It's the President's job to read the reports, examine the intelligence (including any dissenting opinions) and come to a conclusion.
Would you rather be having the "Bush got is into war" debate arguing he did not put much credence in the dissenting views of the intelligence agencies or the "OMG! WTF! Bush let New York City get hit by a WMD!!!" debate because he put more credence in the dissenting opinions? Hindsight is always 20/20.
but congresspeople don't read the bills they sign. Not reading intelligence is relatively not so bad.
It's not so bad, until war is declared because of it, in which case I lean very close to calling it treason.
Yeah, I'm talking about just the not reading part. Think about how many documents, reports, etc. that the federal government produces every day. Look at how insanely large some of them are. It's unreasonable to expect anyone, even the president. to actually read all that. Advisors and staff are supposed to read it, and then advise.
See, that's okay and even excusable if we're talking about deciding how much money to give to the National Zoo this year. However, I think it's fair to expect the president to sit down and read every last goddamn page of however many sets of documents he gets before he makes decisions that kill and maim people.
Are you going to tell a vet who's currently missing an arm and both legs that it's not so bad that GWB didn't make an informed decision? How about the kids whose fathers and mothers are never coming home? Oh yeah, I forgot that you don't care that much for individual people. Think about how many of your hard earned tax dollars were wasted that could have been used for something different.
but congresspeople don't read the bills they sign. Not reading intelligence is relatively not so bad.
It's not so bad, until war is declared because of it, in which case I lean very close to calling it treason.
Yeah, I'm talking about just the not reading part. Think about how many documents, reports, etc. that the federal government produces every day. Look at how insanely large some of them are. It's unreasonable to expect anyone, even the president. to actually read all that. Advisors and staff are supposed to read it, and then advise.
See, that's okay and even excusable if we're talking about deciding how much money to give to the National Zoo this year. However, I think it's fair to expect the president to sit down and read every last goddamn page of however many sets of documents he gets before he makes decisions that kill and maim people.
As much as I agree, I really think that would result in a president that does nothing but sit and read for 4 years without sleep.
I agree that advisors should read it, but the president should still be held directly responsible for those advisors, and the BS that comes out of them.
but congresspeople don't read the bills they sign. Not reading intelligence is relatively not so bad.
It's not so bad, until war is declared because of it, in which case I lean very close to calling it treason.
Yeah, I'm talking about just the not reading part. Think about how many documents, reports, etc. that the federal government produces every day. Look at how insanely large some of them are. It's unreasonable to expect anyone, even the president. to actually read all that. Advisors and staff are supposed to read it, and then advise.
See, that's okay and even excusable if we're talking about deciding how much money to give to the National Zoo this year. However, I think it's fair to expect the president to sit down and read every last goddamn page of however many sets of documents he gets before he makes decisions that kill and maim people.
As much as I agree, I really think that would result in a president that does nothing but sit and read for 4 years without sleep.
That would have been a much, much better result. Thousands of people would be alive and whole, and billions of our tax dollars wouldn't have been wasted.
As much as I agree, I really think that would result in a president that does nothing but sit and read for 4 years without sleep.
Only if killing and maiming is such a common course of action.
Even if we go to war, say, ten times a year, I think the president can make the time to read those ten sets of documents. It would, in the very least, be a disincentive to going to war quite so readily.
billions of our tax dollars wouldn't have been wasted.
They just would have been wasted somewhere else.
Oh, that's a good excuse. I'll remind you of that next time you're bitching about taxes. Also, I'd rather see my part of that money burned or flushed down a toilet than contributing to hurting someone.
Bin Laden is presumed to have been in Afghanistan on 9/11 and to have fled during the battle at Tora Bora in December 2001. Gary Berntsen was the CIA officer in charge on the ground. He told me that his request for Army Rangers to prevent an escape into Pakistan was denied, and sure enough, that's where bin Laden went.
Then came a period when the administration was presumed to be pressing the search through means it couldn't share publicly. But as time went by with no capture, the signs became more troublesome.
We now know that, in late 2005, the CIA disbanded Alec Station, the FBI-CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden, as reported on July 4, 2006, by the New York Times.
Well, perhaps we closed the bin Laden unit because Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was fully engaged in the hunt in his country's northwest territories, where the duo were supposedly hiding. But in September 2006, Musharraf reached an accord with tribal leaders, notorious for their refusal to hand over a guest, whereby he agreed to give them continued free reign.
Our response? Agree to pay Musharraf enormous sums of money for a search he had just agreed not to undertake. On May 20, 2007, the Times reported that we were paying $80 million a month to Pakistan for its supposed counter-terrorism efforts, for a total of $5.6 billion.
Meanwhile, there was no demand for accountability by our government. The White House and the Pentagon played down the significance of capturing bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, and President Bush offered only superficial responses to the few questions raised on the status of the search. For example, on Feb. 23, 2007, the Army's highest-ranking officer, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said he didn't know whether we would find bin Laden, and "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
At a May 24, 2007, White House news conference, when the president was asked why Osama was still at large, his answer was the usual bankrupt refrain: "Because we haven't got him yet... That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice."
Source. So yeah, since we're not actually looking for him, I think it would probably be a good idea to stop sending money to Pakistan, who's not looking for him either.
billions of our tax dollars wouldn't have been wasted.
They just would have been wasted somewhere else.
Not so much, since Three Trillion Dollars would be hard to justify for other programs, particularly when we are borrowing it from China.
For an individual program, yes. In aggregate, no.
I disagree, but it is of no matter. At least the money wouldn't have gone to pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead soldiers, an unknown number of dead contractors/mercenaries, vastly diminished American diplomatic capital around the globe, and an unstable Iraq with terrorists (that weren't there before).
billions of our tax dollars wouldn't have been wasted.
They just would have been wasted somewhere else.
Not so much, since Three Trillion Dollars would be hard to justify for other programs, particularly when we are borrowing it from China.
For an individual program, yes. In aggregate, no.
I disagree, but it is of no matter. At least the money wouldn't have gone to pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead soldiers, an unknown number of dead contractors/mercenaries, vastly diminished American diplomatic capital around the globe, and an unstable Iraq with terrorists (that weren't there before).
Don't forget the maimed American soldiers. There is a significant portion of this generation who are either maimed by war, or touched by someone who has been maimed. Those lives have been profoundly affected by the rash decisions of people who will never have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Don't forget the maimed American soldiers. There is a significant portion of this generation who are either maimed by war, or touched by someone who has been maimed. Those lives have been profoundly affected by the rash decisions of people who will never have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Too true. Apparently in some peoples' minds (you know who you are), all of these sacrifices and the enormous debt we are now in owing to the war are all just hunky-dory since it happened under a Republican administration. I wonder what tune said persons would be singing if a Democratic administration had caused this same debacle? Moreover, why aren't these Iraqi supporters all joining the military to fight the "good" fight? If you believe in it so much, go and put your own skin on the line. Support our troops by bringing them home and never allowing a pointless war based on bad intelligence (that was known to be bad prior to its inception) to ever happen again under any administration in the U.S.
Moreover, why aren't these Iraqi supporters all joining the military to fight the "good" fight? If you believe in it so much, go and put your own skin on the line.
Some of us have already served and are no longer able to serve. Others realize that if all of us signed up we would fall under the UCMJ in regards to talking to the press and such. Thus, we need a certain amount of people to remain on the civilian side.
Besides, if all the "Iraqi supporters" signed up you would change your mantra to, "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!"
Support our troops by bringing them home? How about supporting them with air strikes and artillery brigades? You don't support your local police and fire departments by telling them not to fight crime and fires so why are you "supporting" the troops by telling them to come home?
Support our troops by bringing them home? How about supporting them with air strikes and artillery brigades? You don't support your local police and fire departments by telling them not to fight crime and fires so why are you "supporting" the troops by telling them to come home?
Because police and fire departments are saving lives, not taking them.
Support our troops by bringing them home? How about supporting them with air strikes and artillery brigades? You don't support your local police and fire departments by telling them not to fight crime and fires so why are you "supporting" the troops by telling them to come home?
Because the primary purpose of the police and fire departments are saving lives, not taking them.
Fixed that for you.
The primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. So, how does stopping them from doing that (bringing them home) support them?
Besides, if all the "Iraqi supporters" signed up you would change your mantra to, "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!"
No, I would never blame the troops for signing up, only those in power for sending them to die for no reason. NEVER assume such a thing, nor put any such words in my mouth EVER again.
Support our troops by bringing them home? How about supporting them with air strikes and artillery brigades? You don't support your local police and fire departments by telling them not to fight crime and fires so why are you "supporting" the troops by telling them to come home?
I am not saying they should never go to war, I am saying we should support them by bringing them home for a baseless war. Your analogy is so poor that is it painful. Using your example, the Iraq war is tantamount to sending firemen into a building that is NOT on fire and then setting it ablaze, or sending your entire police force into a single cite where no crime has been committed and then allowing the mob to mow them down.
The primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. So, how does stopping them from doing that (bringing them home) support them?
One of two things is true.
Either the people in our military want to kill people and break things, or they don't. It's not a false dichotomy, there really is no other option.
If they want to kill people and break things, these are not people we want in our society or serving in our military. I don't know about you, but I do not want violent disturbed human beings acting as representatives of my country to the rest of the world. Nor do I want them in positions of military responsibility with access to weaponry that allows them to easily undertake their violent endeavors. I don't want this kind of human being anywhere but prison.
If the people in the military are not sick fucks, and they don't actually want to kill people and break things (especially for no justifiable purpose), then I imagine they would very much like to come home, and no longer be forced to commit such heinous atrocities.
The primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. So, how does stopping them from doing that (bringing them home) support them?
The primary purpose of military service is to DEFEND and PROTECT. If they are going on the offensive, not the defensive and creating security problems (i.e. increased global terrorists and hatred against the U.S.), how are they fulfilling their primary objective. Also, these people joined the military with the hope of doing some good and we are WASTING their time and safety in Iraq.
The primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.
The primary purpose of military service is to DEFEND and PROTECT.
This is a great contrast. One statement is an expression of an immature, agressive, warlike culture that wishes to impose its will upon others (incidentally, this statement is one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite things to say). The other statement is an expression of a peaceful culture that loves freedom and peace but wishes to be prepared to defend itself.
Which one do you think the founders of this country would have agreed with more?
Edit: Just for fun, since I'm reminded of other things Limbaugh has said, Here are Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths about Life. You might think this is irrelevant, but there are people out there that actually take this to heart and believe it. Scary.
Besides, if all the "Iraqi supporters" signed up you would change your mantra to, "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!"
No, I would never blame the troops for signing up, only those in power for sending them to die for no reason. NEVER assume such a thing, nor put any such words in my mouth EVER again.
Please. You have just as much history knowledge as some American conservatives.
oh. o.o
*fidget, fidget* Oooh! Comb in my pocket... Ehm, the latter? Peaceful culture that loves freedom but wishes to be prepared to defend itself? And can I put a bet on the percentage of conservatives that will say this too? If so, a dollar on 0.1%. Yes, a risky bet indeed, in the hope there's at least one.
EDIT: And I'll move away from these threads again.
Comments
Would you rather be having the "Bush got is into war" debate arguing he did not put much credence in the dissenting views of the intelligence agencies or the "OMG! WTF! Bush let New York City get hit by a WMD!!!" debate because he put more credence in the dissenting opinions? Hindsight is always 20/20.
Are you going to tell a vet who's currently missing an arm and both legs that it's not so bad that GWB didn't make an informed decision? How about the kids whose fathers and mothers are never coming home? Oh yeah, I forgot that you don't care that much for individual people. Think about how many of your hard earned tax dollars were wasted that could have been used for something different.
Even if we go to war, say, ten times a year, I think the president can make the time to read those ten sets of documents. It would, in the very least, be a disincentive to going to war quite so readily.
Support our troops by bringing them home and never allowing a pointless war based on bad intelligence (that was known to be bad prior to its inception) to ever happen again under any administration in the U.S.
Besides, if all the "Iraqi supporters" signed up you would change your mantra to, "look, only those warmonger soldiers want to be over there. All of us civilians want peace!"
Support our troops by bringing them home? How about supporting them with air strikes and artillery brigades? You don't support your local police and fire departments by telling them not to fight crime and fires so why are you "supporting" the troops by telling them to come home?
The primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. So, how does stopping them from doing that (bringing them home) support them?
Either the people in our military want to kill people and break things, or they don't. It's not a false dichotomy, there really is no other option.
If they want to kill people and break things, these are not people we want in our society or serving in our military. I don't know about you, but I do not want violent disturbed human beings acting as representatives of my country to the rest of the world. Nor do I want them in positions of military responsibility with access to weaponry that allows them to easily undertake their violent endeavors. I don't want this kind of human being anywhere but prison.
If the people in the military are not sick fucks, and they don't actually want to kill people and break things (especially for no justifiable purpose), then I imagine they would very much like to come home, and no longer be forced to commit such heinous atrocities.
Which one do you think the founders of this country would have agreed with more?
Edit: Just for fun, since I'm reminded of other things Limbaugh has said, Here are Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths about Life. You might think this is irrelevant, but there are people out there that actually take this to heart and believe it. Scary.
One more: Richard Clarke says that Bush lied and should have to pay for it. What do you think?
*fidget, fidget* Oooh! Comb in my pocket... Ehm, the latter? Peaceful culture that loves freedom but wishes to be prepared to defend itself? And can I put a bet on the percentage of conservatives that will say this too? If so, a dollar on 0.1%. Yes, a risky bet indeed, in the hope there's at least one.
EDIT: And I'll move away from these threads again.