anyones support of attacking Iraq. He was an idiot then. He is an idiot today.
Is it ok to be upset that Bush lied about or embellished the evidence? Of course. Is it ok to sit back and say "bush lied about the reasons to go to war so Bush is a war criminal and I was tricked into supporting the war" - uhm.... I think not.
I supported the idea of attacking Iraq. I do today. I am not saying I am right... or that there is a right and wrong on the issue. I have always believed that the world is much better off with these countries being put on notice. The last thing you will ever hear from me is "gee... i just didn't have an opinion until Bush gives it to me" and the most ironic thing is that is what Liberals and democrats are basically saying today... because its politically convenient and its a way for them to reconcile their own behavior and support of war.
Other than that... we are basically saying the same thing. I don't really even get your point.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/