Richard Clarks Praises Bush (transcript)

[Amazon 7]

Its a non-sequitur.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I will need you to go to Iraq and bring back a personal report for us.

That was not part of your original argument....You claimed he could not dare ask you since he had not served...I DID serve, so I asked.

What is your excuse NOW?

Quote

I believe you support this war in IRaq

Incorrect, I supported the invasion based on the data that I had at the time...You know, kinda like HRC and most of Congress did as well.

I think that you cannot force a people to be democratic at the barrel of a gun and they have a provisional govt in place so we should hand it over to them.

But I digress....You made a claim that he could not ask since he had not served...I did, so I asked. Now you back peddle even more?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

It all depends on what you mean by "bad"

Your attempt at being obtuse does not suit you. The definition that is being discussed is less violence now than a few years ago.

And the worst part is you KNOW that, but like always you tap dance around the subject.

Care to answer the question that has been asked? Or will you tap dance and BS some more?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Incorrect, I supported the invasion based on the data that I had at the time...You know, kinda like HRC and most of Congress did as well.

I've linked the story on these boards before, but the CIA debunked that proof before 9/11. It was also debunked by an Italian reporter at the same time as that was the original source of the proof. I think 60 Minutes covered the story a couple years back but no one could answer why fictional data was passed on to the White House as fact. The only thing close to proof that they ignored those reports are what Gen Clark claims in his book (that previous to 9/11 war with Iraq was already being planned for). At that point you have to put on your tinfoil hat and start making accusations.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Ron 7]

Quote

I've linked the story on these boards before, but the CIA debunked that proof before 9/11.

And yet most of Congress voted to allow the use of force.

Quote

I think 60 Minutes covered the story a couple years back but no one could answer why fictional data was passed on to the White House as fact.

And if that is the case than it is not Bush's fault either.

The point of THIS line of discussion is that Amazons claim that I still support being there is not true. Several people supported the invasion based on what they knew at the time (To include HRC, Bush and most of Congress and me). Several of those think that it is time to withdraw based on several other factors.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,406]

>And yet most of Congress voted to allow the use of force.

Correct. They made the best decision they could at the time with the information they had.

In a recent thread, a woman (falsely) cried "rape!" after being caught with her lover. Her husband then shot dead an innocent man based on what the woman had said. He got off scot-free; she was indicted. Even though he was the one who had decided to use force, and his decision resulted in the death of an innocent man, she was the one guilty of the crime - because she misled him into taking that action.

Most of the conservatives here on this board supported that decision. Yet at the same time they condemn those who decided to use force after being misled into taking that action. Interesting.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Most of the conservatives here on this board supported that decision. Yet at the same time they condemn those who decided to use force after being misled into taking that action. Interesting.

No, you just want to read it that way since it would make it fit into your view of those people.

I see very few conservatives on here that condemn anyone that decided to use force.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

It all depends on what you mean by "bad"

Your attempt at being obtuse does not suit you. The definition that is being discussed is less violence now than a few years ago.

See my previous reply.

There are more bereaved families now than there were in 2004, thanks to Bush's unnecessary rush into a war based on false premises.

So in that respect things are worse now than they were in 2004, and continue to get worse, but they are not getting worse as rapidly as they were in 2004.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

See my previous reply.

Your previous dodge you mean.

Quote

So in that respect things are worse now than they were in 2004, and continue to get worse, but they are not getting worse as rapidly as they were in 2004.

So by wading through your normal BS, we see that you do in fact admit things are better now than in 2004.

It is such a shame that it requires so much BS and tap dancing to get you to answer a simple question.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

See my previous reply.

Your previous dodge you mean.

Quote

So in that respect things are worse now than they were in 2004, and continue to get worse, but they are not getting worse as rapidly as they were in 2004.

So by wading through your normal BS, we see that you do in fact admit things are better now than in 2004.

It is such a shame that it requires so much BS and tap dancing to get you to answer a simple question.

Apparently you fail to recognize the difference between a function and its derivative.

It gets worse every day, thanks to Bush. The rate at which it gets worse is lower now than it was in 2004.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

See my previous reply.

Your previous dodge you mean.

Quote

So in that respect things are worse now than they were in 2004, and continue to get worse, but they are not getting worse as rapidly as they were in 2004.

So by wading through your normal BS, we see that you do in fact admit things are better now than in 2004.

It is such a shame that it requires so much BS and tap dancing to get you to answer a simple question.

Apparently you fail to recognize the difference between a function and its derivative.

It gets worse every day, thanks to Bush. The rate at which it gets worse is lower now than it was in 2004.

Ha! Thanks to Bush, muslim extremists kill people? Do you think the country was getting better under Saddam? Your only measure of success seems to be the cumulative number of deaths. The number of deaths in the world, cumulatively, will always be worse.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Apparently you fail to recognize the difference between a function and its derivative.

No. I understand the difference. The biggest thing I see is how you cannot answer a simple question for fear of looking foolish. Instead, you tap dance and backpeddle till just watching you gets people winded.

Quote

The rate at which it gets worse is lower now than it was in 2004.

See, more tap dancing...You really should try out for dancing with the stars.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Apparently you fail to recognize the difference between a function and its derivative.

No. I understand the difference. The biggest thing I see is how you cannot answer a simple question for fear of looking foolish. Instead, you tap dance and backpeddle till just watching you gets people winded.

Quote

The rate at which it gets worse is lower now than it was in 2004.

See, more tap dancing...You really should try out for dancing with the stars.

At the end of 2004 there were 1335 US fatalities in Iraq.

At the end of 2008 there are 4207 US fatalities in Iraq.

You think 4207 US dead is better than 1335 US dead. I don't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

See my previous reply.

Your previous dodge you mean.

Quote

So in that respect things are worse now than they were in 2004, and continue to get worse, but they are not getting worse as rapidly as they were in 2004.

So by wading through your normal BS, we see that you do in fact admit things are better now than in 2004.

It is such a shame that it requires so much BS and tap dancing to get you to answer a simple question.

Apparently you fail to recognize the difference between a function and its derivative.

It gets worse every day, thanks to Bush. The rate at which it gets worse is lower now than it was in 2004.

Ha! Thanks to Bush, muslim extremists kill people?

A very good case can be made that Bush's policies have encouraged Islamist extremists.

Quote

Do you think the country was getting better under Saddam?

Nope, but fixing Saddam was not our business.

Quote

Your only measure of success seems to be the cumulative number of deaths. The number of deaths in the world, cumulatively, will always be worse.

We are discussing avoidable deaths directly attributable to Bush's war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Do you think the country was getting better under Saddam?

Nope, but fixing Saddam was not our business.

Yeah, fuck em. We'll just turn a blind eye, I guess. History has proven isolationism and appeasement work, right? Let's do that again.

Quote

We are discussing avoidable deaths directly attributable to Bush's war.

Your only measure of success contiues to be cumulative death numbers, which will always, in any case, be worse than the previous day. There are more people dead today because of AIDS than there were in 2004. Do you think no progress has been made? We lost roughly 250,000 military members in WWII. How do you classify our success in that war?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think the country was getting better under Saddam?

Nope, but fixing Saddam was not our business.

Yeah, fuck em. We'll just turn a blind eye, I guess. History has proven isolationism and appeasement work, right? Let's do that again.

You mean much like the GW administration has done in other parts of the world that do not have oil within their borders. Why are the same counter arguments that have been rolled over 1000x on these boards over the last 4 years all coming out again over the last few weeks?

I'm hard pressed to come up with a list of positives that helped this country that are directly related to GW. The last time I checked he still had the all time lowest approval rating of any President which means the majority of the country backs this up as well. Those defending Bush are on the fringe and choose to wear blinders or are still clinging onto their military contracts that force them to not speak ill of the POTUS. I will say that outside of this forum or most any internet forum I've yet to find a vocal GW supporter in the real world.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Do you think the country was getting better under Saddam?

Nope, but fixing Saddam was not our business.

Yeah, fuck em. We'll just turn a blind eye, I guess. History has proven isolationism and appeasement work, right? Let's do that again.

Quote

We are discussing avoidable deaths directly attributable to Bush's war.

Your only measure of success contiues to be cumulative death numbers, which will always, in any case, be worse than the previous day. There are more people dead today because of AIDS than there were in 2004. Do you think no progress has been made? We lost roughly 250,000 military members in WWII. How do you classify our success in that war?

Germany and Japan declared war on the USA. Saddam Hussein did not. BIG difference. Bush's war was (is) optional, and based on lies. Every additional death on every day of this unnecessary war makes it worse.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think the country was getting better under Saddam?

Nope, but fixing Saddam was not our business.

Yeah, fuck em. We'll just turn a blind eye, I guess. History has proven isolationism and appeasement work, right? Let's do that again.

Quote

We are discussing avoidable deaths directly attributable to Bush's war.

Your only measure of success contiues to be cumulative death numbers, which will always, in any case, be worse than the previous day. There are more people dead today because of AIDS than there were in 2004. Do you think no progress has been made? We lost roughly 250,000 military members in WWII. How do you classify our success in that war?

there is always a price to pay for any advancement in any area of life, the Iraq war is no different.

[Ron 7]

Quote

You think 4207 US dead is better than 1335 US dead. I don't.

Dance , dance, dance.

More intentional obtuseness from you. You know EXACTLY what was being discussed. But being honest and answering it would not allow you to rant, so you perform some convoluted twisty dance like normal.

Sad...You might be fun to discuss if you didn't play so many BS games.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

You think 4207 US dead is better than 1335 US dead. I don't.

Dance , dance, dance.

More intentional obtuseness from you. You know EXACTLY what was being discussed. But being honest and answering it would not allow you to rant, so you perform some convoluted twisty dance like normal.

Sad...You might be fun to discuss if you didn't play so many BS games.

Asking if Iraq 2008 is not as bad as Iraq 2004 is like asking if Charles Manson is not as bad as John Wayne Gacy.

You can wriggle and squirm as much as you like, but the FACT remains that had Bush not lied to us, we wouldn't have any coalition fatalities at all, and Iraq's infrastructure would not have needed rebuilding.

Every additional death makes Bush's war worse. There is no "better".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

And yet you STILL will not answer a simple question.

I bet if one of your students gave you BS like you try to spout...you would fail them.

Epic fail for you...Yet again.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,406]

Both of you - enough.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Think Iraq is as bad as it was in 2004?

Quote

Do you think Iraq is as bad as it was in 2004? A yes or no will do.

Yes, in whole the situation is much better in Iraq than in 2004 and yes, the violence has decreased by objective measures. In November, US troop deaths and violence in Iraq overall was at the lowest since combat operations began in March 2003.


Why? What factors have contributed to the decrease in violence in Iraq?

(1) The Awakening Councils. After the bombing of Sunni mosques (in retaliation for the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque (Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra), the Sunni tribes and insurgent groups (many of whom were members of the former Sunni government & the disbanded Iraqi Army) realized (awakened to the fact) that the Sunnis were not going to return to Hussayn-era minority rule of Iraq. The Awakening Councils manage payment for the …


(2) Sons of Iraq paramilitary groups. These are Sunni paramilitary groups paid for by your tax dollars. At ~$300 a month, it’s a lot cheaper than the costs associated with US soldiers and the non-specific costs of US soldiers lives. Many of the same insurgents who previously had been fighting against the multi-national forces have been paid to secure the areas that previously were major ‘hot spots’ like al Anbar province (control of which I noted in a post in September was transferred from MNF to Iraq Army), Baqubah, Diyala, and Haditha, where security and operational control of a major dam along the Euphrates was transferred from USMC to Iraq Army yesterday.


(3) Application of Counterinsurgency Theory, aka “COIN”. OIF started as a first attempt to demonstrate the power of defense transformation and as application of “shock-n-awe” operations. SecDef Rumsfeld attempted to apply Transformation Theory to execute OIF … except the force was still (largely) trained/training, equipping, and preparing to fight under the doctrine of more traditional warfighting theory and, more importantly, Iraq was not a peer-competitor. It was not unlike like trying to apply CRW techniques (defense transformation) to a bunch of bigway RW divers (traditional military operations) doing a BASE jump (counterinsurgency operations). Yes, all involve parachutes and folks who have skydiving training, and two involve people jumping out of airplanes, but you are much more likely to be successful on a BASE jump if you use BASE techniques and BASE equipment. (BTW: I’m a proponent of defense transformation.)

Implementing and executing US strategic objectives is a lot easier when they’re not shooting at you, (marg’s 16-word distilled synopsis of COIN theory ).


(4) “The Surge”. If more members of the best military in the world along with billions in US tax payers’ dollars are sent to a conflict area, one would quite reasonably expect immediate security to increase. (It may be positive evidence for the aphorism that throwing more money at a problem *does* work, eh?) The introduction of more troops to targeted areas facilitated the immediate securing of those areas to allow stabilization so that transition (e.g.., the handover of Anbar province) could begin.


(5) Internal and external displacement of Iraqis. According to the 2007 CIA Factbook “approximately two million Iraqis have fled the conflict in Iraq” and another 1.9M internally displaced persons (aka ‘balkanization’ along ethnic, sectarian, & religious lines). (NB: other sources give higher numbers but used the CIA figures as most conservative estimates).

So >7% of the population (or more) have voiced their opinion with their feet and left. Another 7% of the population has relocated far enough to be internally displaced.


--- -- --- -- ---

For those who are advocates or critics of OIF, being cognizant of more than 10-sec partisan political talking points seems to be an example of personal responsibility. All that is a long way toward saying, no ... a "yes or no" answer is not adequate ... I don't think my 711 words are adequate ... but I know [Andy9o8] stops reading after the first paragraph.

All this & that (above) does not address the question of was invading Iraq in the strategic interest of the US.

So much of the rhetoric surrounding OIF, im-ever-ho, has been ‘dumbed down’ and over-simplified. (Even what I wrote above is a major over-simplification.) The US population is not stupid and can understand these ideas. If the only thing that one hears about is “surge” or “no surge” then it’s hard to fault why those are the only variables one thinks are worthy of consideration. Most of the real world functions on more than a single variable … actually frequently a number of independent and dependent variables.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[FallingOsh 0]

Good read. Thanks

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You think 4207 US dead is better than 1335 US dead. I don't.

Dance , dance, dance.

More intentional obtuseness from you. You know EXACTLY what was being discussed. But being honest and answering it would not allow you to rant, so you perform some convoluted twisty dance like normal.

Sad...You might be fun to discuss if you didn't play so many BS games.

Asking if Iraq 2008 is not as bad as Iraq 2004 is like asking if Charles Manson is not as bad as John Wayne Gacy.

You can wriggle and squirm as much as you like, but the FACT remains that had Bush not lied to us, we wouldn't have any coalition fatalities at all, and Iraq's infrastructure would not have needed rebuilding.

Quote

Every additional death makes the US govenmentswar worse.

fixed it for you, since the support for the war was from both sides of congress and potus, using the same info provided, therefor the blood is on everybody's hand not just bush's. also pulling out and leaving the iraq people in a state of complete kayos would be criminal.

• Quote