Bush attacks critics claim pre-war intel was manipulated. Huge balls or delusional?

[David_Simmons]

Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam vet who presumeably knows what it’s like to be in an unpopular war,has joined those busily tearing down the morale of “our boys over there.” He wants us out immediately, no nonsense about “the Iraqis are not ready yet.” I hate to boast but I said the same thing inthis thread a month and a half ago.

REP. JOHN MURTHA: Margaret, let me just tell you this: The time has come when 80 percent of the Iraqi people are saying that they want us out of there, that 45 percent of the Iraqi people say that the United States – it’s justified to kill Americans. So you have a country that wants us out of there, and we’ve become the enemy. We are the target.

Welcome aboard Congressman Murtha. You can probably get more done than I can. I wasn’t making a lot of headway.

[BobLibDem]

Here’s how the the White House responded to Murtha:

@The White House

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled – nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

I might ask the White House where it is explained how staying in Iraq makes America safer. What a unique logic they’ve come up with: Michael Moore disagrees with Bush. Murtha disagrees with Bush. Therefore, Murtha is now aligned with Michael Moore.

[Der_Trihs]

@BobLibDem

Here’s how the the White House responded to Murtha:

I might ask the White House where it is explained how staying in Iraq makes America safer. What a unique logic they’ve come up with: Michael Moore disagrees with Bush. Murtha disagrees with Bush. Therefore, Murtha is now aligned with Michael Moore.

“You’re with us or against us”. “Axis of Evil”. That’s how these guy think; you absolutely submit to them, or you are the Enemy, and no doubt a Gay Satanic Communist Atheist Muslim.

[Miller]

@BobLibDem

I might ask the White House where it is explained how staying in Iraq makes America safer. What a unique logic they’ve come up with: Michael Moore disagrees with Bush. Murtha disagrees with Bush. Therefore, Murtha is now aligned with Michael Moore.

On the other hand, it’s nice that the White House has finally admitted that they’re pretty much a pack of idiots who can’t understand basic logic. That cite should make a lot of the debates around here a lot easier.

[HPL]

@BobLibDem

Here’s

I might ask the White House where it is explained how staying in Iraq makes America safer. What a unique logic they’ve come up with: Michael Moore disagrees with Bush. Murtha disagrees with Bush. Therefore, Murtha is now aligned with Michael Moore.

Hell, using that logic, one could posit the following:

Bush wants to get rid of saddam. Bin Laden wants to get rid of saddam. Therefore, Bush is allied with Bin Laden.

[SteveG1]

@David Simmons

Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam vet who presumeably knows what it’s like to be in an unpopular war,has joined those busily tearing down the morale of “our boys over there.” He wants us out immediately, no nonsense about “the Iraqis are not ready yet.” I hate to boast but I said the same thing inthis thread a month and a half ago.

Welcome aboard Congressman Murtha. You can probably get more done than I can. I wasn’t making a lot of headway.

The partisan attacks against Murtha have already begun.

[SteveG1]

@BobLibDem

Here’s how the the White House responded to Murtha:

I might ask the White House where it is explained how staying in Iraq makes America safer. What a unique logic they’ve come up with: Michael Moore disagrees with Bush. Murtha disagrees with Bush. Therefore, Murtha is now aligned with Michael Moore.

The “usual suspects” will still take it as absolute truth, simply because Bush / WhiteHouse said it. Murtha has now joined the ranks of the commie librul terror loving America haters. At least, that’s what the spin and the blather will be.

Bush supports war. Jesus was the “prince of peace”. Bush is a Jesus hater. Hmmm.

[SteveG1]

It keeps getting better. Also, look for Fitzgerald to go for more indictments. It ain’t over 'til it’s over.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/feith.investigation.reut/index.html

@CNN

The Pentagon’s inspector general has agreed to review the prewar intelligence activities of former U.S. defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, a main architect of the Iraq war, congressional officials said on Thursday. …
Democrats have accused Feith of manipulating information from sources, including discredited Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, to suggest links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, which masterminded the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush and other top administration officials cited alleged ties between Iraq and al Qaeda as a justification for military action. But the September 11 commission later reported that no collaborative relationship existed between the two. And both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence agency have dismissed one source of that information, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, as being unreliable.
The inspector general’s office informed the Senate on October 19 that it would undertake a review after receiving separate requests from the Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, officials said.
Congressional officials expect the review to look at whether Feith and his staff bypassed the CIA by giving the White House uncorroborated intelligence that sought to make a case for war in the months leading up to the 2003 Iraq invasion.
…A copy of Levin’s letter to Gimble, which was obtained by Reuters, asks the inspector general to consider 10 questions, including whether Feith’s office undercut the intelligence community by providing the White House with its own analysis that went beyond the scope of the underlying intelligence.
Levin also wants the inspector general to look into whether Feith misled Congress in January 2004 by providing oversight committees with reports dealing with the credibility of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

[elucidator]

Oh, ye of little Feith…

[SteveG1]

@elucidator

Oh, ye of little Feith…

It gives me great comfort, to think that one of the major architects of the war was once described as the stupidest fucking man on the fucking planet (or something like that). It really inspires confidence. :eek:

[elucidator]

Gen. Tommy Franks once described former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith “the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” More recently, Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, said of Feith, “Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.”

To hear is to obey, Steve-pasha!

[Evil_Captor]

@SteveG1

The partisan attacks against Murtha have already begun.

Yes, another chicken, fraidy-cat Vietnam Vet dares criticize the war plans of Our Glorious Leader who valiantly defended San Padre Island from unconsumed margaritas back in the day. Oh, veterans … what the HELL do they know about what it’s like to fight a war?

[SteveG1]

@Evil Captor

Yes, another chicken, fraidy-cat Vietnam Vet dares criticize the war plans of Our Glorious Leader who valiantly defended San Padre Island from unconsumed margaritas back in the day. Oh, veterans … what the HELL do they know about what it’s like to fight a war?

Thank Og we have AWOL Bush, 5 Deferments Cheney, Lying Libby, Wolfowitz the Wussy and Fucking Stupid Feith to guide us.

[magellan01]

This is not intended to be an attempt to defend the war or Bush, but I have a question. Since a President, any President, may at some point feel the need to go to war—let’s assume with the backing of the whole country—should military service be a prerequisite for being President?

[BobLibDem]

@magellan01

This is not intended to be an attempt to defend the war or Bush, but I have a question. Since a President, any President, may at some point feel the need to go to war—let’s assume with the backing of the whole country—should military service be a prerequisite for being President?

In my opinion, no. Many fine presidents had no military service, many fine presidents did. Ditto for the stinkers. Bush gets mocked because he tries to present himself as a military hero while clearly he is not.

[SteveG1]

@magellan01

This is not intended to be an attempt to defend the war or Bush, but I have a question. Since a President, any President, may at some point feel the need to go to war—let’s assume with the backing of the whole country—should military service be a prerequisite for being President?

No. Many people could be great presidents without any military background. But just in case this is a “back door” to invoke or uphold Bush’s own glorious military career though, you really don’t want to go there.

[elucidator]

@SteveG1

…But just in case this is a “back door” to invoke or uphold Bush’s own glorious military career though, you really don’t want to go there.

Whaddaya talking? During The Leaders watch, not so much as a single Viet Cong bombing raid touched Amarillo! Not one!

[PatriotX]

@SteveG1

It keeps getting better. Also, look for Fitzgerald to go for more indictments. It ain’t over 'til it’s over.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/feith.investigation.reut/index.html

Senator Roberts:

We had Under Secretary Feith before the committee. Then we were going to have him up again. And then ... there was a statement made that what was going on in the Office of Special Plans could be illegal. When that happened, everyone down there at the Office of Special Plans got lawyered up or at least thought about seeking legal representation.
We ... have asked the Department of Defense inspector general to come back and tell us if there was anything wrong in regard to what the Office of Special Plans was doing. We will rely on that. We will put that in the report. We can believe the inspector general of the Department of Defense.

Because the people under investigation by a Senate Select Committee “lawyered up” the Senate is going to vacate it’s oversight responsibilities. Weak punks. Why not just turn the entirety of your oversight responsibilities to representatives of the agencies you’re overseeing?

I mean, I’m all for the IG’s investigation. The SSCI should conduct their own independent investigation into this matter.

[tomndebb]

should military service be a prerequisite for being President?

Define “military service.” Does that include getting a job with a National Guard unit during a shooting war, then finding a way to be absent when the brass considers shipping the unit into the war zone (Dan Quayle), or simply “dropping out” when the job got too boring, (or something), (George W. Bush), or getting protected assignments even when sent to the war zone, (Al Gore)?

What do we do with politicians who grew up in the decades we missed having a war? Do we simply declare that people born (roughly) between 1901 and 1910 or 1935 and 1944 or 1955 and 1965 are not eligible to run for high office?

Was Grant clearly a better President than Reagan? Was Ike clearly a better president than FDR?

not so much as a single Viet Cong bombing raid touched Amarillo! Not one!

Of course, it was a good thing the wind blew them off course during the scheduled raid against Biloxi in '73.

[David_Simmons]

@magellan01

This is not intended to be an attempt to defend the war or Bush, but I have a question. Since a President, any President, may at some point feel the need to go to war—let’s assume with the backing of the whole country—should military service be a prerequisite for being President?

Hell no. But it does take a certain appreciation of what war is like and some sensitivity to its costs.