Most Americans would pay less taxes under President Obama than McCain

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='673735' date='Jun 17 2008, 08:09 AM']Then why not allow UN weapons inspections? And, get some of the UN sanctioning off his back?

Not familiar with Blitz... in a non-football sense anyway.[/quote]


Because he was always playing cat and mouse with us.

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='673753' date='Jun 17 2008, 08:51 AM']That brings the question.....Do we as individuals choose our reading based on what we want to believe is true? aka McClellan?




We live in a world where all someone has to do is write it and then to some people it [b]has[/b] to be true.[/quote]


McClellan was a former aid, he had insight that most dont.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673769' date='Jun 17 2008, 10:50 AM']Because he was always playing cat and mouse with us.




McClellan was a former aid, he had insight that most dont.[/quote]

"Former"...and you are [b]certain[/b] that no sour grapes were involved.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='673772' date='Jun 17 2008, 09:52 AM']"Former"...and you are [b]certain[/b] that no sour grapes were involved.[/quote]


Come on, he's only confirmed what most have already said.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673775' date='Jun 17 2008, 10:57 AM']Come on, he's only confirmed what most have already said.[/quote]
Why didn't he blow the whistle when he was cashing that nice paycheck???


Convenient, I'd say. Hell, if what he recounts to be true, is, and he knew it then, why don't people start lambasting him for not saying something sooner. He sat quietly while he was getting paid, bottom line. He waits until he's fired, then starts spouting off. If there were ever criminal charges against the administration then McClellan should be found guilty as well.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673775' date='Jun 17 2008, 10:57 AM']Come on, he's only confirmed what most have already said.[/quote]

Politics at it's finest.

[Jamie_B]

Come on guys, isnt that really the "canned" answer, you know ... guy blows whistle, paint him as disgruntaled. That has been happening not just in the political arena but the business world as well for years upon years.

Why is it so hard to admit that he may not be lying?

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='673722' date='Jun 17 2008, 06:13 AM']Homer, I'm with you. But disagree at the same time.

Millions of us went to the polls in 06 and said fuck the war. And elected the folks who claimed that they agreed with us that the war should end. And within months, those folks fucked us in the ass sideways in ways that GWB only dreamed of. And financed the war far into the future against their promises, and our wishes.

The system is fucking broken. We can pretend about who we're going to vote for making a difference, but each mofo who makes it through to election day has been pre-approved by those with the $$ to fund a campaign. And until campaign contribution limits are set at an amount that EVERY American can afford, the wealthy sychophants will continue to sell the masses out.

I agree in being tired of the bullshit squabbling. But that is just one of the evils of the system, imo.

We, as a nation, voted to continue the war in 06, almost as much as we voted assclown W into office in 00 and 04. The net is the same. The will of the voters has been superseded by those with the power/funds to buy the system in any way they fucking please.

[/quote]

I don't disagree with you here. Reform is needed. The only way that reform will happen, imo, is when folks start to truly hold elected officials accountable. My thoughts were oriented towards a more fundamental level, our culture itself, and transcends party lines. And, while there was a mini-insurgency among grassroots Dems in 2006, the party establishment very quickly solidified their hold over the status quo when it came to elect legislative leaders in Congress. Pelosi and Reid acquired their positions for different reasons, but the fact is that both are establishment. Not so different from what is happening now, party-wise. Now that Obama is the purported controller of the party, is he taking over the party establishment or is the party establishment taking over him?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673793' date='Jun 17 2008, 11:58 AM']Come on guys, isnt that really the "canned" answer, you know ... guy blows whistle, paint him as disgruntaled. That has been happening not just in the political arena but the business world as well for years upon years.

Why is it so hard to admit that he may not be lying?[/quote]

He could very well be telling the truth. I don't know. But, why wait until you're fired before saying anything? Whatever they're guilty of you're now guilty of too by looking the other way while receiving the paycheck.


Just come out, blow the whistle right away, and receive the book deal. But, conveniently, he was able to shelve his morals while he was getting the nice paycheck.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='673783' date='Jun 17 2008, 11:28 AM']Why didn't he blow the whistle when he was cashing that nice paycheck???

Convenient, I'd say. Hell, if what he recounts to be true, is, and he knew it then, why don't people start lambasting him for not saying something sooner. He sat quietly while he was getting paid, bottom line. He waits until he's fired, then starts spouting off. If there were ever criminal charges against the administration then McClellan should be found guilty as well.[/quote]
I agree that McClellan is part of the culpable crowd. Whether or not he is a criminal remains to be seen. Likely not as staffers who deal directly with the press are often shielded from the shady stuff, just for CYA purposes. that's SOP in the politics and corporate world.

Keep in mind that had his motives been to "cash in" he almost certainly could be set for life in decent positions within the Republican good-old-boys network in the private world. So, venality is probably out as a motive.

He's also a fairly-hardened insider, so the circumstances under which he left the Press position were not unusual. Staff shakeups happen all the time and the reasons given for them are often about the "politics of politics." Was he fired? Was he shuffled off to Buffalo? You'd have to ask Josh Bolten. McC may have some cause for sour grapes, but in my opinion, probably much less than many apologists would like to think.

What generally is left is that which is most obvious: a certain amount of remorse for his role in deceiving the public. Besides, even if he felt betrayed, and responded in a sour grapes fashion, how would that change his remarks? At best, one would have to suggest that McC is engaging in some form of deception. And if that were true, then all that does is put him on a par with his former confederates--another deceptive twister of truth among a lion's den of truth-twisters. Somehow, that's not too soothing a comfort. I mean, that would just be another instance of the "thieves fall out" nostrum.

And perhaps most important of all: with or without McClellan's tome, the truth was and is known to the relevant parties. We may not know all the details now, and may never know as much as the more prurient among us would like. That doesn't change the fundamental issue when considered from the level of geopolitics. I'm guessing that's probably not much consolation to Sgt. McKinney and others who have born the brunt of this evil business.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='673804' date='Jun 17 2008, 11:41 AM']I agree that McClellan is part of the culpable crowd. Whether or not he is a criminal remains to be seen. Likely not as staffers who deal directly with the press are often shielded from the shady stuff, just for CYA purposes. that's SOP in the politics and corporate world.

Keep in mind that had his motives been to "cash in" he almost certainly could be set for life in decent positions within the Republican good-old-boys network in the private world. So, venality is probably out as a motive.

He's also a fairly-hardened insider, so the circumstances under which he left the Press position were not unusual. Staff shakeups happen all the time and the reasons given for them are often about the "politics of politics." Was he fired? Was he shuffled off to Buffalo? You'd have to ask Josh Bolten. McC may have some cause for sour grapes, but in my opinion, probably much less than many apologists would like to think.

What generally is left is that which is most obvious: a certain amount of remorse for his role in deceiving the public. Besides, even if he felt betrayed, and responded in a sour grapes fashion, how would that change his remarks? At best, one would have to suggest that McC is engaging in some form of deception. And if that were true, then all that does is put him on a par with his former confederates--another deceptive twister of truth among a lion's den of truth-twisters. Somehow, that's not too soothing a comfort. I mean, that would just be another instance of the "thieves fall out" nostrum.

And perhaps most important of all: with or without McClellan's tome, the truth was and is known to the relevant parties. We may not know all the details now, and may never know as much as the more prurient among us would like. That doesn't change the fundamental issue when considered from the level of geopolitics. I'm guessing that's probably not much consolation to Sgt. McKinney and others who have born the brunt of this evil business.[/quote]

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='673804' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:41 PM']I agree that McClellan is part of the culpable crowd. Whether or not he is a criminal remains to be seen. Likely not as staffers who deal directly with the press are often shielded from the shady stuff, just for CYA purposes. that's SOP in the politics and corporate world.

Keep in mind that had his motives been to "cash in" he almost certainly could be set for life in decent positions within the Republican good-old-boys network in the private world. So, venality is probably out as a motive.

He's also a fairly-hardened insider, so the circumstances under which he left the Press position were not unusual. Staff shakeups happen all the time and the reasons given for them are often about the "politics of politics." Was he fired? Was he shuffled off to Buffalo? You'd have to ask Josh Bolten. McC may have some cause for sour grapes, but in my opinion, probably much less than many apologists would like to think.

What generally is left is that which is most obvious: a certain amount of remorse for his role in deceiving the public. Besides, even if he felt betrayed, and responded in a sour grapes fashion, how would that change his remarks? At best, one would have to suggest that McC is engaging in some form of deception. And if that were true, then all that does is put him on a par with his former confederates--another deceptive twister of truth among a lion's den of truth-twisters. Somehow, that's not too soothing a comfort. I mean, that would just be another instance of the "thieves fall out" nostrum.

And perhaps most important of all: with or without McClellan's tome, the truth was and is known to the relevant parties. We may not know all the details now, and may never know as much as the more prurient among us would like. That doesn't change the fundamental issue when considered from the level of geopolitics. I'm guessing that's probably not much consolation to Sgt. McKinney and others who have born the brunt of this evil business.[/quote]

Homer - I keep going back to the same thought...

If what he's claiming is in fact true (you're saying he was shielded yet knows enough to write a book) he's just as guilty as whomever else in the administration was in on the "goods".

And, again if criminal, all the remorse in the world doesn't make him any less guilty. Criminals are remorseful all the time - they still go to jail.


[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673805' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:44 PM'][/quote]

Jamie - not quite sure what the sunglassed smiley is for.

I think everyone on this board - if there was solid proof that McClellan's claims were true - would want this administration to pay (those that were in the know anyway). McClellan should as well - he knew enough to write a book supposedly, that should be enough to out the bad deeds.

What it all gets back to though is partisan squabbling and the only "evidence" you're ever able to get is from someone that is a member of the opposite party or a recently release/fired employee that then spills his guts...


To me, if McClellan had come out while he was still employed and told all that is in his book, he'd carry much, much more credibility and you'd see this administration pay. But, in this instance, WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, it is viewed as sour grapes and really doesn't accomplish anything.


dirty, crooked f*ckers... the whole damn lot of them.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='673811' date='Jun 17 2008, 11:54 AM']Homer - I keep going back to the same thought...

If what he's claiming is in fact true (you're saying he was shielded yet knows enough to write a book) he's just as guilty as whomever else in the administration was in on the "goods".

And, again if criminal, all the remorse in the world doesn't make him any less guilty. Criminals are remorseful all the time - they still go to jail.




Jamie - not quite sure what the sunglassed smiley is for.

I think everyone on this board - if there was solid proof that McClellan's claims were true - would want this administration to pay (those that were in the know anyway). McClellan should as well - he knew enough to write a book supposedly, that should be enough to out the bad deeds.

What it all gets back to though is partisan squabbling and the only "evidence" you're ever able to get is from someone that is a member of the opposite party or a recently release/fired employee that then spills his guts...


To me, if McClellan had come out while he was still employed and told all that is in his book, he'd carry much, much more credibility and you'd see this administration pay. But, in this instance, WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, it is viewed as sour grapes and really doesn't accomplish anything.


dirty, crooked f*ckers... the whole damn lot of them.[/quote]


Which begs the question what are the rules visave being able to write a book about the people you are currently working for?

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='673811' date='Jun 18 2008, 02:54 AM']Homer - I keep going back to the same thought...

If what he's claiming is in fact true (you're saying he was shielded yet knows enough to write a book) he's just as guilty as whomever else in the administration [b]was in on the "goods".

And, again if criminal, all the remorse in the world doesn't make him any less guilty. Criminals are remorseful all the time - they still go to jail.[/b]




Jamie - not quite sure what the sunglassed smiley is for.
[b]
I think everyone on this board - if there was solid proof that McClellan's claims were true - would want this administration to pay (those that were in the know anyway). McClellan should as well - he knew enough to write a book supposedly, that should be enough to out the bad deeds.[/b]

What it all gets back to though is partisan squabbling and the only "evidence" you're ever able to get is from someone that is a member of the opposite party or a recently release/fired employee that then spills his guts...


To me, if McClellan had come out while he was still employed and told all that is in his book, he'd carry much, much more credibility and you'd see this administration pay. But, in this instance, WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, it is viewed as sour grapes and really doesn't accomplish anything.


[b]dirty, crooked f*ckers... the whole damn lot of them.[/b][/quote]
I don't always agree with you, but I'm with you big time on the above post.

That and $7 will get you a coffee at starbucks

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='673811' date='Jun 17 2008, 12:54 PM']Homer - I keep going back to the same thought...

If what he's claiming is in fact true (you're saying he was shielded yet knows enough to write a book) he's just as guilty as whomever else in the administration was in on the "goods".

And, again if criminal, all the remorse in the world doesn't make him any less guilty. Criminals are remorseful all the time - they still go to jail.[/quote]
Morally guilty, yes, especially if he had misgivings while he was doing all that stupendously robotic stonewalling. But criminal liability, as in go to jail? Probably not for the reasons I suggested, doubt very seriously if he were in on the "crime" as the crime took place. Now, I haven't read the book (just excerpts publshed at the time of book release), and may never, but it seems to me that McC partly justified his actions because he felt betrayed by folks looking him in the eye and lying about the details of the Plame case. Now, how he came to the conclusion that he was, in fact, lied to, I do not know. Apparently he is confident enough in his sourcing on the part of the issue to make his assertions. I don't think the guy is an angel, so I wouldn't be surprised if part of his splashy public disclosure were designed to blunt any after-the-fact liability he might have.

Maybe one of the lawyers here could clarify this--what might be the fine line between actual criminality and moral oafishness/lackeydom in this instance?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='673815' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:06 PM']I don't always agree with you, but I'm with you big time on the above post.

[b]That and $7 will get you a coffee at starbucks [/b][/quote]
exactly. and we get screwed from behind dry without the courtesy reach-around.

[bengalrick]

There is no man lower than McClellan... and not for the reasons that you may assume I would think that...

The absolute worse case scenario would be to stir up the bees nest and then retreat when the bees start to sting you... Either stay away from the nest in the first place, or make sure that you can keep your family (or country) safe from the bees in the future... For him to be so weak knee'd to agree w/ the president, to promote his ideas, and then back out after the fact and after he is being criticized... and to get a huge paycheck off of it at the same time... He should have stood up when it really mattered, instead of "confirming" the lefts beliefs after it doesn't even matter anymore...

McClellan is worthless... I have a massive amount more respect for Obama, or Homer, or others that were against the war from the beginning... Fuck those individuals that put our guys in harms way, and then runs home with their tails in between their legs when times were rough...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='673833' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:01 PM']There is no man lower than McClellan... and not for the reasons that you may assume I would think that...

The absolute worse case scenario would be to stir up the bees nest and then retreat when the bees start to sting you... Either stay away from the nest in the first place, or make sure that you can keep your family (or country) safe from the bees in the future... For him to be so weak knee'd to agree w/ the president, to promote his ideas, and then back out after the fact and after he is being criticized... and to get a huge paycheck off of it at the same time... He should have stood up when it really mattered, instead of "confirming" the lefts beliefs after it doesn't even matter anymore...

McClellan is worthless... I have a massive amount more respect for Obama, or Homer, or others that were against the war from the beginning... Fuck those individuals that put our guys in harms way, and then runs home with their tails in between their legs when times were rough...[/quote]


You really still believe this is winnable?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673835' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:05 PM']You really still believe this is winnable? [/quote]

are you shitting me?

Number 1: Where did I say we were winning or losing?

Number 2: I know you don't know me that well, but one thing you should know is I am extremely hard headed

Number 3: Define winning... We are certainly progressing... Things are getting MUCH MUCH better.... Even politically in Iraq things are progressing now...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='673836' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:11 PM']are you shitting me?

Number 1: Where did I say we were winning or losing?

Number 2: I know you don't know me that well, but one thing you should know is I am extremely hard headed

Number 3: Define winning... We are certainly progressing... Things are getting MUCH MUCH better.... Even politically in Iraq things are progressing now...[/quote]


1. So what are we doing?

2. Yes I know, but at some point even the most hard headed have to come to the realization as to when the lives of our boys can no longer be sacraficed.

3. Hell I dont even think we know what "winning" means at this point as it's changed a number of times what they define winning as, its all about finding the best way to save face at this point and make it look like "mission accomplished"


for me its not winnable, there will be a civil war its only a matter of time and us getting out of the way. Say what you will about Sadam being a brutal dictator and I'll agree, but the transfer of brutality has moved from him to the police force (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p01s04-woiq.html).

It should have never been waged to begin with, and espessally not while we were fighting in Afganastan. And for those who changed their minds reguarding that because they didnt believe they were decived till info started getting leaked, I respect them because they arent so hardheaded as to admit they were wrong when they get info they didnt have in making their decisions.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote]Car bomb at Baghdad market kills 51

By Adrian Croft

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A powerful car bomb exploded in a crowded market area of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 51 people and wounding 75, in the biggest attack in the Iraqi capital in months.

The bomb blew up near the main market in the predominantly Shi'ite neighborhood of al-Hurriya in northwestern Baghdad, police said. It left a heap of smoking, mangled wreckage.

Before the blast, the market would have been packed with late-afternoon shoppers buying food before returning home.

Police said 51 people were killed and 75 were wounded, including women and children.

The blast set fire to about 20 shops and leveled a multi-storey building, a security source said. Many vehicles were damaged by the blast, which cut off electricity to the area.

Ambulances raced back and forth taking casualties to nearby hospitals.

U.S. officials blamed Sunni Arab al Qaeda insurgents for many of the huge car bombs that regularly hit Baghdad in 2006 and 2007, at the height of sectarian conflict in Iraq.

But the capital has been relatively quiet since a May 10 truce ended weeks of fighting between Iraqi security forces and militants loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Continued...

U.S. and Iraqi officials have hailed a recent fall in violence in Iraq to its lowest levels in more than four years.

The biggest recent blast in Baghdad was on June 4 when 18 people were killed in an explosion the U.S. military blamed on militia rockets that went off by accident.

Sixty-eight people were killed in coordinated bombings in a packed shopping area in central Baghdad in March.

A month before that, female bombers killed 99 people in attacks blamed on al Qaeda at two popular Baghdad pet markets.

U.S. and Iraqi military officials say al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, but the group remains a threat.

Earlier, the U.S. military said it killed four al Qaeda militants in a raid in the northern city of Mosul on Tuesday, but Iraqi police said the three brothers and their father shot in the operation were not insurgents.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has sent the Iraqi army, with U.S. support, into Shi'ite militia strongholds in Baghdad and the southern oil city of Basra and launched a campaign against al Qaeda in Mosul.

In the latest phase of his drive to extend government control over areas controlled by Shi'ite militias, Maliki has ordered army and police reinforcements to the southern city of Amara in preparation for a crackdown.

(Additional reporting by Aseel Kami, Tim Cocks, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary in Baghdad, Aref Mohammed in Amara; Writing by Adrian Croft; Editing by Dean Yates)[/quote]

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673839' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:21 PM']1. So what are we doing?[/quote]

Is it alright to bring up random points, even if the person isn't making that point?

[quote]2. Yes I know, but at some point even the most hard headed have to come to the realization as to when the lives of our boys can no longer be sacraficed.[/quote]

I change my mind about things when I think I was wrong... I hav even gone as far as saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq... however, I (or anyone) doesn't have the chance to go back in time, and so I made a decision... And imo, the most destructive and worse case scenario is to go to war, then back out when things start to get harder... exactly what mcclellan did, along with some others that hang on this board... You say that by being there we are creating more terrorists... imo, we have already done that, and at this point the best we can do is to stabilize their country as much as possible, and bring our guys home... not simply just bring them home...


[quote]3. Hell I dont even think we know what "winning" means at this point as it's changed a number of times what they define winning as, its all about finding the best way to save face at this point and make it look like "mission accomplished"[/quote]

No it hasn't... you have your own ideas of what you think it should be, but anyone that thought we were going to have parades in teh streets of Baghdad months after the invasion are delusional anyway... The goal is to build up the iraqi military and police, in order to give the government a chance to do things theirselves...

[quote]for me its not winnable, there will be a civil war its only a matter of time and us getting out of the way. Say what you will about Sadam being a brutal dictator and I'll agree, but the transfer of brutality has moved from him to the police force (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p01s04-woiq.html).[/quote]

A year ago it was a "fact" that iraq was in a full blown civil war... now it is only a matter of time before they are... Jamie, you make a lot of predictions around here, and not many of them come true... I remember at the beginning of the democratic nominations, I was the one telling you that Obama had a very good chance of being elected... you said that we were all too racist and bigots to elect him... I don't think you give people enough credit, but to each his own, I guess...

[quote]It should have never been waged to begin with, and espessally not while we were fighting in Afganastan. And for those who changed their minds reguarding that because they didnt believe they were decived till info started getting leaked, I respect them because they arent so hardheaded as to admit they were wrong when they get info they didnt have in making their decisions.[/quote]

No, those that changed their minds have left this country in the worse case scenario... Why didn't he have reservations when it mattered? It was not a no-brainer... there were decenters in the administration, but he was not one of them... then conviently he signs a book deal that is now making millions of dollars on this book... I have no problem with outing the president, though I think highly of loyalty and he obviously has none... but to not stand up and express his thoughts when it mattered... You can look up to people like that, but i will call them what they are: Cowards...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='673857' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:08 PM']Is it alright to bring up random points, even if the person isn't making that point?[/quote]


Then what were you saying here?

[color="#FF0000"]"The absolute worse case scenario would be to stir up the bees nest and then retreat when the bees start to sting you... Either stay away from the nest in the first place, or make sure that you can keep your family (or country) safe from the bees in the future".[/color]

I am reading that as your saying we cant leave untill we are sure we are safe?? Im saying safe from what? Are you still on this notion that we have to fight them over there so they dont come here? Im saying this is a civial war between the factions within Iraq (based on what genral powell has said), at this point do you still buy into what this admin as said about "fight them over there so we dont fight them over here? Were are you at currently with this?

[quote name='bengalrick' post='673857' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:08 PM']I change my mind about things when I think I was wrong... I have even gone as far as saying that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq... however, I (or anyone) doesn't have the chance to go back in time, and so I made a decision... And imo, the most destructive and worse case scenario is to go to war, then back out when things start to get harder... exactly what mcclellan did, along with some others that hang on this board... You say that by being there we are creating more terrorists... imo, we have already done that, and at this point the best we can do is to stabilize their country as much as possible, and bring our guys home... not simply just bring them home...[/quote]


But when does a person stand up and say enough is enough? When do we say no more of our boys will die for what we percieve as an unwinnable war? Stabiltiy imo isnt possible untill we leave and allow them to have the civil war that we are just getting in the way of. So bring the boys home in as safe a manner as possible.


[quote name='bengalrick' post='673857' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:08 PM']No it hasn't... you have your own ideas of what you think it should be, but anyone that thought we were going to have parades in teh streets of Baghdad months after the invasion are delusional anyway... The goal is to build up the iraqi military and police, in order to give the government a chance to do things theirselves...[/quote]

So that mission accompished sign was just kidding?

Jokes aside, Im stading by my statement that we are in the way.

[quote name='bengalrick' post='673857' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:08 PM']A year ago it was a "fact" that iraq was in a full blown civil war... now it is only a matter of time before they are... Jamie, you make a lot of predictions around here, and not many of them come true... I remember at the beginning of the democratic nominations, I was the one telling you that Obama had a very good chance of being elected... you said that we were all too racist and bigots to elect him... I don't think you give people enough credit, but to each his own, I guess...[/quote]

I would like to see the quote of me saying people were too racist, for some clairification. As far as predictions, a. who cares we all prognosticate (though i would like to know specifics as to what your talking about), b. who was the one that had a argument with you about libby lying?

[quote name='bengalrick' post='673857' date='Jun 17 2008, 02:08 PM']No, those that changed their minds have left this country in the worse case scenario... Why didn't he have reservations when it mattered? It was not a no-brainer... there were decenters in the administration, but he was not one of them... then conviently he signs a book deal that is now making millions of dollars on this book... I have no problem with outing the president, though I think highly of loyalty and he obviously has none... but to not stand up and express his thoughts when it mattered... You can look up to people like that, but i will call them what they are: Cowards...[/quote]

LOL... those who changed their minds left this country in a worse case scenario? (and im talking about the average citizen here) Those who didnt have the info to begin with that then changed their minds when seeing it, are cowards? .... again...LOL... now as far as loyality is concern...fuck loyalty to the individual and Im dead serious in saying that...my loyalty is to my principles, if you as a person violate my priciples I will not hold ANY loyality to you [b]F-U-C-K T-H-A-T[/b]

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='673818' date='Jun 17 2008, 01:20 PM']Morally guilty, yes, especially if he had misgivings while he was doing all that stupendously robotic stonewalling. But criminal liability, as in go to jail? Probably not for the reasons I suggested, doubt very seriously if he were in on the "crime" as the crime took place. Now, I haven't read the book (just excerpts publshed at the time of book release), and may never, but it seems to me that McC partly justified his actions because he felt betrayed by folks looking him in the eye and lying about the details of the Plame case. Now, how he came to the conclusion that he was, in fact, lied to, I do not know. Apparently he is confident enough in his sourcing on the part of the issue to make his assertions. [b]I don't think the guy is an angel, so I wouldn't be surprised if part of his splashy public disclosure were designed to blunt any after-the-fact liability he might have.[/b]

Maybe one of the lawyers here could clarify this--what might be the fine line between actual criminality and moral oafishness/lackeydom in this instance?[/quote]

Huge point for me......It is amazing what people will say and omit when their ass might be on the line while they are trying to out others...

I have as well as many others have done things and said things because we thought we were wronged from our point of view at the time. Only years later looking back did I realize I was the one in the wrong and I acted like an ass.


Perception is reality from each individuals point of view.

What tangible proof does McClellan have besides hear-say and what [b]he[/b] says?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='673873' date='Jun 17 2008, 04:06 PM']Then what were you saying here?

[color="#FF0000"]"The absolute worse case scenario would be to stir up the bees nest and then retreat when the bees start to sting you... Either stay away from the nest in the first place, or make sure that you can keep your family (or country) safe from the bees in the future".[/color]

I am reading that as your saying we cant leave untill we are sure we are safe?? Im saying safe from what? Are you still on this notion that we have to fight them over there so they dont come here? Im saying this is a civial war between the factions within Iraq (based on what genral powell has said), at this point do you still buy into what this admin as said about "fight them over there so we dont fight them over here? Were are you at currently with this?[/quote]

You are reading too much into that... I am saying this: If you make a MASSIVE decision like Iraq, you better have your mind made up... You don't go along something this important b/c the polls are on your side, or b/c you don't want to risk your job... If he truely felt this way, he could have done everyone a favor by stepping up to the president as his friend, and told him what he said in the book... Instead he waits until it no longer matters, and the only person that benefits is McClellan and his wallet...

I don't think the war on terror can be described by any one liners or anything like that... It is very complicated, was fought for many reasons, and one of them is that it is severely weakening Al Qaeda...

My point about "where did i say we were winning or losing" was brought up, b/c considering we can't even agree on what a victory would be, it is stupid to even bring up...

Obama made a major blunder recently by saying that (paraphrasing) after the first world trade center bombings, we made the arrests and took care of it... Yet, this stupid, nieve tactic of treating terrorism as a police job is one of the main reasons why the towers no longer stand...

[quote]But when does a person stand up and say enough is enough? When do we say no more of our boys will die for what we percieve as an unwinnable war? Stabiltiy imo isnt possible untill we leave and allow them to have the civil war that we are just getting in the way of. So bring the boys home in as safe a manner as possible.[/quote]

perception is funny... a year ago the war was perceved as unwinnable... that is the perception anymore, though by your definitions it is true.. but it is a winnable war if you are simply trying to
get their democracy on their own feet...

[quote]So that mission accompished sign was just kidding? [/quote]

Not a joke and clearly a mistake... but also it was mis percieved... that part of the mission was done... Saddam was captured... the problem is that from this point until about a year ago, we had no strategy...

[quote]Jokes aside, Im stading by my statement that we are in the way.[/quote]

I'm standing by my stance that we need to give them more time to grow and get their legs up under them... We are starting to turn the tide in iraq, do you at least admit that?

[quote]I would like to see the quote of me saying people were too racist, for some clairification. As far as predictions, a. who cares we all prognosticate (though i would like to know specifics as to what your talking about), b. who was the one that had a argument with you about libby lying? [/quote]

That would take some looking... But if you insist that you made no such statements, I will start to look...

[quote]LOL... those who changed their minds left this country in a worse case scenario? (and im talking about the average citizen here) Those who didnt have the info to begin with that then changed their minds when seeing it, are cowards? .... again...LOL... now as far as loyality is concern...fuck loyalty to the individual and Im dead serious in saying that...my loyalty is to my principles, if you as a person violate my priciples I will not hold ANY loyality to you [b]F-U-C-K T-H-A-T[/b][/quote]

My fucking ass he didn't have the info... Are you trying to tell me that bush was hiding stuff from him too?

Loyalty to your principles = Morality

If the two collide, then you should go with morals, but that should have happened about 6 years ago when this was all beind debated, not now when he has a financial windfall coming from it...


Jamie, why don't you give a fuck that he didn't stop the killing in the first place, or even spoke up about what you now feel so strongly about? Why do you gloss over that point, and only look at him speaking out after it doesn't matter any more?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='674033' date='Jun 18 2008, 01:24 PM']You are reading too much into that... I am saying this: If you make a MASSIVE decision like Iraq, you better have your mind made up... You don't go along something this important b/c the polls are on your side, or b/c you don't want to risk your job... If he truely felt this way, he could have done everyone a favor by stepping up to the president as his friend, and told him what he said in the book... Instead he waits until it no longer matters, and the only person that benefits is McClellan and his wallet...

I don't think the war on terror can be described by any one liners or anything like that... It is very complicated, was fought for many reasons, and one of them is that it is severely weakening Al Qaeda...

[color="#FF0000"]Oh I dont know I think Chomsky has pinned it down pretty well in Kangars thread.[/color]

My point about "where did i say we were winning or losing" was brought up, b/c considering we can't even agree on what a victory would be, it is stupid to even bring up...

[color="#FF0000"]Winning to you is giving them democracy, winning to me is getting out of the way so that the civil war can take place and let the victor have their version of democracy. But alas Chomsky is right ... the oil is too vital.[/color]

Obama made a major blunder recently by saying that (paraphrasing) after the first world trade center bombings, we made the arrests and took care of it... Yet, this stupid, nieve tactic of treating terrorism as a police job is one of the main reasons why the towers no longer stand...



perception is funny... a year ago the war was perceved as unwinnable... that is the perception anymore, though by your definitions it is true.. but it is a winnable war if you are simply trying to
get their democracy on their own feet...

[color="#FF0000"]See above[/color]

Not a joke and clearly a mistake... but also it was mis percieved... that part of the mission was done... Saddam was captured... the problem is that from this point until about a year ago, we had no strategy...

[color="#FF0000"]Good move on our part eh? And your wrong, we did have a statagy but once again the biggest problem with DC happened again and hubris reared its ugly head and Rumsfeild though he knew all and fired any General that told him otherwise.[/color]

I'm standing by my stance that we need to give them more time to grow and get their legs up under them... We are starting to turn the tide in iraq, do you at least admit that?

[color="#FF0000"]Tell that to the familes of those 57 in that car bomb just the other day.[/color]

That would take some looking... But if you insist that you made no such statements, I will start to look...

[color="#FF0000"]I'd at least like the chance to make any clairifications as you often misinterperate what I say.[/color]

My fucking ass he didn't have the info... Are you trying to tell me that bush was hiding stuff from him too?

[color="#FF0000"]IM TALKING ABOUT THE AMERICAN CITIZENS RICK[/color]

Loyalty to your principles = Morality

If the two collide, then you should go with morals, but that should have happened about 6 years ago when this was all beind debated, not now when he has a financial windfall coming from it...

[color="#FF0000"]Powell did, but its a shame has been too quiet about that since.[/color]

Jamie, why don't you give a fuck that he didn't stop the killing in the first place, or even spoke up about what you now feel so strongly about? Why do you gloss over that point, and only look at him speaking out after it doesn't matter any more?

[color="#FF0000"]I dont care about McClellon's guilt or innocence thats not the point I have been making here just about wether what he is saying is true or not, Im not going to gloss over that.[/color][/quote]