Bush Admin Lying Machine coming apart, Be careful whose bed you choose to lie in McCain Options

[Hellfighter]

So here we go;
Straight from the source like never before;
One of Bush's own about to reveal the whole Bush Admin/neocon lying machine scheme-
No surprise really -but now its about to be officially 'explored'.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html

some doubters may venture to say he's just selling a book - but he seems to be like Colin Powell and the Generals who criticized the Iraq war from its outset, a virtuous person who was slapped around by the neocon villains in the admin revealing the formerly deliberately obscured facts for themselves for everyone to judge-finally.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/28/08 9:16am

[Hellfighter]

I think you're mixing apples with oranges.

First, the debate from most of us you have differences about Iraq with revolves around what went INTO the decision process and in analyzing the scheme cooked up by a crooked admin. Finding out/unravelling the scheme is personally what's on my mind. After hearing all these years stupidity based on Iraqis needing to pay for flying planes into the Towers/ we're there so that we don't have fight urban close combat in our neighbourhoods/ we're there to give them freedom/we're there to get rid of a very bad man/we're there to get rid of the phantom terrorist bases in Iraq/we had proof of 'claims' of wmd/ all that junk hiding the true hidden neocon Crusader scheme -the first major step to pacify the mid-East menaces.... but that was not the reason the world was told.
I suppose we'll likely have to leave the debate at the point where you firmly believe the war was initiated solely on intel 'claims' and that I believe the claims were twisted for ulterior motives to launch a war.
So why I debate on this topic is purely analyzing that murky process -so that we watch for baffoons like Shrillary who yet again gave Bush carte blanche to move on Iran BASED on hyped up outdated intel on Iran's nuke capability..... that's why.

However you seek debate in another angle of the Iraq war- you're off topic as far as I'm concerned with the clear view I'm expressing when you assume I wish to ball everything up with the 'what shall we do now/tomorrow in Iraq' debate. I made my view clear on that aspect of the Iraq War.... ONLY after the Iraqi security forces are an efficient war machine will there be a true sense of stability in Iraq. An illusion-> We can liquidate al quaeda there and think seemingly pacified shiite militias are standing down and then disengage leaving a small token force of marines behind, but that's not true security. Iran at that point could then trigger of subversive events to destabilize everything at that point. So that's my view on that - I personally see no other scenarios working out there on a long term basis.... Iraqi Security Forces efficiency will determine Iraq's fate..... OR 100 years of full US Forces presence there.

I do find a few views of Moore very poncey [ie, unable to see the need to move into Afghanistan], and a few of his perpectives I find 'interesting'.
But please my chum, I'll never make excuses for Democrats-Obama or my uncle or whoever if they commit lecherous acts - Churchill wanted to seriously drop poison gas on Germany soon after Hitler commenced the Blitz on England.... do you think I'd sit here and say 'oh well you know he had every right blah blah.....' Some fans of his might do that but no- I would not. Therefore sprinkling legitimate comparisons of what ills that 'famous'/popular Dems have done in the past will only get my agreement with you on those points.


ps.
could of / would of / should of IS really;
could've / would've / should've - it seems this popular grammatical error will one day be 'accepted' like 'I didn't do nothing' .... but I can't let those things slip by me without being a prickly pear .


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/31/08 6:56pm