Specter: Bush not sole 'decision-maker'...OUCH!!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.

Not to the point where the word of the enemy supercedes the advice of the intel agencies as has been the case with the Bush White House in their desperate effort to make the case for war against Iraq. Curveball and al-Libi just to name two prominent examples.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is actually a bit of a gray area. Once the President has the troops and the funding and the authorization, he gets to execute the will of the people without Congress looking over his shoulder. Congress doesn't get to say al-Anbar over Baghdad.

Congress holds the purse, though, and if the President needs more troops and money (or a war with Iran), he's gotta ask. This is where it gets tricky; once force is authorized, does Congress have to give the president whatever he wants and rubber stamp it? I don't see why; that's the point of a check. See this rhetoric for what it is; a power grab, and a way to demonize opposition to an unpopular war. Good for Spector for calling him on it.

(I don't think it's an election year ploy; Spector's been calling the administration on its bullshit pretty consistently. Plus, his seat is pretty secure. He's popular in Pa.)

Has anyone else noticed that this President is the one who did declare war on terror? And interestingly, if you try to tell Bush supporters that the war on terror is a fictitious war, they start foaming at the mouth. If it is a real war, the President certainly doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare it - so it is a fictitious war or if it isn't than the President has violated the Constitution.

So if it's ficticious, then there are no real enemies, no real battles, and no real victory or defeat?

Its fictitious in the sense that it is being used to encourage state of perpetual conflict with no clear goals - except those justified and based on racist assumptions about certain areas of the world.

Rhetoric masquerading as strategy is extremely Orwellian IMO.

Gary, or anyone here who believes the war on terror is a real war - I'm gonna call you out on it. State in concrete military terms how we go about fighting the war on terror and what is the clear cut military victory?

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

You just confirmed that it can't be a real war because there is no country or alliance to surrender....it's as nonsensical as declaring war on crime in your neighborhood. I suppose you could start to arm yourself - perhaps organize a neighborhood watch, but that isn't war and although you may be better prepared against crime, you'll never win because crime cannot be personafide. Yet, here we are - 2007 and we've got a yahoo in the White House that's declared a fictitious war (which again, he has no authority to declare war) and you nodding your head to this twisted logic, then frantically search for a way to personafy terror ...is it Muslim? Arab? Does it wear a turbin and live in the desert? Hmmm...

Real war or ficticious war, call it whatever you like. So what do you think we should do, nothing? Maybe you think we have no "real" enemies so there is nothing to fight, or maybe you would rather just give up?

Who is our enemy and how do you determine when they are our enemy? Who flew those planes into the WTC? Most of them were Saudi nationals, yes? Osam Bin Laden claimed responsability for the attack and where is he? Why haven't we captured him? All this tough talk about going after enemies and jack sh!t has been done about bringing those perpertrators to justice. Then those who back Bush and his tough talk have the audacity to attack those who dare to scrutinize his foreign policy as if scrutinizing the President is siding with the 'enemy'. Wow, what slight of hand this job has been...

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.

Not to the point where the word of the enemy supercedes the advice of the intel agencies as has been the case with the Bush White House in their desperate effort to make the case for war against Iraq. Curveball and al-Libi just to name two prominent examples.

that's because humint is considered more valuable. so what did you do again in the bundeswehr? intel work?

[Alex+R 0]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.

Not to the point where the word of the enemy supercedes the advice of the intel agencies as has been the case with the Bush White House in their desperate effort to make the case for war against Iraq. Curveball and al-Libi just to name two prominent examples.

that's because humint is considered more valuable. so what did you do again in the bundeswehr? intel work?

Charles, by constantly telling others that you know more than them since they don't work in intel, you are insinuating that you do work in intel. That you have special information. What intel organization has you working the night shift in Kansas, pray tell?

[garya505 2]

Who is our enemy and how do you determine when they are our enemy? Who flew those planes into the WTC? Most of them were Saudi nationals, yes? Osam Bin Laden claimed responsability for the attack and where is he? Why haven't we captured him? All this tough talk about going after enemies and jack sh!t has been done about bringing those perpertrators to justice. Then those who back Bush and his tough talk have the audacity to attack those who dare to scrutinize his foreign policy as if scrutinizing the President is siding with the 'enemy'. Wow, what slight of hand this job has been...

The 9/11 attackers were Saudis because Bin Laden choose them specifically for that reason. Whatever reports you choose to believe, many of the people in the organization(s) behind the attacks have been killed or captured. Bin Laden has been on the run ever since and his organization is probably ineffective, though there are plenty of like-minded organizations to take it's place. Maybe you would like to try to negotiate a truce with them after we elect a Democrat President in 08.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.

Not to the point where the word of the enemy supercedes the advice of the intel agencies as has been the case with the Bush White House in their desperate effort to make the case for war against Iraq. Curveball and al-Libi just to name two prominent examples.

that's because humint is considered more valuable. so what did you do again in the bundeswehr? intel work?

Interstingly, the Curveball intel came from Germany (not the military intelligence but the BND) and has been used by Bush et al sans the caveats that the German intel community issued with the report regarding the source.

Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure to serve in the Bundeswehr as I grew up on the dark side of the iron curtain.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.

Not to the point where the word of the enemy supercedes the advice of the intel agencies as has been the case with the Bush White House in their desperate effort to make the case for war against Iraq. Curveball and al-Libi just to name two prominent examples.

that's because humint is considered more valuable. so what did you do again in the bundeswehr? intel work?

Charles, by constantly telling others that you know more than them since they don't work in intel, you are insinuating that you do work in intel. That you have special information. What intel organization has you working the night shift in Kansas, pray tell?

you're the one who claims to know everything about the intel field, you tell us

Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure to serve in the Bundeswehr as I grew up on the dark side of the iron curtain.

ah, gotcha. probably best you were not in the east german army then. i've heard some real horror stories about it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure to serve in the Bundeswehr as I grew up on the dark side of the iron curtain.

ah, gotcha. probably best you were not in the east german army then. i've heard some real horror stories about it.

Actually, I was. There was really no way around it other than doing hard time in prison. Talk about horror stories...

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, by constantly telling others that you know more than them since they don't work in intel, you are insinuating that you do work in intel. That you have special information. What intel organization has you working the night shift in Kansas, pray tell?

you're the one who claims to know everything about the intel field, you tell us

Uh, huh? When did I do that? What are you on about now Chuckles?

Edited February 1, 2007 by Alex+R

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure to serve in the Bundeswehr as I grew up on the dark side of the iron curtain.

ah, gotcha. probably best you were not in the east german army then. i've heard some real horror stories about it.

Actually, I was. There was really no way around it other than doing hard time in prison. Talk about horror stories...

i do remember a road trip i once had to berlin. you could always tell when you crossed into the former east germany by the potholes

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

Charles, by constantly telling others that you know more than them since they don't work in intel, you are insinuating that you do work in intel. That you have special information. What intel organization has you working the night shift in Kansas, pray tell?

you're the one who claims to know everything about the intel field, you tell us

Uh, huh? When did I do that? What are you on about now Chuckles?

given your insistence on telling me what to think about the intel field, i'm certain that you know the ins and outs of the intel field. i'm also certain that given an unlimited amount of time for you to tell me what you know about any of it, you'd keep me occupied for less than 2 minutes tops. furthermore, it's apparent by your posts and inherent desire to be right about anything concerning a topic which you know nothing about. here's a cold hard fact to make your liberal thinking brain explode: what do you think i did in the military for 19 years?

now go play with your legos, kid.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We go one fighting the war on terror by killing those who have vowed to kill us. Since there is no single country or alliance to surrender, there can be no clear cut victory as you would apparently like to see it. When their forces have been decimated to the point where they can no longer attack effectivley, then we have acheived victory. You want some nice neat clean solution because you see the world in simple terms. It ain't gonna happen. What's your plan?

So you are essentially advocating war without end, a perpetual state of conflict with no clear victory conditions and no clear enemy other than what the government chooses to tell you. Good luck - you'll be wading in blood for years, and in the end things will be exactly the same as before, if not worse.

You've said several times that you understand the complexity of the world situation as it pertains to the war on terror. Why then are you defending a policy which essentially equates to "Running a bull through the China shop" of the middle-east, effectively ignoring the sectarian and religious differences that divide the different nations and factions within them? As I see it you're the one who wants the "nice, clean solution" - thinking that you can promote democracy at the point of a gun, and that fear will somehow stop terrorists from pursuing their ideological agenda. Its that ideology (several centuries worth BTW) that needs to be changed - and pervasive as it is, it cannot be changed with violence.

I don't expect you'll agree with me, or cast less scorn on this post than my previous ones on this topic. Its not only your argument that I disagree with - its the simplistic terms of reference used to address these issues that makes these discussions these topics tiresome and really quite futile.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

2) When President Bush was running around screaming Iraq HAS WMDs and all the faulty selective intel did congress get to hear the DIAs statements about the man known as Curveball or were they only fed the intel that President Bush wanted them to hear?

all intel used is selective.

Not to the point where the word of the enemy supercedes the advice of the intel agencies as has been the case with the Bush White House in their desperate effort to make the case for war against Iraq. Curveball and al-Libi just to name two prominent examples.

that's because humint is considered more valuable

Sure - but would you really justify a war on the testimony of a single guy, when that testimony is disputed by other (credible) people in the intelligence field?

I thought war was supposed to be the last resort... Surely if the intelligence was as crucial as was claimed (and as it has subsequently emerged) - then it doesn't seem to much of a stretch of the imagination to me that it should be verified as far as possible - certainly when many people were on record voicing their reservations?

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, by constantly telling others that you know more than them since they don't work in intel, you are insinuating that you do work in intel. That you have special information. What intel organization has you working the night shift in Kansas, pray tell?

you're the one who claims to know everything about the intel field, you tell us

Uh, huh? When did I do that? What are you on about now Chuckles?

given your insistence on telling me what to think about the intel field, i'm certain that you know the ins and outs of the intel field. i'm also certain that given an unlimited amount of time for you to tell me what you know about any of it, you'd keep me occupied for less than 2 minutes tops. furthermore, it's apparent by your posts and inherent desire to be right about anything concerning a topic which you know nothing about. here's a cold hard fact to make your liberal thinking brain explode: what do you think i did in the military for 19 years?

now go play with your legos, kid.

I'm pretty sure I've never posted anything about intel. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

BTW, you don't win an argument just by being old. That's not the way American culture would have it.

Oh...

PS I wouldn't call someone a kid who is only 3 years younger than your wife. Creepy, no?

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

Charles, by constantly telling others that you know more than them since they don't work in intel, you are insinuating that you do work in intel. That you have special information. What intel organization has you working the night shift in Kansas, pray tell?

you're the one who claims to know everything about the intel field, you tell us

Uh, huh? When did I do that? What are you on about now Chuckles?

given your insistence on telling me what to think about the intel field, i'm certain that you know the ins and outs of the intel field. i'm also certain that given an unlimited amount of time for you to tell me what you know about any of it, you'd keep me occupied for less than 2 minutes tops. furthermore, it's apparent by your posts and inherent desire to be right about anything concerning a topic which you know nothing about. here's a cold hard fact to make your liberal thinking brain explode: what do you think i did in the military for 19 years?

now go play with your legos, kid.

I'm pretty sure I've never posted anything about intel. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

BTW, you don't win an argument just by being old. That's not the way American culture would have it.

Oh...

PS I wouldn't call someone a kid who is only 3 years younger than your wife. Creepy, no?

you love to argue about the topic, alex. so don't get confused. nor can you win an arguement by talking about something you know nothing about, which apparently you've yet to learn.

also, nessa knows better than to argue with me about certain things, given my background. nor does she stalk me around vj and post about my #######........now that's creepy