Crispy Critter
New member
The naysayers use the following argument:
The administration took us to war on faulty intelligence...in fact; they fabricated or embellished intelligence to take the country to war... The administration has no creditability and even outed an undercover CIA agent...
We don’t have a plan to get out... We don’t have a victory plan... So, we should cut our losses!
The administration, thinking the folks on the left will be laughed off the stage fails to react for a couple weeks allowing the comedy shows to paint the guilt portrayed on the administration... The administration, realizing the public is susceptible to liberal talking point lies repeated often enough to have creditability refutes the allegations on the basis of war but continues to not speak on open investigation of the outing of the CIA agent.
Enter War Hero congressman... How about we leave now? Let’s take our troops out of harm’s way and watch the Iraqi government fight the insurgents in Kuwait and help them “if” they need help.
So the people have a choice to make... what is one to believe? Cut and run or “stay the course”?
Let’s look at the problem objectively... The congress voted overwhelmingly to give GWB administration the authority to do exactly what he did. They placed no restrictions on his method. They have voted to support with funds the actions since the first bomb fell. The War plan, according to Bush administration, is to allow battlefield commanders to run the war, establish an Iraqi government, train their security force and leave when the security force can properly operate. (Assumed is that the force must be able to protect borders from Syria, Turkey and Iran in addition to protecting the Iraqi population.) That sounds like a plan! The National Intelligence Statement provided to the Congress supported the war action. There was no fabrication of intelligence or lie for a reason to go to war. The elected officials of both parties actually believed we should go to war with Iraq. To argue that Bush fooled them actually makes them a bigger FOOL!
OK, then why cut and run talk by a Democratic war hero? Is his position supporting Bush lied? Bush administration outed a CIA agent? Where does the traction to leave after such an investment of soldiers and tax dollars come from?
Recent news indicates the outing of a CIA agent was more like Nancy Peloicy being married to Dennis Kusinish, with Nancy working a desk job at CIA and sending Dennis to confirm Iraq didn’t want any yellow cake from Africa and nothing to do with an actual outing of a CIA agent.
So, what’s the thing that grabs the American public to change thinking on the war? One can only think the casualties. After all we don’t have an exit strategy for Korea, Germany or Bosnia Hertsokovina either and the public doesn’t seem to care. One can conclude a majority thinks that GWB outsmarted our stupid republican and democratic senators and congressmen... he lied about why war was necessary. He is covering for a person who outed a CIA agent and therefore we should cut and run.
If such thought is logical then why did he do it? If he was smart enough to fool a thousand lawyers in Congress by using “made up” intelligence and punishing opposing points of view why didn’t he plant some WMD to include yellow cake in Iraq to insure no one doubted the reasoning? Only a liberal can justify being fooled by an idiot from Texas yet can’t explain why he stopped being so smart to continue his plan to feed big oil.
So if Bush did it on purpose he had to be pretty cunning... don’t you think he could have made a lot more money using such brilliance in a way that left him looking a little better? Are wars to have no casualties, or less than ten to be acceptable? Would we tell the Army to cut and run if the terrorist were doing the bombing in American weddings, funerals and stores and against our police stations?
The administration took us to war on faulty intelligence...in fact; they fabricated or embellished intelligence to take the country to war... The administration has no creditability and even outed an undercover CIA agent...
We don’t have a plan to get out... We don’t have a victory plan... So, we should cut our losses!
The administration, thinking the folks on the left will be laughed off the stage fails to react for a couple weeks allowing the comedy shows to paint the guilt portrayed on the administration... The administration, realizing the public is susceptible to liberal talking point lies repeated often enough to have creditability refutes the allegations on the basis of war but continues to not speak on open investigation of the outing of the CIA agent.
Enter War Hero congressman... How about we leave now? Let’s take our troops out of harm’s way and watch the Iraqi government fight the insurgents in Kuwait and help them “if” they need help.
So the people have a choice to make... what is one to believe? Cut and run or “stay the course”?
Let’s look at the problem objectively... The congress voted overwhelmingly to give GWB administration the authority to do exactly what he did. They placed no restrictions on his method. They have voted to support with funds the actions since the first bomb fell. The War plan, according to Bush administration, is to allow battlefield commanders to run the war, establish an Iraqi government, train their security force and leave when the security force can properly operate. (Assumed is that the force must be able to protect borders from Syria, Turkey and Iran in addition to protecting the Iraqi population.) That sounds like a plan! The National Intelligence Statement provided to the Congress supported the war action. There was no fabrication of intelligence or lie for a reason to go to war. The elected officials of both parties actually believed we should go to war with Iraq. To argue that Bush fooled them actually makes them a bigger FOOL!
OK, then why cut and run talk by a Democratic war hero? Is his position supporting Bush lied? Bush administration outed a CIA agent? Where does the traction to leave after such an investment of soldiers and tax dollars come from?
Recent news indicates the outing of a CIA agent was more like Nancy Peloicy being married to Dennis Kusinish, with Nancy working a desk job at CIA and sending Dennis to confirm Iraq didn’t want any yellow cake from Africa and nothing to do with an actual outing of a CIA agent.
So, what’s the thing that grabs the American public to change thinking on the war? One can only think the casualties. After all we don’t have an exit strategy for Korea, Germany or Bosnia Hertsokovina either and the public doesn’t seem to care. One can conclude a majority thinks that GWB outsmarted our stupid republican and democratic senators and congressmen... he lied about why war was necessary. He is covering for a person who outed a CIA agent and therefore we should cut and run.
If such thought is logical then why did he do it? If he was smart enough to fool a thousand lawyers in Congress by using “made up” intelligence and punishing opposing points of view why didn’t he plant some WMD to include yellow cake in Iraq to insure no one doubted the reasoning? Only a liberal can justify being fooled by an idiot from Texas yet can’t explain why he stopped being so smart to continue his plan to feed big oil.
So if Bush did it on purpose he had to be pretty cunning... don’t you think he could have made a lot more money using such brilliance in a way that left him looking a little better? Are wars to have no casualties, or less than ten to be acceptable? Would we tell the Army to cut and run if the terrorist were doing the bombing in American weddings, funerals and stores and against our police stations?
