Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Binocular Snapshot for 10/22/2013

LastDayWatchers  you already know the lukewarm, gullible sleepwalkers and about God curse to the Bush Administration, how it would damage his political house association which would have lingering effects, particularly on those who supported him the most; namely those who call themselves part of the Tea Party of today, therefore I point your attention to this article

I don't like saying this but be less gullible. Many of your instincts are right but politics is drowning in money. A lot of it is spent trying to manipulate you, by people who claim to be sincere, who say they're the only honest guy in the room. Don't be the fool of radio stars who rev you up for a living. They're doing it for ratings. Stop being taken in by senators who fund-raise off your anger. It's good you're indignant, but they use consultants to keep picking at the scab, not to move the ball forward, sorry to mix metaphors. And know your neighbors: Are they going to elect a woman who has to explain she isn't a witch, or a guy who talks about "legitimate rape"? You'll forgive politicians who are right in other areas, but your neighbors and the media will not.

However the parts of this article is not in the article itself,  it is the accompanying comment thread, especially from the comment from someone going by the initial JDB (I put his comments in bold)

Here is a snapshot

JDB azt24
If government lying pisses you off so bad, what about our last GOP president, Bush? Bush lied to the entire country's face about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction during the 2003 State of the Union address to justify invading Iraq. That began an unfunded war--along with Afghanistan, a war that cost around $3.5 tril. in borrowed funds--based on a total falsehood that Bush never even acknowledged. He let Colin Powell take the fall for it instead of admitting a mistake that added trillions of dollars to the national debt, cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of American lives. So, if you're that mad about Obama, Bush has got to make your blood boil, right?
Lying is never alright, certainly not when Democrats do it to cover their mistakes. But politicians are nothing if not selective tellers of the truth, and given the last presidential administration's track record on telling/assiduously avoiding the unvarnished truth, I'm slower to get mad about someone not admitting the PR fooferaw surrounding the insurance exchanges. Obama's obfuscation about the NSA spying and drone wars on the other hand? Makes my blood boil, no doubt about it.
 
  • May 15th Prophecy JDB
    Well said JDB
  • azt24 JDB
    In 2003 the CIA, British, French and German intelligence all agreed that Saddam had WMDs. So I don't think that was a lie -- though it would have been better had Bush made the real geopolitical argument about sanctions failing and America having to abandon the no-fly zones, instead of falling back onto WMDs as a sort of least common denominator argument.
    In 2004, the Democrats seized on "We wuz duped!" as their explanation for how come they had all voted for a war they now said was based on lies. But they had seen the same intelligence that Bush had.
    We gave Saddam 14 months warning of the invasion. I daresay he got any incriminating stuff out of the country. Saddam liked to hide stuff that way. American troops found Soviet MiGs buried in the Iraqi desert.
    • CitizenE azt24
      Ay God, there was so much evidence out there, even from inspectors, that Saddam had a sign beware of dog, with no dog in the backyard. The yellow cake--a hoax, already widely discounted. Chemical weapons--a hoax--a coupla trailers in the middle of nowhere--widely discounted. The CIA that had already expressed incredulity, were quashed by Cheney. This has to be the most discrediting bit of posting you have ever done. The whole world except for the Bush Administration knew it was a hoax.
    • davisss13 azt24
      Blow it out yer rump you god damned moron. DEFENDING The invasion of Iraq? How low can you possibly go?
      I bet you even call yourself a Christian.
      And you wonder why people don't believe baggers?
    • Ulysses Not yet home azt24
      "In 2003 the CIA, British, French and German intelligence all agreed that Saddam had WMDs"
      This is not REMOTELY true. Even the CIA reported their uncertainty initially, and ONLY at the insistence of the Cheney, Tennant & company did the analysts go back and concoct a (as we know now) nonsensical re-assessment of the evidence, entirely in the service of justifying an invasion.
      • azt24 Ulysses Not yet home
        You are reading the Dem rewrite of history. Read Woodward about Tenet's "slam-dunk" case for WMDs.
        Why shouldn't everybody have believed Saddam still had WMDs, when he had a track record of using them against the Iranians and the Kurds?
        • CitizenE azt24
          A) Tenet--tell em what they want to hear.
          B) Um--maybe you missed the first Gulf War and the draconian sanctions that followed.
        • davisss13 azt24
          Go to hell. This has ALREADY BEEN SETTLED. There were NO WMDs, period. and don't even try to count the yellowcake US soldiers left on the ground at Tuwaitha power plant.
          • azt24 davisss13
            Yes, everything has been so very settled inside the Dem echo chamber, where all of history is rewritten to show the rightness of their case, their superior intelligence and competence, etc.
            Don't look now, but the Dem echo chamber just got a reality check in the Obamacare rollout faceplant. These people are incompetent. None of them has ever run so much as a hotdog stand.
            • davisss13 azt24
              There were NO WMDs in Iraq. Period. You are either a complete idiot, a gullible fool or a blatant liar. I'll go for the blatant liar.
            • JDB azt24
              Are you saying there were WMD's? Are you saying Bush was right? If not, why bother fighting this one? What's at stake for you in admitting Bush was a disaster? Does it invalidate your political ideology? I'll spoil that one and say no, it does not. What does is your apparent allergy to admitting even a shred of human weakness, either in yourself or your leaders.

              JDB azt24
              First, your post is mostly nonsequitur, so I'll respond only to the parts where you engaged me. And, just to be clear, you're saying that nothing Bush did to lie to Americans or otherwise conceal the truth bothered you?
              Assuming it's even true (and I'd like a source) I said a lot more than the "lying" part you selectively responded to; in reply, I'd argue the intelligence was never that good--certainly not good enough to stake starting a ground war on--and people just desperately wanted it to be true. Either way, was it worth $3.5 tril. in debt to investigate bad intel, even bad intel that several other intelligence agencies believed was good intel? Should it have taken 10 year war to investigate the bad intel? Did the original bad intel justify the 10 year war it started? If not, what was the justification? Wouldn't you demand a president to admit a mistake and try to correct it, rather than double down on it, especially where the cost of doubling down is in the thousands of lives pointlessly lost and trillions of dollars for our future generations to pay off?
              In spite of the gargantuan cost, we're still leaving Iraq and Afghanistan worse off than when we got there, what with both of them teetering at the precipice of full-scale civil war after years of violent insurrection. And where did the money go? Nowhere, it seems. Why did we spend/borrow so freaking much of it? I sure couldn't tell you. It appears that's the real argument against large-scale social engineering, and it cuts against Republicans. I don't know, seems like the Democrats in 2004 saying "we wuz duped!" had the right idea and shouldn't be faulted for acknowledging the truth (which, it bears mentioning, you still can't, at least about your party's generous contributions to the national debt).
            • May 15th Prophecy JDB
              JDB I must say, you are spot on in your rebuttal and everything you say in this thread
            azt24 JDB
            The estimated cost for the Iraq war is actually about $1 trillion. It's fine to argue about policy, which nobody says was a spectacular success. I would say we had won the Iraq war by the time Bush left office. A costly victory, but useful in displaying American perseverance, when al Qaeda had claimed so often that we had no stomach for a fight. But then Obama threw away the peace by deciding to skedaddle, when a competent president would have negotiated a new status of forces agreement. Without an American garrison, the Iraqi Arabs can't work out their politics. The Kurds are doing pretty well, though.
            I just won't buy into the dishonest attempts to rewrite the history.
          • JDB azt24
            I didn't say just Iraq; I said Iraq and Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan? I didn't think so), and the total cost is estimated in the $3-4 tril. dollar range when accounting for what's already spent and future expenditures--unacknowledged and unfunded by the previous administration, naturally--necessitated by the wars (interest on borrowed money, ramping-up veterans' benefits, increased Homeland Security spending, etc). You're rewriting history by pretending the two-front war we fought for a decade just stopped costing money and lives after a while. Now you don't want to have to pay for the cruddy war your guy started so you blame his successor. Once again, we have American conservatives promenading their aversion to paying the bills for stuff they've already bought.
            Also, I don't give a moldy fig about your justifications for going to war in Iraq. They don't matter to me because that was a stupid war, and your trying to justify it shows you care more about quelling cognitive dissonance than the truth. No, what I care about is what the president told me would happen (ecstatic Iraqis prostrating themselves at first sight of Old Glory, the end of global terrorism and the beginning of western democracy in the middle east, short-term hostilities with the military returning shortly after establishment of a new regime, and on and on) and how none of it actually happened; instead, Iraq is a shambles and the Taliban is just biding its time in preparation to overrun Afghanistan--again. Such a privilege! Such a worthwhile way to spend trillions!
            I have to say, it's kind of amusing that you're still so slippery, even when you're dead to rights. Must be that down-home straight-shootin' you Tea Party types value so much, where what's so is just so, no matter what kinda book-learned liberal says otherwise.
            Source: http://costsofwar.org/article/...
            see more
          davisss13 azt24
          "I would say we had won the Iraq war by the time Bush left office."
          Then you are a god damned moron.
          So is handing Iraq to the Shiite mullahs in Iran now considered 'victory'?
          azt24 davisss13
          The Iraqis were handed over to Iran when America skeddadled.
        • JDB azt24
          What, we should have just stayed there, racking up the debt with an unfunded, potentially endless occupation? And here I thought you hated the debt. I guess you like the debt when it gets used on unnecessary foreign wars and hate it when it gets used on healthcare for your fellow taxpayers. That explains quite a bit about the Tea Party psyche.
        • davisss13 azt24
          So is handing Iraq to the Shiite mullahs in Iran now considered 'victory'?