View Full Version : The Bush Administration Flip Flop Thread
ElanthianSiren
09-06-2006, 04:08 PM
Seeing as how Bush has now admitted to those secret CIA prisons/prisoner moves that didn't "exist" previously (and that the treatment of prisoners in such isn't within the approved approach), I thought it appropriate to create a Bush and Co. Flip Flopper thread.
Yep, this is an entire thread dedicated to the bumbling, lying, rash decision making, and general dim-witedness that has lowered us to the barbarian tactics of our enemies and/or made us less safe. Yee haw!
With Love,
Melissa
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged previously secret CIA prisons around the world and said 14 high-value terrorism suspects — including the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks — have been transferred from the system to Guantanamo Bay for trials.
He said a small number of detainees have been kept in CIA custody including people responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in addition to the 2001 attacks.
"It has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts," Bush said in a White House speech. Families of some people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made up part of the audience.
Bush said of the suspects: "These are dangerous men, with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans of new attacks. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know."
The announcement from Bush was the first time the administration had acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons, which have been a source of friction between Washington and some allies in Europe. The administration has come under criticism for its treatment of terrorism detainees. European Union lawmakers said the CIA was conducting clandestine flights in Europe to take terror suspects to countries where they could face torture.
"Today the administration finally recognized that the protections of the Geneva Convention should be applied to prisoners in order to restore our moral authority and best protect American troops," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "Today's shift in policy follows the sad legacy of five years during which this administration abused our Constitution, violated our laws and most importantly failed to make America safe."
Bush has sought with a series of speeches to sharpen the focus on national security two months before high-stakes congressional elections.
The president successfully emphasized the war on terror in his re-election campaign in 2004 and is trying to make it a winning issue for Republicans again this year.
Bush said the CIA program has involved such suspected terrorists as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, believed to be the No. 3 al-Qaida leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003; Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be Sept. 11 hijacker; Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells before he was captured in Pakistan in 2002.
The list also includes Riduan Isamuddin, known as Hambali, who was suspected of being the mastermind of a string of deadly bomb attacks in Indonesia until his 2003 arrest in Thailand.
Defending the prison program, the president said the questioning of these detainees has provided critical intelligence information about terrorist activities that has enabled officials to prevent attacks, including with airplanes, within the United States. Other attacks thwarted through intelligence gathered in the program include a planned strike with an explosives-laden water tanker on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, an attack with car and motorcycle bombs on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, and a plot to fly passenger planes into London's Heathrow Airport or Canary Wharf, Bush said.
Bush would not detail interrogation techniques used through the program, saying only that they are tough but do not constitute torture. He did use language that suggested its nature, saying the CIA turned to an "alternative set of procedures" that were successful after Zubaydah and others had stopped providing information.
"This program has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they have a chance to kill," the president said.
A senior administration official said that fewer than 100 people have been detained under the CIA program, rejecting allegations that perhaps thousands have been held in secret prisons. With the transfer of the 14 detainees to Guantanamo, the CIA is no longer holding any suspects, the administration official said. He added, however, that the administration wants the program to continue.
The president said the 14 key terrorist leaders, including Mohammed, Binalshibh, and Zubaydah, who have been transferred to the U.S. military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay would be afforded some legal protections consistent with the Geneva Conventions.
"They will continue to be treated with the humanity that they denied others," Bush said.
Bush also laid out his proposal for how trials of such key suspected terrorists — those transferred to Guantanamo and already there — should be conducted, which must be approved by Congress. Bush's original plan for the type of military trials used in the aftermath of World War II was struck down in June by the Supreme Court, which said the tribunals would violate U.S. and international law.
"As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, can face justice," the president said.
Aides said the legislation being introduced on Bush's behalf later Wednesday on Capitol Hill insists on provisions covering military tribunals that would permit evidence to be withheld from a defendant if necessary to protect classified information.
As part of the package, Bush asked Congress to shield from prosecution or lawsuits federal personnel who handle terrorist suspects.
"Passing this legislation ought to be the top priority," Bush said.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have drafted a rival proposal. It would guarantee certain legal rights to defendants, including access to all evidence used against them.
"I think it's important that we stand by 200 years of legal precedents concerning classified information because the defendant should have a right to know what evidence is being used," said McCain, R-Ariz.
Administration officials also have said that allowing coerced testimony in some cases may be necessary, while McCain said the committee bill would ban it entirely. "We have some differences that we are in discussion about," said McCain, who had not seen the White House bill in writing.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is expected to side with the administration. He planned to introduce Wednesday the White House legislative proposal on the floor and refer it to the Armed Services Committee for review.
Also on Wednesday, the Pentagon put out a new Army field manual that spells out appropriate conduct on issues including prisoner interrogation. The manual applies to all the armed services, but not the CIA.
It bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous during the war on terror.
The United States began using the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in eastern Cuba in January 2002 to hold people suspected of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. About 445 detainees remain there, including 115 considered eligible for transfer or release.
The president said he eventually wants to close Guantanamo as critics and allies around the world have urged. But he said that cannot happen until Congress creates the process for trying its most dangerous prisoners, and other countries negotiate acceptable terms for taking back their citizens who are being held there.
Artha
09-06-2006, 04:22 PM
A change of views/stances/whatever is a flip flop if done because of a poll.
I guess it's a nice attempt to try to use Kerry's biggest weakness against Bush, but it remains an attempt.
radamanthys
09-06-2006, 04:26 PM
edited to be nice.
A change of views/stances/whatever is a flip flop if done because of a poll.
I guess it's a nice attempt to try to use Kerry's biggest weakness against Bush, but it remains an attempt.
Its a flip-flop (BAD) when they do it.
Its adapting (GOOD) when we do it.
Nice double standard.
ElanthianSiren
09-06-2006, 04:43 PM
Nah, it's a flip flop on the information, not on a stance.
Initially, it was that these SECRET terror prisons were a joke and absolutely didn't exist.
Then, Condi Rice said that we were extraditing a few people but they were NOT being tortured.
Now, Bush states that we're moving prisoners and that unorthodox methods are being used.
The stance is still that whatever we say should be believed. I just find it funny. I suppose if you want to get technical, it's more of a lie, not a flip flop. Thanks for correcting me.
-M
Soulpieced
09-06-2006, 04:46 PM
It's not a "stance", it's called classified information that the public isn't supposed to know about.
ElanthianSiren
09-06-2006, 04:49 PM
We still don't know the locations of said prisons, when prisoners are moved, how, by what means, etc, so I don't see how it's compromised any security for Bush to reveal that we are doing it. I can't share your assessment.
It's like the outrage over the Times reporting that we were watching how terrorists moved money.
-M
Sean of the Thread
09-06-2006, 04:56 PM
It's not a "stance", it's called classified information that the public isn't supposed to know about.
QFT
Wezas
09-06-2006, 04:56 PM
As much as I despise Bush, I think Soulpie's post has some validity.
ElanthianSiren
09-06-2006, 05:05 PM
So by that view, the administration just compromised security more by admitting to said programs?
-M
Sean of the Thread
09-06-2006, 05:09 PM
So by that view, the administration just compromised security more by admitting to said programs?
-M
No.
Soulpieced
09-06-2006, 05:11 PM
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with "The Bush Administration", "The evil Government", or even politics. Bush is doing what he can to address public and congressional issues, while still protecting the classified nature of something that was not intended to be made public. Wikipedia classified or sensitive information, and you may learn a bit.
ElanthianSiren
09-06-2006, 05:20 PM
Bush is doing what he can to address public and congressional issues, while still protecting the classified nature of something that was not intended to be made public.
So why not continue to deny it?
In honesty, it would have become public. The last Supreme Court Case (Padilla I believe) made this type of action in our government public. Define public and congressional issues. I tend to agree with the article; it ties into him trying to win over approval for his new plan after the Supreme Court shot down the last attempt to circumvent wartime prisoner rights. I find it amusing that he has to backpedal to do it though.
-M
...
That would work if the republican party would too stop demonizing the democrats, but demonization is a facet of our public life, unfortunately. -M
I also find it interesting that these 'secret' prisons and CIA interrorgation techniques were also in existence during a Democrat president... And yet its all the Republican's fault.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Its like you're saying that the war on terror must be won, but our current administration must do it without wiretaps, without detaining prisoners, without interrorgating them, without keeping secrets from the American public, without narrowing surveilance activities on known terrorist patterns, and without spending any money on any of the afore mentioned efforts.
And then you say that our current administration is not doing a good job winning the war on terror.
:banghead:
TheEschaton
09-06-2006, 05:58 PM
"They will continue to be treated with the humanity that they denied others," Bush said.
The idiocy of this statement makes my head hurt. It reminds me of a button I saw the other day on some random chick that said "Let me get this right: We have to kill people who kill people to teach them killing people is wrong?"
I almost went up and hugged her, but some people get freaked out by that kind of stuff, especially women alone on mass transit.
-TheE-
The idiocy of this statement makes my head hurt. It reminds me of a button I saw the other day on some random chick that said "Let me get this right: We have to kill people who kill people to teach them killing people is wrong?"
I almost went up and hugged her, but some people get freaked out by that kind of stuff, especially women alone on mass transit.
-TheE-
No, you kill people who refuse to be taught that killing innocent people is wrong.
Or you could just go and hug the terrorists until they change their mind about blowing up their next shopping mall, resturant, building, bus....
Artha
09-06-2006, 06:27 PM
Its a flip-flop (BAD) when they do it.
Its adapting (GOOD) when we do it.
I choose not to understand (BAD) when they say it.
I choose to understand (GOOD) when we say it.
Nice double standard.
QFT.
Skirmisher
09-06-2006, 06:53 PM
It's not a "stance", it's called classified information that the public isn't supposed to know about.
Well I guess if i was breaking so many international laws and standards I would call it "classified" too.
I hear organized crime runs alot of "classified" missions also.
Ilvane
09-06-2006, 06:58 PM
Sadly, there is no convincing certain people no matter what proof you show.
Angela
radamanthys
09-06-2006, 07:10 PM
it's more fun to be open minded- it makes talking politics more fun. Unfortunately, there are hotheads on each side, and no matter how open minded you are, if you have an opinion against theirs, you're fucked. When, most likely, both opinions are correct.
oh, and.... Radamanthys in '40!
RichardCranium
09-06-2006, 07:34 PM
The idiocy of this statement makes my head hurt. It reminds me of a button I saw the other day on some random chick that said "Let me get this right: We have to kill people who kill people to teach them killing people is wrong?"
I almost went up and hugged her, but some people get freaked out by that kind of stuff, especially women alone on mass transit.
-TheE-
Good luck getting a terrorist group to talk civilly about why what they're doing is wrong and that they should change their ways.
ElanthianSiren
09-06-2006, 08:46 PM
Its like you're saying that the war on terror must be won, but our current administration must do it without wiretaps, without detaining prisoners, without interrorgating them, without keeping secrets from the American public, without narrowing surveilance activities on known terrorist patterns, and without spending any money on any of the afore mentioned efforts.
And then you say that our current administration is not doing a good job winning the war on terror.
:banghead:
Nobody is saying that at all. What some people are saying is that the administration should follow the proper protocol outlined by precident or face the disciplinary action afforded by our system. There are systems created with the idea of balance and decency for wiretapping, detention, interrogation, surveillence and so on. War doesn't give any Republican or Democrat a blank check, in essence, was what the Supreme Court said per Padilla -- QFT.
Further, Bush was the one who said that the war on terror was unwinnable. I feel that there are steps that could be taken to move closer to victory, personally.
More than anything, I was saying that it was amusing to me to watch the man flip flop between 'we're not running secret detention camps, where we torture prisoners' earlier this year to 'we are but not a lot'... sorta reminded me of Monty Python but real.
-M
Sean of the Thread
09-06-2006, 08:56 PM
Clueless.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 08:05 AM
The only reason Bush has made this announcement is because the '06 elections are in 2 months. It puts the focus on the war on terrorism instead of Iraq and forces the Democrats in congress to act on how to deal with these prisoners or be viewed as weak on defense.
It's a political bullshit game to win votes and nothing more.
The only reason Bush has made this announcement is because the '06 elections are in 2 months. It puts the focus on the war on terrorism instead of Iraq and forces the Democrats in congress to act on how to deal with these prisoners or be viewed as weak on defense.
It's a political bullshit game to win votes and nothing more.Exactly.
More to the point, it's a clever attempt by Bush to portray himself as the leader of the war on terror and as PB indicated it serves to put Democrats on notice and on the defense as the mid-term elections approach. The backlash from members of the EU will be interesting to say the least.
>>There are systems created with the idea of balance and decency for wiretapping, detention, interrogation, surveillence and so on.<<
True.
Furthermore, if we are going to go through the trouble of putting these monsters on trial, why are we even considering denying them access to the evidence that will be used against them. That boggles my mind somewhat. Why not just put them in front of a firing squad and save taxpayers money and lawmakers time.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 09:22 AM
Exactly.
More to the point, it's a clever attempt by Bush to portray himself as the leader of the war on terror and as PB indicated it serves to put Democrats on notice and on the defense as the mid-term elections approach. The backlash from members of the EU will be interesting to say the least.
>>There are systems created with the idea of balance and decency for wiretapping, detention, interrogation, surveillence and so on.<<
True.
Furthermore, if we are going to go through the trouble of putting these monsters on trial, why are we even considering denying them access to the evidence that will be used against them. That boggles my mind somewhat. Why not just put them in front of a firing squad and save taxpayers money and lawmakers time.
If Bush isn't the leader on the war on Terror, please tell me who is? He has championed that cause since 9-11 and has not strayed from that view.. unlike many in our Congress. Like him or hate him, I really do believe that Bush is doing everything he can to safeguard the American public. He's a complete inept moron at communicating that at most times.. but I respect him for it.
What are we doing in Iraq?
He has also recently said, also contrary to what he and his administration has said before, that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Where is the focus on Bin Ladin?
When did this other guy Kalil Siek Muhammod become the mastermind of 9/11? If we have him, and he is, why isn’t he dead meat?
I understand secrecy but not to the point that you keep things secret to break established laws, practices and checks and balances.
Wezas
09-07-2006, 09:34 AM
THE Pentagon has released a new manual defining the acceptable treatment of US military prisoners, revising an earlier edition from 1992. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20368301-1702,00.html)
Summary: No more naked leashed prisoners forced to do a human pyramid.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 10:20 AM
What are we doing in Iraq?
He has also recently said, also contrary to what he and his administration has said before, that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Iraq is tied to the global war on terror. He's never said that Iraq had anything to do specifically with 9-11. Simply put, Bush was not willing to stand by and let someone like Saddam give money, weapons or anything else to people wanting to bring harm to the US.
Where is the focus on Bin Ladin?
There is always a focus on Bin Ladin and to say otherwise means you believe the armed forces in Afganistan are not doing their job. YOU try finding a guy in country the size of California with 50,000 people helping him hide.
When did this other guy Kalil Siek Muhammod become the mastermind of 9/11? If we have him, and he is, why isn’t he dead meat?
We typically don't just kill people we have in custody. Personally, I hope he 'meats' 47 virgins in prison named Bubba.
I understand secrecy but not to the point that you keep things secret to break established laws, practices and checks and balances.
What secret? What laws were broken? I was really shocked to find that you didn't use the catch phrase "violating our rights" in there.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 10:21 AM
Summary: No more naked leashed prisoners forced to do a human pyramid.
:(
Wezas
09-07-2006, 10:22 AM
:(
Well, we know what kind of porn PB likes.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 10:26 AM
Well, we know what kind of porn PB likes.
Tell me you wouldn't want to see 6 beautiful girls, forced to do naked pyramids?
Or is the first thing you think of when it comes to porn is naked guys?
If Bush isn't the leader on the war on Terror, please tell me who is? Easy, Dick Cheney. Seriously, you feel that he leads it and I feel that it's beyond just one man's scope due to the fact that it takes more than one individual at the top to make a difference. I think Bush's war on terror equates to a state of perpetual warfare, which is a seedbed for even more terrorism to continually rear its ugly head. His ideas certainly preface the fray.
He has championed that cause since 9-11 and has not strayed from that view.. unlike many in our Congress.True.
Like him or hate him, I really do believe that Bush is doing everything he can to safeguard the American public.I'm sure he resembles that statement.
He's a complete inept moron at communicating that at most times.. but I respect him for it.Considering his communication style inept and moronic is harsh, but he does struggle consistently in terms of how his ideas come across, which in turn affect how his message is received. The fumbling, vocabularly blunders, and other odd mannerisms represent him as someone who is unsavy with regard to not only communication at home, but more importanly international relations which are a necessity in this on-going war on terror.
As a leader of a great nation there's a certain measure of respect that goes without saying. Otherwise, no, not really.
StrayRogue
09-07-2006, 10:34 AM
Considering his communication style inept and moronic is harsh, but he does struggle consistently in terms of how his ideas come across, which in turn affect how his message is received. The fumbling, vocabularly blunders, and other odd mannerisms represent him as someone who is unsavy with regard to not only communication at home, but more importanly international relations which are a necessity in this on-going war on terror.
My favourites:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Latrinsorm
09-07-2006, 10:50 AM
He has also recently said, also contrary to what he and his administration has said before, that there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11.As near as I can remember what was always said was that Iraq (esp. Saddam) had links to terrorism/ists, not 9/11 in particular. It's been awhile though, maybe you can find some quotes to back up your assertions.
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 10:56 AM
They have actually been pushing the line that Iraq was part of the terrorist network which in turn pushes the connection to 9/11 and our necessary actions there.
They aren't related, but they are..so they said.
Angela
CrystalTears
09-07-2006, 11:13 AM
Bush has always said, since the 9/11 attacks, that it fueled the war against terrorism and would target terrorists as well as those who harbor terrorists. Iraq falls into those categories.
Was it an excuse to go to war with Iraq? More than likely. Am I sorry? Not at all. That scumbag needed to be wiped out of that country. He WAS harboring terrorists, like the ones who attacked TWC a few years back.
You try to go after as many terrorists as possible, just like you would with any other criminal. Just because you don't get Manson doesn't mean you don't get anyone else. The zero in on Bin Laden only mentality doesn't fly with me.
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 11:27 AM
So CT, honestly..Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Korea, when these places harbor terrorists too?
Don't forget Bin Ladin was a Saudi.
Angela
Landrion
09-07-2006, 11:29 AM
So CT, honestly..Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Korea, when these places harbor terrorists too?
Don't forget Bin Ladin was a Saudi.
Angela
I think theyre looking at Iran next actually.
CrystalTears
09-07-2006, 11:36 AM
For someone who doesn't like war, you want more of them? Besides, who is to say that other countries aren't being considered. As said above, Iran is one of them. How many wars do you want to be in at one time anyway?
Wezas
09-07-2006, 11:37 AM
Bush has alot of countries to squeeze into 2 years.
Sean of the Thread
09-07-2006, 11:44 AM
Don't forget Bin Ladin was a Saudi.
Angela
Was being the key word.. exile ring a bell?
As near as I can remember what was always said was that Iraq (esp. Saddam) had links to terrorism/ists, not 9/11 in particular. It's been awhile though, maybe you can find some quotes to back up your assertions. Yea, they've been denying a direct link for years now. I believe the main argument has mostly been Iraq's suspicion of having WMD. However, you'd have to be a little slow to not pick up on the politics of this war, namely the statements made since 9/11 by many government officials making all manner of claims that lead one to believe certain things, especially things that were crucial when it came to the support of a preemptive war with Iraq with subtle and very indirect links to 9/11.
Most Americans truly believed there was a connection, which ultimately built the admin. an airtight support system and an even stronger cause for war with Iraq.
So CT, honestly..Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Korea, when these places harbor terrorists too?
Don't forget Bin Ladin was a Saudi.
Angela
We're currently working with the Saudis, which has leadership that actualy cooperates. Hence, no invasion necessary.
Syria and Korea we are also working on, but against uncooperative leadership, but as any military strategist will tell you, fighting more than one war at a time is disasterous.
I'm sure we are doing many many things to stop terrorist support in Korea and Syria... some of which you know because of media coverage, and some of which you wont know, and dont really need to know.
Just because its not a headline on CNN doesnt mean that its not being worked on.
ElanthianSiren
09-07-2006, 12:12 PM
Syria and Korea we are also working on, but against uncooperative leadership, but as any military strategist will tell you, fighting more than one war at a time is disasterous.
So maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, which Blix concluded didn't have WMDs. Unless you mean that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are both part of the war on terror, to which I'd ask why Syria and N. Korea wouldn't be.
I don't think Angela is looking for more war, more pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in what Bush has done with regard to his own rhetoric.
-M
Atlanteax
09-07-2006, 12:47 PM
Iran is currently in the process of securing greater influence and probable domination in Iraq. Note that the Shiites (and Sunnis) are now (within the last week) promoting Regionalism-based modification to the Iraq Constitution (in line with the Kurdish Autonomy).
Unfortunately, due to the Bush Adminstration's very poor job of handling the Iraq War (not putting 400k boots on the ground, as opposed to just 120k for example) and not taking the opportunity to negotiate with Iran in a very favorable position then, the U.S. currently lacks bandwidth to intervene and ensure that Iraq becomes a counterweight to Iran (as was the original intention).
As a result, Iraq will probably instead become three small countries unified in name with a weak federal insitution (think US Confederacy pre-Constitution), which means instead of a contained Iran, Iran will be able to strengthen its influence throughout the MiddleEast region.
Israel's horrendous decision to handicap its execution of the Lebanon conflict (only air-power the first several weeks, and not committing troops until it was too late to be effective) only further strengthens Iran's position.
The only good news is that the Arabian governments (with the exception of Syria) are increasing their coordination among each other to counter Iran's strengthening influence. It won't be Shiitte vs Sunni as much as it'll be Arab vs Persian. This will help shore up the US position in the MiddleEast and in Iraq, primarily due to that the Arabian governments view Iran as the greater threat.
This is further demonstrated in the initial Arab rush (at the government level) to verbally condemn Hezbollah early on in the Lebanon crisis. While there is no love lost for Israel, so to speak, they were fully aware of what Iran could gain from a favorable resolution. The result of the conflict was not quite favorable for Iran, as much as it was unfavorable for Israel, where the end result was nonetheless positive for Iran. If Israel had acted decisively with determined force, Iran's position could had been weakened instead, and we may not be seeing the recent/current strengthening trend towards regionalism in Iraq.
.
Invading Iraq was a good decision at the time. However, due to poor planning, especially poor post-conflict management, the "War" has hurt the US more than it benefitted. Bush should had stuck with the Pentagon over Rumsfield (preferrably firing the later).
.
Combined with the Katrina fiasco as well, the Bush Adminstration has left a lot to be desired. After a somewhat positive start in the first three years, the past three years have been overwhelmingly negative. It is already a foregone conclusion that the Bush Adminstration has been a great disappointment.
So maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, which Blix concluded didn't have WMDs. Unless you mean that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are both part of the war on terror, to which I'd ask why Syria and N. Korea wouldn't be.
I don't think Angela is looking for more war, more pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in what Bush has done with regard to his own rhetoric.
-M
Nope, I still stand behind the Iraq invasion. Sadaam needed to be taken out. I agree with Atleanteax's synopsis of where it went wrong.
Who's to say Korea and Syria arent part of the war on terror? Just because we're not actively in combat with them does not mean that they are no less a target for their participation.
Unfortunately, due to the Bush Adminstration's very poor job of handling the Iraq War (not putting 400k boots on the ground, as opposed to just 120k for example) and not taking the opportunity to negotiate with Iran in a very favorable position then, the U.S. currently lacks bandwidth to intervene and ensure that Iraq becomes a counterweight to Iran (as was the original intention).
Iraq was already a counterweight to Iran before the invasion. So on that point it still does not make sense to me why we invaded. What being restressed now is that Iraq harbored terrorists so thats why we had to go in. Before that it was Iraqi Freedom, before that, WMDs.
I agree with your post however. Good summary.
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 01:08 PM
I agree that Saddam needed to be taken out, however, we went in under the pretense that he was stocking up wmd's..we went in in a rush for this.
I'm not saying anything about more war, I'm actually saying that they are hypocrits, saying one thing out of one side of their mouths, and doing something different, depending on how it suits them politically.
There are plenty of flip-flops in this administration, so don't try to pretend that it is just the Democratic party.
Some of us have never said it was JUST the Democrat party.
Some of us have said it was ONLY the Republican party.
Atlanteax
09-07-2006, 01:33 PM
Iraq was already a counterweight to Iran before the invasion. So on that point it still does not make sense to me why we invaded. What being restressed now is that Iraq harbored terrorists so thats why we had to go in. Before that it was Iraqi Freedom, before that, WMDs.
I agree with your post however. Good summary.
Well, any intelligent individual understands that the real goal of invading Iraq was to jump-start the "Westernization" of the MiddleEast and to break OPEC.
Iraq is located in the heart of the MiddleEast, which positions the US military in a very favorable position to "intervene" elsewhere if deemed necessary.
Then Iran was very concerned about this and attempted to start negotations with the US. Unfortunately, the Bush Adminstration declined, believing that its position in Iraq would continue to strengthen to the point where it could dictate terms to Iran (as opposed to negotating from a favorable position). As we all know, the US position deteriorated at an alarming rate, and the Bush Adminstration acted far too late and ineffectively in halting it. Now the tables are turned, and Iran has the upperhand (primarily due to US bandwidth having been exhausted).
Before the steep decline into instability, the US goal was to fund its military positioning there and the "Westernization" of Iraq with Iraqi oil revenues.
Iraqi oil has the lowest cost of production in the world, as little as $2-4 a barrel in some areas. With Western Oil companies developing the oil fields with the latest technology (previously, the technology and equipment in Saddam's reign would be considered obselete), Iraq would be producing as much oil as Saudi Arabi and Russia combined.
Aside from funding the "Westernization" process (made siginficantly easier with Western companies rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure from the ground up), the takeover of the Iraqi oil industry by Western companies would had broken OPEC once and for all (selling oil for $30 a barrel with production costs of $5 or less). Such a powerful threat of a pricing/supply "war" would had effectively brought Saudi Arabia into full cooperation with the US.
.
Iraq was supposed to be the start of a domino effect. The combination of a secure and vibrant US Military position (in several bases in Iraqi) with mass cheap oil was to then topple Saudi Arabia, fully secure the cooperation of the moderate MiddleEastern governments, and to force Iran to comply.
Obviously this did not happen (as describe in previous post), and we currently have a long and messy road ahead of us. The "breaking of OPEC" has been pushed several years behind schedule and probably won't happen until 2020 (or so) instead of perhaps 2009. It's highly probable that oil prices would never had gone past $50/barrel the past few years if Western oil companies were already on the ground in Iraq developing oil fields (as we'd know that the supply will be there).
.
When Iran was rebuffed by the Bush Adminstration after trying to start negotiations, it behaved as if cornered. Unfortunately for the US, Iran's gambits in increasing interference in Iraq and elsewhere has paid off for Iran.
As anyone who has worked in a company is well aware of, there is no limit to the damage that very poor management (Bush Adminstration mistakes) can do to undermine the company (or US geopolitical position in the MiddleEast in this case).
ElanthianSiren
09-07-2006, 01:35 PM
Nope, I still stand behind the Iraq invasion. Sadaam needed to be taken out. I agree with Atleanteax's synopsis of where it went wrong.
Who's to say Korea and Syria arent part of the war on terror? Just because we're not actively in combat with them does not mean that they are no less a target for their participation.
What I'm asking is if you see Afghanistan and Iraq as two wars or as one. By your own admission, you stated that strategically fighting two wars at once is disasterous and this is agreed upon by strategists.
I was asking if you saw an alternative. Mine would have been to listen to your intelligence guys and bomb the shit out of Tora Bora. We might have missed Bin Laden in the strike and he STILL might have gotten away into Pakistan, but it would have been better than inaction IMO.
If strategists agree on this one war one time theory, is that the principle behind Rummsfeld's assertion that the war in Iraq would last "five days, five weeks, or five months but not years"?
I am asking why, in your estimation, has this administration done something that 1. they didn't need to do (as plenty of people like Blix and Powell doubted the intelligence leading up to Iraq) 2. historically has proven disasterous. The above quote is the only reason I can see in it, but that clashes with Atlanteax's idea that what went wrong occurred post invasion; it seems to me that the scope leading up to the war was wrong.
-M
What I'm asking is if you see Afghanistan and Iraq as two wars or as one. By your own admission, you stated that strategically fighting two wars at once is disasterous and this is agreed upon by strategists.
I never saw Afghanistan as a war. The resources necessary to overthrow the Taliban were minimal at best. The hunt for Bin Ladin on the other hand has proven to be a cat and mouse game.
I was asking if you saw an alternative. Mine would have been to listen to your intelligence guys and bomb the shit out of Tora Bora. We might have missed Bin Laden in the strike and he STILL might have gotten away into Pakistan, but it would have been better than inaction IMO.
That would have done little for the removal of the Taliban as a governing power.
If strategists agree on this one war one time theory, is that the principle behind Rummsfeld's assertion that the war in Iraq would last "five days, five weeks, or five months but not years"?
I dont recall him saying 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months, but not years. However, I'm not 100% positive I know everything about the administration's efforts in Iraq. So I cant answer your question. Perhaps thats one to ask Rummy.
I am asking why, in your estimation, has this administration done something that 1. they didn't need to do (as plenty of people like Blix and Powell doubted the intelligence leading up to Iraq)
Sadaam needed removing. I dont agree with the "didnt need to do" crowd.
2. historically has proven disasterous.
In the short run. The long term effects have yet to be seen. I agree with the mismanagement; however, I dont think there's an administration we've had the opportunity to select from who could have done any different, or better.
The above quote is the only reason I can see in it, but that clashes with Atlanteax's idea that what went wrong occurred post invasion; it seems to me that the scope leading up to the war was wrong.
That is because you dont agree with the concept of invasion to begin with. Thats a natural result of your clash of reasons.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 04:08 PM
Some of us have never said it was JUST the Democrat party.
Some of us have said it was ONLY the Republican party.
Exactly. The problem with a few people here is that they are blinded by ignorance and/or their hatred of Bush/Republicans to realize this.
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 04:15 PM
I could continue it to say that some have said it was only the "Democrats" but then I would get denials and everything.;)
Angela
Latrinsorm
09-07-2006, 04:19 PM
You could actually try to prove it instead of making baseless allegations, too, but then you might actually be productive. ;)
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 04:47 PM
I'll be home in a bit..and I will post some.
Angela
ElanthianSiren
09-07-2006, 05:12 PM
I dont recall him saying 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months, but not years. However, I'm not 100% positive I know everything about the administration's efforts in Iraq. So I cant answer your question. Perhaps thats one to ask Rummy.
Nov. 15, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity Radio call in show
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
-M
ElanthianSiren
09-07-2006, 05:15 PM
I dont recall him saying 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months, but not years. However, I'm not 100% positive I know everything about the administration's efforts in Iraq. So I cant answer your question. Perhaps thats one to ask Rummy.
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War
Nov. 15, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (CBS/AP)
(pic of rummy was here)
"With a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 people or 3,000 people being killed, but 30,000 or a hundred thousand."
Donald Rumsfeld
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.
He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker.
"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."
Meanwhile, two Iraqi state-controlled papers, Al-Thawra and Al-Iraq, condemned the Security Council resolution that Iraq accepted Wednesday, with Al-Thawra saying it could be the worst motion on Iraq that the world body had ever passed.
The resolution strengthened the mandate of U.N. inspectors charged with searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, giving them unrestricted access to presidential compounds and warning Iraq of "serious consequences" if it obstructs the disarmament process. The United States and Britain have said they will attack Iraq if it breaches the resolution.
And, as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare for their return to Iraq, the White House is warning Baghdad not to "play games."
In the words of Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Saddam Hussein "better not go back to his history of cheat and retreat, and deceive and deny, and playing rope-a-dope in the desert."
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says inspectors won't be sounding the alarm over the odd Iraqi omission or mistake on forbidden programs -- only if there's a pattern of obstruction and deceit.
But McClellan says the administration's motto is "zero tolerance" -- and whatever the Security Council may decide, President Bush remains free to react to Iraqi defiance.
On the Infinity Radio call-in program, Rumsfeld sidestepped a question on whether the United States would respond with nuclear weapons if Iraq were to use chemical or biological weapons.
"The United States government, the president and others, are communicating with people in Iraq, in the military, very forcefully that they ought not to use those weapons," Rumsfeld said. "Anyone in any way connected with weapons of mass destruction and their use will be held accountable, and people who helped avoid that would be advantaged."
The weapons inspectors are to resume their search for illegal caches by Dec. 23 and are to report to the Security Council 60 days after they start looking. Iraq has until Dec. 8 to give a full accounting of all its banned weapons programs as well as programs to develop long-range missiles and remote-controlled aircraft to deliver them.
Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."
The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.
"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with the religion."
Rumsfeld defended the notion of a pre-emptive strike, saying the world has changed since the Sept. 11 attacks. The danger, the defense secretary warned, is that countries such as Iraq might give terrorist groups weapons of mass destruction, producing imminent threats can't always be seen.
"People say 'Where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction," he said. "With a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 people or 3,000 people being killed, but 30,000 or a hundred thousand."
Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable "to do the job and finish it fast.
"There is absolutely no need for the present for us to even think about returning to a draft."
The newspaper Al-Iraq defended the government's decision to accept the resolution. Earlier this week, Iraq's parliament, which is packed with pro-government legislators, recommended it be rejected.
"Iraq's acceptance of the resolution is an attempt to save our people from any harm. This is the most important thing," Al-Iraq said Friday.
Al-Thawra, the organ of the ruling Baath party, said the resolution was "ill-intentioned, unjust and bad resolution."
"In fact, it could be the worst resolution ever issued against our country. It represents a breach of the U.N. Charter," the paper said in a front-page editorial.
-M
Skirmisher
09-07-2006, 05:36 PM
Ouch
Some Rogue
09-07-2006, 05:45 PM
One could interpret his statement as referring to the battle to overthrow Saddam. I really don't think he was referring to the aftermath of that and our presence in the area during the rebuilding of Iraq.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 05:51 PM
Return Ouch
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 05:53 PM
I'll be home in a bit..and I will post some.
Angela
You should probably give it up imo... since all I would have to do is do a search on your name to find plenty of ignorance to rebutt your 'evidence'.
Quit while you are tragically still far behind (as usual)
Skirmisher
09-07-2006, 06:03 PM
One could interpret his statement as referring to the battle to overthrow Saddam. I really don't think he was referring to the aftermath of that and our presence in the area during the rebuilding of Iraq.
The only reason for making such a statement would be to try to assuage the fears that people have of an extended war.
People fear extended wars because it means longer periods of time with large numbers of US troops being in harms way and accordingly more troops hurt or killed not to mention the economic cost.
So sorry PB, but your return ouch is summarily rejected.
Parkbandit
09-07-2006, 06:18 PM
How long did the actual combat mission to oust Saddam take again? Between 5 days and 5 months?
Your response to the return ouch is over ruled.
Skirmisher
09-07-2006, 06:23 PM
How long did the actual combat mission to oust Saddam take again? Between 5 days and 5 months?
Your response to the return ouch is over ruled.
You seem to be employing the "I'll ignore the last post because i have no comeback to it and will instead repeat myself" technique.
Almost as potent as the Chewbaca defense and yet ...not.
ElanthianSiren
09-07-2006, 07:02 PM
One could interpret his statement as referring to the battle to overthrow Saddam. I really don't think he was referring to the aftermath of that and our presence in the area during the rebuilding of Iraq.
Well, when you consider what the history of the region dictates (that Sunni and Shia fought each other BEFORE Hussein was ruler there), I find it a little short sighted to think as soon as you depose Hussein (a military dictator) all will be roses. Logically, you'd thnk all would be chaos, as the military and governing body were intertwined. Perhaps they didn't think that far ahead. At least they have "ammended" their stance since then however, especially with regard to nation building.
-M
Nov. 15, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld, Infinity Radio call in show
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
-M
Actually, in the context of the briefing, from what I could find in addition to the CBS article you sourced, I believe Rumsfeld was referring to the demise of the Sadaam led government.
I dont think anyone had a definitive idea on how long the fight against the Al Quaeda led insugents who are now causing grief among the rebuilding process would take.
Ouch
Not really, but I'm glad you're participating in the conversation at such depth.
The only reason for making such a statement would be to try to assuage the fears that people have of an extended war.
People fear extended wars because it means longer periods of time with large numbers of US troops being in harms way and accordingly more troops hurt or killed not to mention the economic cost.
So sorry PB, but your return ouch is summarily rejected.
People, some, most, but not all, fear prolonged or protracted wars/conflicts/engagements because of the physical toll it takes on our troops. Especially after the adrenaline of attack/response has subsided. Then add to that, demonstrations and propeganda distributed by those who are against war completely and the short attention span of today's average American, and you've got why we flip flop on war/aggression altogether.
Its funny that you mention economic reasons for war. As war evolves into combat with more and more rules of engagement, then the costlier it will get. Compare the cost of a standard impact denotated bomb versus a guided missle.
I wonder if the attitude of wars would change if we just had robots fighting robots. Loser is the first one out of robots.
Perhaps we should have just challenged Sadaam's Iraqi regime to a soccer match, loser leaves town. Or perhaps a game of chess? Unfortunately the only language some people understand is if its delivered with a bullet.
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 08:23 PM
Nation Building and the War in Iraq
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."
The Sept. 11 Commission
President Bush initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2002, he said, “Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.”
Bowing to pressure from victims' families, Mr. Bush reversed his position. The following September, he backed an independent investigation.
Free Trade
During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.
Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.
Homeland Security Department
President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.
Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.
Same-Sex Marriage
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.
Four years later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.
Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.
There's a few.:)
Angela
Skirmisher
09-07-2006, 09:02 PM
Not really, but I'm glad you're participating in the conversation at such depth.
Or you could just go and hug the terrorists until they change their mind about blowing up their next shopping mall, resturant, building, bus....
Hyperbole is alright when used by you but an occasional one lined comedic jab is too lowbrow?
That seems a bit hypocritical to me
TheEschaton
09-07-2006, 09:02 PM
Then add to that, demonstrations and propeganda distributed by those who are against war completely
That's why the vast majority of war protesters this time around, insisted on differentiating between the soldiers, and the war they were fighting. I rock the yellow ribbon, but I don't support the war. Of course, you'd only know this if you ever attended an anti-war protest (I think that's probably unlikely), since the media only ever likes to cover the controversial protesters.
-TheE-
Latrinsorm
09-07-2006, 09:31 PM
There's a few.That's nice. I was referring to your baseless allegations about "I could continue it to say that some have said it was only the "Democrats"" in response to "The problem with a few people here is that they are blinded by ignorance and/or their hatred of Bush/Republicans to realize this." though. Everybody changes positions, and unless you have some neat quotes from Bush like "this is my family's SUV, not mine", it's hard to pin the flipflopper tag on him/his administration. It's not just changing your mind, and never has been. It's the slimy sort of pandering and flim-flamming that bugs people. It can't be that hard to find it from Bush, he is a politician after all.
Ilvane
09-07-2006, 09:36 PM
Uh--
Changing your mind like Kerry did when he found out the fact on the war in Iraq?
Hmm..or is that a flip-flop depending on which side you are on?
Angela
Latrinsorm
09-07-2006, 09:40 PM
No, the flip-flop was when he was hanging out with a bunch of tree-huggers badmouthing SUVs...
...and was immediately found to be driving around in an SUV...
...and claimed it was his family's, not his.
The war thing was a pseudo-flip-flop because of the bizarrely incoherent way he talked about his position. It really sounded like he was rope-and-doping, but it turns out he wasn't.
As near as I can remember what was always said was that Iraq (esp. Saddam) had links to terrorism/ists, not 9/11 in particular. It's been awhile though, maybe you can find some quotes to back up your assertions.
You are correct. I found this article from CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html) (which I actually consider very objective, go figure) posted March 14, 2003.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
Encouraging a false impression is misleading.
Many false impressions were made, if not fabricated, in regards to Iraq. WMDs, we’ll be greeted as heros, Iraqi Freedom, and Mission Accomplished.
I have not looked up any of Cheney et al’s remarks yet concerning the connection, but I am almost positive it was stated as fact, before the farce that was the 9/11 Commission, that one of the hijackers had refuge in Iraq pre-9/11 and that colluded to intentional harboring.
Afghanistan was the right target. Iraq was the wrong one. Now neither are concluded at the cost of many innocent lives not to mention inflaming the middle east to more anti-west hatred.
Parkbandit
09-08-2006, 12:38 AM
There's a few.:)
Angela
Tenderloin Steak
the Internet
Apples
puppies
Lawyers
headphones
There's a few too.. and they had about as much to do with this subject as your post.
Grats?
It's not a "stance", it's called classified information that the public isn't supposed to know about.
Thank you soulpieced, somebody at least understands.
So by that view, the administration just compromised security more by admitting to said programs?
-M
The president is not a declassifying authority for classified information. Only the original entity can declassify or information becomes declassified after a set amount of time be it 10-100 years, it all depends on the nature of the information and how the classifying authority decided to classify it.
TheEschaton
09-08-2006, 07:11 AM
So, if the public doesn't know about it, or shouldn't know about it, then suddenly it's legal? Classified, or not, it's still a fucking crappy program. Classified, or not, when asked a direct question, he outright lied.
-TheE-
Sean of the Thread
09-08-2006, 08:06 AM
Classified, or not, when asked a direct question, he outright lied.
-TheE-
Billiam Jefferson recieving adulterous oral and stinky pinky wasn't classified.
TheEschaton
09-08-2006, 09:09 AM
I believe the court found he intentionally misled, but, legally, was not lying.
He knew he was trying to pull a snow job, and tried to say it in a legal framework which would a) obscure the factual truth, and b) make what he said legally true. He failed on the last part.
George Bush telling the truth > Bill Clnton's lie about a blow job > George Bush's deliberate, outright lying about matters of national security.
It's too bad that on many, many issues, including most of the one's concerning the War in Iraq, Bush doesn't tell the truth, but looks at the facts, and blatantly denies them.
-TheE-
Sean of the Thread
09-08-2006, 09:47 AM
outright lying about matters of national security.
-TheE-
Now you're getting the picture.
Parkbandit
09-08-2006, 11:22 AM
So, if the public doesn't know about it, or shouldn't know about it, then suddenly it's legal? Classified, or not, it's still a fucking crappy program. Classified, or not, when asked a direct question, he outright lied.
-TheE-
Seriously.. if we have to explain what classified means to you.. you are too stupid to be reading these boards.
Try this one instead:
http://www.barney.com/
Stanley Burrell
09-08-2006, 11:33 AM
Reading this thread (among many others) reminds me of the badassnessityism that is Lewis Black:
"I'm okay with my government lying to me -- I have come to expect it."
And then something like:
"WHY'D THEY STOP!?"
I can't remember the exact word-for-word phrasing, but that routine rawked.
So, if the public doesn't know about it, or shouldn't know about it, then suddenly it's legal? Classified, or not, it's still a fucking crappy program. Classified, or not, when asked a direct question, he outright lied.
-TheE-
You know little about how Americans treat prisoners, let alone approved interrogation methods for DoD or other agencies involved in handling prisoners in Iraq. I can assure you from personal experience it is not even 1/10 as bad as prisoners held by the Iraqi police or Iraqi army are treated, no matter what American is doing it.
Things are classifed for a reason, some of which you, as a civilian who do not deal with it need not know, or I as a soldier need not know as well. I have little doubt that the people who would have that much time and effort put into them are far from innocent bystanders. Do i pity them? hardly, the Peshmerga would treat them far worse.
After being here for a while and dealing with both the IA and IP's treatment of prisoners the irony of the Abu G affair makes me sick. Then again the media would never give the whole story about Abu G nor what Iraqi interrogations are like, gotta love that.
I wanted to add that IMO Bush's biggest mistake in this whole situation was denying they existed, he should have just not answered the question in the first place.
So, if the public doesn't know about it, or shouldn't know about it, then suddenly it's legal? Classified, or not, it's still a fucking crappy program. Classified, or not, when asked a direct question, he outright lied.
-TheE-
Ask yourself this, why do we want bad guys to know that we have "Abu Jihad" in custody? so they can change their modus operandi i and we lose all chances of exploiting the intelligence from the prisoner? There is a lot more to this than people care to consider. One rat leads us to a bigger rat, which leads us to a bigger rat which leads us to the biggest vermin of all.
Its a game of cat and mouse and every advantage we have gets us that much closer to winning. Leave the fighting of the war to those that know how to do it, allow them to use the tools available, and we will win, and fast. Hamper them and it will be a long slow fight which may end in a loss, and we can not afford that. All this fight has been one obsticle to over come or find away around after another.
ElanthianSiren
09-08-2006, 01:16 PM
You know little about how Americans treat prisoners, let alone approved interrogation methods for DoD or other agencies involved in handling prisoners in Iraq. I can assure you from personal experience it is not even 1/10 as bad as prisoners held by the Iraqi police or Iraqi army are treated, no matter what American is doing it.
Things are classifed for a reason, some of which you, as a civilian who do not deal with it need not know, or I as a soldier need not know as well. I have little doubt that the people who would have that much time and effort put into them are far from innocent bystanders. Do i pity them? hardly, the Peshmerga would treat them far worse.
After being here for a while and dealing with both the IA and IP's treatment of prisoners the irony of the Abu G affair makes me sick. Then again the media would never give the whole story about Abu G nor what Iraqi interrogations are like, gotta love that.
So because other people have lowered their standards of humanity we should too? That's kind of like yelling HE STARTED IT! on the playground. America should be a standard of excellence, not a standard of following barbarous routines established in other countries IMO. Furthermore, confessions gleaned under torture are notoriously inaccurate.
I'm not denying that occasionally they may pan out. If you throw spaghetti at a wall enough, some will stick, but you are going to get a disproportionate amount of misinformation. Further, when you escalate a treatment, your enemy will be more prone to escalate, and friends will feel much less sympathetic for the dog bite you received when you yanked a doberman's tail.
Finally, they're in violation of international law and endangering military personel, from what I've heard from the military experts/lawyers/McCain. The senate debate over this, thus far, has been quite interesting.
-M
Kefka
09-08-2006, 01:22 PM
Ask yourself this, why do we want bad guys to know that we have "Abu Jihad" in custody? so they can change their modus operandi i and we lose all chances of exploiting the intelligence from the prisoner? There is a lot more to this than people care to consider. One rat leads us to a bigger rat, which leads us to a bigger rat which leads us to the biggest vermin of all.
Its a game of cat and mouse and every advantage we have gets us that much closer to winning. Leave the fighting of the war to those that know how to do it, allow them to use the tools available, and we will win, and fast. Hamper them and it will be a long slow fight which may end in a loss, and we can not afford that. All this fight has been one obsticle to over come or find away around after another.
It doesn't stop the fact that we were lied to. Revealing that there are not so secret prisons in no way reveal who's in those prisons. The question was direct and he flat out denied it. At the time the question was asked, it was in the midst of torture allegations. Saying it's classified just won't cut it.
Some big news just broke...
Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4172663.html)
By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer © 2006 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush's justification for going to war.
The declassified document being released Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
The report comes at a time that Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.
Ask yourself this, why do we want bad guys to know that we have "Abu Jihad" in custody? so they can change their modus operandi i and we lose all chances of exploiting the intelligence from the prisoner? There is a lot more to this than people care to consider. One rat leads us to a bigger rat, which leads us to a bigger rat which leads us to the biggest vermin of all.
Its a game of cat and mouse and every advantage we have gets us that much closer to winning. Leave the fighting of the war to those that know how to do it, allow them to use the tools available, and we will win, and fast. Hamper them and it will be a long slow fight which may end in a loss, and we can not afford that. All this fight has been one obsticle to over come or find away around after another.
Ok, do you want to live in a world where any government can come to your country, kidnap you, secret you away and torture or kill you WITHOUT any kind of evidence at all? Because thats what we are doing, and if we can do it...
Parkbandit
09-08-2006, 01:30 PM
Ok, do you want to live in a world where any government can come to your country, kidnap you, secret you away and torture or kill you WITHOUT any kind of evidence at all? Because thats what we are doing, and if we can do it...
If I am plotting, financing and carrying out a terror war against that country's innocent citizens... I guess I would expect it.
ElanthianSiren
09-08-2006, 01:44 PM
I wanted to add that IMO Bush's biggest mistake in this whole situation was denying they existed...
I agree, especially after his administrated touted the fact that he was commander in chief during the V. Plame incident and capable of declassifying whatever he wanted whenever in the face of Libby's grand jury appearance.
Opening his mouth about it now, after he and Condi and Cheney spent so long denying whilst rumors circulated, only serves to confirm the rumors (which may not be true by virtue of the fact that they've proven themselves untrustworthy). Revealing the program now, while not revealing where the prisons are, only serves to make people wonder why the administration didn't confirm it before (because they wouldn't have lost anything more than they just did).
In short, it adds weight to individuals who argue that this administration hasn't always acted on the up and up with regard to honesty. When your administration is running on values, you better follow them or drop the moral high ground from your platform.
-M
Wezas
09-08-2006, 02:16 PM
I can assure you from personal experience it is not even 1/10 as bad as prisoners held by the Iraqi police or Iraqi army are treated, no matter what American is doing it.
So what was it like when you were in the Iraqi Prison?
Skirmisher
09-08-2006, 02:21 PM
If I am plotting, financing and carrying out a terror war against that country's innocent citizens... I guess I would expect it.
PB, although there may well be some, I think most against the US employing such tactics would be less so if we could all be 100% sure that every single person taken and held/tortured for indefinite periods of time was in fact guilty.
It's impossible to have such confidence when our government first denies any such existance and then still fights tooth and nail about giving up any information at all about it or those that are there.
They could easily take into custody and detain/torture literally anyone in the world and deny it all the whole time while operating under such a complete lack of restrictions and that is why it was/is unacceptable.
ElanthianSiren
09-08-2006, 04:29 PM
On my way from Calc this afternoon, I realized what an opportunity this presents for 1. incumbent republican senators (up for re-election this year) to distance themselves from Bush (good cop/bad cop) 2. the Bush administration to get its way if all senators play like good ducks in a line.
Well done; again, dem secretary, please take notes.
-M
Parkbandit
09-08-2006, 05:25 PM
PB, although there may well be some, I think most against the US employing such tactics would be less so if we could all be 100% sure that every single person taken and held/tortured for indefinite periods of time was in fact guilty.
It's impossible to have such confidence when our government first denies any such existance and then still fights tooth and nail about giving up any information at all about it or those that are there.
They could easily take into custody and detain/torture literally anyone in the world and deny it all the whole time while operating under such a complete lack of restrictions and that is why it was/is unacceptable.
Much like your political party.. all I hear is 'BUSH R EVIL', 'REPUBLICANS R DUM' and 'WE WILL DO IT BETTER' but seriously what would you do? Skirmisher is now the President of the US and she has just been handed a notice that 5 leaders and 40 regular members of al Qaeda have been captured by US Forces.
What's your plan?
Parkbandit
09-08-2006, 05:27 PM
And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CAN WE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP SAYING STUPID SHIT LIKE "BUT BUSH DENIED THEY HAD THOSE PRISONS AND NOW THEY DO HAVE THEM HE IS A LIAR!!!"
It was fucking classified information... to say we had them would amount to treason.
Wezas
09-08-2006, 05:28 PM
You know what she'd do?
Two chicks at the same time, man.
Skirmisher
09-08-2006, 05:42 PM
Much like your political party.. all I hear is 'BUSH R EVIL', 'REPUBLICANS R DUM' and 'WE WILL DO IT BETTER' but seriously what would you do? Skirmisher is now the President of the US and she has just been handed a notice that 5 leaders and 40 regular members of al Qaeda have been captured by US Forces.
What's your plan?
I know that all too often thats all you hear but it's becasue you filter out what you do not want to hear PB and just hearing that makes it easier for you to dismiss things you'd rather not deal with.
I know that all too often thats all you hear but it's becasue you filter out what you do not want to hear PB and just hearing that makes it easier for you to dismiss things you'd rather not deal with.
Way to dodge the question...
:clap:
Skirmisher
09-08-2006, 05:56 PM
I assumed it was rhetorical.
But if you insist then I would think it would be rather obvious.
Interrogate them all to the best legal ability we have for as long as legally possible and then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
HarmNone
09-08-2006, 06:03 PM
And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CAN WE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP SAYING STUPID SHIT LIKE "BUT BUSH DENIED THEY HAD THOSE PRISONS AND NOW THEY DO HAVE THEM HE IS A LIAR!!!"
It was fucking classified information... to say we had them would amount to treason.
Excuse me for butting in here, but wouldn't "I can't discuss the matter. It's classified information." have served the purpose just as well?
I assumed it was rhetorical.
But if you insist then I would think it would be rather obvious.
Interrogate them all to the best legal ability we have for as long as legally possible and then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
:rofl:
Thats assuming that your interrogation efforts, without torture, and observing their rights, would net you evidence enough to convict. Afterall they are innocent until proven guilty right?
I really dont see you getting any evidence from terrorists trained in counter-interrogation techniques while observing their civil rights, especially before the 'time limit' ends for their detainment.
Well, I suppose we could always force them to watch seinfield reruns until they cracked... or better yet, continuous clips of barney or teletubbies.
Excuse me for butting in here, but wouldn't "I can't discuss the matter. It's classified information." have served the purpose just as well?
Bush would still be labled as 'hiding something'. Although I agree that that phrase would have been my mantra throughout. No doubt it would have pissed off a lot of the press.
TheEschaton
09-08-2006, 06:33 PM
Ummmm, but he, if he had been the source of the Plame leak (he's not, I realize, but another theoretical here), he could of right well done that because OMFG HE'S THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF HE CAN DECLASSIFY ANYTHING HE FUCKING WANTS!!!!!111 KTHX.
-TheE-
HarmNone
09-08-2006, 06:38 PM
Bush would still be labled as 'hiding something'. Although I agree that that phrase would have been my mantra throughout. No doubt it would have pissed off a lot of the press.
I don't really care whether the press is pissed off, or not. Neither, I'll venture to say, should any public figure. If I were the president, I'd rather be accused of hiding something than I would of lying outright. That's not rocket science.
Demonization will occurr either way in my opinion.
That being said, I think he still could have handled it better with the media, its too bad he didnt.
The house that the republicans have built with their strong majority over the past 6 years is literally crumbling before our eyes. You may think me biased (I am), or the media (depends on the source) but when I hear of GOP refusing Bush visits on their campaign trails, or disagreeing with the president on immigration reform (it used to be national security until the repubs turned it into something else), or disagreeing on Iraq then getting demonized by their own party for it, with some of their top players embroiled in corruption charges, and letting Harris be their candidate in Florida... amongst other things, I tend to think its double true.
ElanthianSiren
09-08-2006, 08:41 PM
I wouldn't make a statement like that at this point. Republicans are really good at coming up from behind (Santorum comes to mind), and many races still show results that are neck and neck. Also, much of the research that's been done politically lately has come up tainted (see post I made on the unreliability of pollsters). It ain't over til I sing :grin:
-M
Skirmisher
09-08-2006, 09:08 PM
Sure sure Siren, go ahead and be even handed about things why don't you.
:ban:
Latrinsorm
09-08-2006, 09:25 PM
It ain't over til I sing Unless you've gained 100 pounds since... yesterday, this is a *vast* overstatement.
I wouldn't make a statement like that at this point. Republicans are really good at coming up from behind (Santorum comes to mind), and many races still show results that are neck and neck. Also, much of the research that's been done politically lately has come up tainted (see post I made on the unreliability of pollsters). It ain't over til I sing :grin:
-M
Thats the difference between you and me I guess. Santorum is a whack job just like Harris.
I’m tempted to send you a box of Krispy Kreme.
So what was it like when you were in the Iraqi Prison?
Which ones? I'm in and out of just about everyone on the east side here weekly for one reason or another
Picture the worst shit you see in a movie and you're coming close.
Parkbandit
09-09-2006, 05:36 PM
Ummmm, but he, if he had been the source of the Plame leak (he's not, I realize, but another theoretical here), he could of right well done that because OMFG HE'S THE FUCKING COMMANDER IN CHIEF HE CAN DECLASSIFY ANYTHING HE FUCKING WANTS!!!!!111 KTHX.
-TheE-
Actually, he can't declassify shit. He can request it be declassified.
And don't get me started with that whole Plume bullshit either. Her husband was outting her years before anyone in this administration.
To reiterate what i stated earlier, and to add to parkbandits post.
Only the original classifying authority can declassify a document. The president can request that something be declassified, but he has no sway in the decision aside from him being president (which is pretty big sway)
Skirmisher
09-10-2006, 10:13 AM
Only the original classifying authority can declassify a document. The president can request that something be declassified, but he has no sway in the decision aside from him being president (which is pretty big sway)
Ya think?
Ilvane
09-10-2006, 10:54 AM
Wait, on the Plame stuff..Wilson was not an enemy of the President, really.
So, when he speaks out against something suddenly his wife is outed as an agent.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened.
Angela
Parkbandit
09-10-2006, 11:06 AM
Wait, on the Plame stuff..Wilson was not an enemy of the President, really.
So, when he speaks out against something suddenly his wife is outed as an agent.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened.
Angela
Suddenly his wife was outted? You mean after her husband had been saying she is an agent for the CIA FOR YEARS PRIOR TO THIS TO COMPLETE STRANGERS? She was far, FAR from undercover.
He used that as an excuse to perpetuate his own self interests and gain media attention and used the Bush hatred from the lefties to do it.
Sure doesn't take a genius... because whatever the media spoon feeds some people is what must be the truth... especially if it puts Bush in a bad light.... you know, since he is the devil and all.
ElanthianSiren
09-10-2006, 11:47 AM
Suddenly his wife was outted? You mean after her husband had been saying she is an agent for the CIA FOR YEARS PRIOR TO THIS TO COMPLETE STRANGERS? She was far, FAR from undercover.
He used that as an excuse to perpetuate his own self interests and gain media attention and used the Bush hatred from the lefties to do it.
Sure doesn't take a genius... because whatever the media spoon feeds some people is what must be the truth... especially if it puts Bush in a bad light.... you know, since he is the devil and all.
Actually, during the Fitzgerald testamony, friends, neighbors, collegues, and so on came out saying they had no idea she was an agent, and these were people the Wilsons knew or interacted with for years (like school coaches). It's silly to believe a man would take a gamble with ruining his own wife's career, but if you want to think that way, more power to you.
-M
HarmNone
09-10-2006, 11:54 AM
... because whatever the media spoon feeds some people is what must be the truth... especially if it puts Bush in a bad light.... you know, since he is the devil and all.
Ahem. Did YOU specifically hear this man say his wife was a CIA agent? If not, where did you get your information? It had to come from somewhere.
Parkbandit
09-10-2006, 12:39 PM
It's silly to believe a man would take a gamble with ruining his own wife's career, but if you want to think that way, more power to you.
-M
Yea.. because furthering your own self interests AND getting a 2.5 million dollar book deal really ruined them.
LOL
Warriorbird
09-10-2006, 02:18 PM
And because Matt Drudge has no agenda whatsoever. Parkbandit's really his own source.
Sean of the Thread
09-10-2006, 02:55 PM
And because Matt Drudge has no agenda whatsoever. Parkbandit's really his own source.
Your point?
Warriorbird
09-10-2006, 04:25 PM
Much like your photo...Parkbandit's sucking from something. Suggesting that biased gossip sites' ideas are somehow the gospel answer to the actions of someone from the other side of the aisle is pretty pointless.
People, curiously enough, sometimes take a stand on principles that you don't share.
ElanthianSiren
09-10-2006, 04:47 PM
Yea.. because furthering your own self interests AND getting a 2.5 million dollar book deal really ruined them.
LOL
Show me the agreement that said, "If you're somehow out'd during this administration's tenure, Valerie Plame, we'll give you 2.5 million in a book deal." Again, how do you know that it was in her self interest to be revealed? Did she hate working at the CIA? There was absolutely no security of fortune (that we know of), so out'ing yourself would be a little dumb when you have MUCH more financial security working for the CIA.
It might have happened, and everyone might have gone, 'so fucking what?'.
-M
Warriorbird
09-11-2006, 05:10 AM
I mean...people who have bad things happen to them and get book deals always subject themselves to bad things to get a book deal, don't yah know?
I mean...people who have bad things happen to them and get book deals always subject themselves to bad things to get a book deal, don't yah know?
Yes, we know. (http://www.amazon.com/Living-History-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/0743222245/sr=1-1/qid=1157976066/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3128786-4511102?ie=UTF8&s=books)
TheEschaton
09-11-2006, 08:27 AM
ah yes, I'm sure Hillary Clinton wanted to be publically humiliated when it came out that her husband, who also happened to be some guy with the title of President of the United States, was cheating on her.
Damn her for orchestrating all those pseudo-scandals of the Clinton administrations, just so the greedy bitch could write a BOOK!!!!!11
-TheE-
Skirmisher
09-11-2006, 08:46 AM
Damn it TheE. They have seen through the facade.
Alert the left wing liberal media strike teams to swing into action.
Parkbandit
09-11-2006, 08:53 AM
I'll respond tomorrow.. today just doesn't seem like the day for this discussion.
Skirmisher
09-11-2006, 08:58 AM
I'll respond tomorrow.. today just doesn't seem like the day for this discussion.
I know your response will be worth the wait! :tumble:
HarmNone
09-11-2006, 09:38 AM
I'll respond tomorrow.. today just doesn't seem like the day for this discussion.
With that I can agree.
Mighty Nikkisaurus
09-11-2006, 11:25 AM
And everyone accuses Backlash of having crazy conspiracy theories entirely unrooted from reality, heh!
Black Helicopters, Black Helicopters!
TheEschaton
09-11-2006, 12:38 PM
You know, it wasn't until I read HN's post that I realized today was 9/11, because it made me think, if HN agrees, there must be some rational reason, and not the insane reasons PB usually has for doing things, and so I thought about it, and I felt a bit idiotic. But just a bit, since I'm all for accepting death in our lives, and moving on, and to have such a maudlin display every year just makes my head hurt.
I thought it was a little weird PB was waiting to respond, but I just shrugged and moved on.
Damn you law school for making me forget what's going on outside these walls. ;)
-TheE-
HarmNone
09-11-2006, 12:51 PM
I'm not much for the maudlin displays myself, TheE. I don't think it's necessary to wallow in the memory to honor it. However, I do believe it's a good time to pause and reflect, to realize the value of life and the freedom to live it, and to pay silent respect to those whose innocent lives were taken too soon for no other reason than to further the personal agendae of those who would impose their views on all of society, by force if necessary.
Such monsters do not exist only in one culture. They exist in all cultures. I believe it's important to consider that, as well, and not paint an entire culture with a brush tainted with terrorism.
ElanthianSiren
09-11-2006, 02:29 PM
Such monsters do not exist only in one culture. They exist in all cultures. I believe it's important to consider that, as well, and not paint an entire culture with a brush tainted with terrorism.
HN '06.
-M
TheEschaton
09-11-2006, 06:26 PM
I'm not much for the maudlin displays myself, TheE. I don't think it's necessary to wallow in the memory to honor it. However, I do believe it's a good time to pause and reflect, to realize the value of life and the freedom to live it, and to pay silent respect to those whose innocent lives were taken too soon for no other reason than to further the personal agendae of those who would impose their views on all of society, by force if necessary.
I guess I just try to live that in my life every day. I find if you pause, reflect, express love, express honor, celebrate the miracle new beginnings, you don't need holidays like 9/11, Valentine's Day, Veterans/Memorial days, or Easter. And, in fact, the head hurting bit comes from the fact that it kind of annoys me that people save all these emotions for one day, and just go on with their lives every other day without crying, laughing, or whatever, just going on with the rat race. I suppose I promote a more "in-touch" sentimentality.
Like Gandhi said, when asked how he prayed, "My life is my prayer."
-TheE-
HarmNone
09-11-2006, 09:41 PM
I agree with you, TheE. However, I do believe there are special times when special attention is due. It doesn't bother me to give that special attention at those times, and it doesn't really annoy me too much when others do, even if they don't do it in the same way I do. :)
Mighty Nikkisaurus
09-12-2006, 02:43 PM
I guess I just try to live that in my life every day. I find if you pause, reflect, express love, express honor, celebrate the miracle new beginnings, you don't need holidays like 9/11, Valentine's Day, Veterans/Memorial days, or Easter. And, in fact, the head hurting bit comes from the fact that it kind of annoys me that people save all these emotions for one day, and just go on with their lives every other day without crying, laughing, or whatever, just going on with the rat race. I suppose I promote a more "in-touch" sentimentality.
Like Gandhi said, when asked how he prayed, "My life is my prayer."
-TheE-
Too true. My boyfriend and I don't celebrate Valentine's Day exactly for this reason-- it means more to get flowers randomly, when he's just thinking about me and it means more to him to get a random card or gift certificate, just because.
I agree that we need to learn to make everyday a day that we think and reflect-- it's all too fake when the only time people are a certain way is on a said day that they're "supposed" to be.
CrystalTears
09-12-2006, 03:34 PM
And you're assuming that people "save their emotions" for that one day. Just because you do more on that day because it happens to be a special day doesn't mean that you don't feel those emotions for those situations on other days.
I don't like to see holidays commercialized, but I really enjoy holidays and special occasions. I like that we make one day of the year even more special for mothers and fathers, or for the birth of a loved one, or the union of a relationship, or the freedom of a nation. Even if just a reminder for those who don't think about them all the time, special occasions deserve special recognition.
Well said CT. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.