[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

The GOP fails to recognize that they need to appeal to the independents and moderates in order to win the next election, and they keep alienating them.

Well, they could lie straight to their faces like Obama did last election and pretend to appeal to them and then do a 180 degree turn and go as far to the other extreme as it's possible. But of course, people (like they are starting to) will figure it out and it will force their political fortunes to soon expire (like it will likely for Obama).

The fact is that the last election people were fooled into believing that Obama was a moderate like McCain, and he was younger, more charismatic, and his race made for a good story. Had he been honest about his stances and told people his true plans, he never would have been elected.

Also, the past several years the Republicans strayed from their base and didn't really have their support. It wasn't that they weren't appealing to "moderates", they simply weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing in the first place.

The fact is, like in 1994, there probably isn't going to be much they need to do in 2010 to convince moderates and independents that the guys in charge now aren't acting on their best interests. Even guys who supported Obama just months ago are saying "WTF???!??!" and are backing away slowly.

Rush does an excellent job at that. The core conservative base is not large enough to carry the GOP - and it's shrinking.

No more or less than the liberals. Again, in order to "appeal" to moderates, the Democrats had to LIE TO THEM the last couple of elections. In fact, there's A BUNCH of them in conservative districts who are giving Obama a hard time because they know they are in a precarious situation - their constituents ARE NOT interested in the agenda the Democrats are currently pushing. I'm pretty sure that won't be forgotten last election. Reminding voters of that is the only thing Republicans will have to do in order to make voters look their way.

Are Republicans banking on the premise that the economy will be so bad in 3 years, that voters will pick a Republican president? (I'm not saying it can't happen.) I know conservatives blame the economy as the reason why Obama won. That is part of the reason (along with the war in Iraq), but the biggest reason why McCain lost is because of Palin/

Doubtful. If that dufus Biden didn't hurt Obama, Palin likely didn't do anything to hurt McCain. Even with the full-out media Obama hit squad, it was a fairly close election percentage wise.

Again, the fact is that Obama had to pretend he WAS McCain in order to get elected. He had create a huge gulf of distance for his true political ideals and now we are seeing that his critics during the last election where 100% right. That's not going to bode well for Democrats next election. The economy will only be one piece of the clusterf*** pie Obama is serving up that will serve to doom Democrats in the next couple of elections. Rush Limbaugh won't really have a chance to do any damage (or cause damage to his own cause) because Obama/Reid/Pelosi are too busy digging their own political graves.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

Another interesting article about Rush:

Newsweek is right. I'll never vote for Limbaugh.

I won't be voting for Jon Stewart, Keith Olberman or Chris Mathews either.

Those guys at Newsweek are shart as a tack! They really know how to follow the talking points Rahm is sending them. When their attempts fail (as they did back in the early 90's), they can take refuge in the knowledge that mean old Rush Limbaugh isn't liked by everyone and they do better in high-school style popularity contests. GO NEWSWEEK! RAH RAH RAH!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by waxcrash 

You're right, we don't know how things will be in 3 years, but here is something to think about:
The GOP fails to recognize that they need to appeal to the independents and moderates in order to win the next election, and they keep alienating them. Rush does an excellent job at that. The core conservative base is not large enough to carry the GOP - and it's shrinking.

I disagree. Republicans need only to begin acting like Republicans. The majority of the country is centre-right. Republicans win on a platform they can be shown to practice. When they don't practice their principles, they lose. Independents claim they dislike Rush, but then disliking Rush Limbaugh is fashionable. Estimates suggest that 58% of talk radio listeners are self-identified Independents, 23% Republicans, and 14% Democrats. Just a cursory glance at Rush's numbers and given the veritable explosion of conservative radio talk shows in general, I'd be willing to bet Independents comprise a substantial portion of Rush's listenership and in fact are an integral part of audience growth for conservative talk radio overall.

Are Republicans banking on the premise that the economy will be so bad in 3 years, that voters will pick a Republican president? (I'm not saying it can't happen.)

I think Republicans are banking on the failure of an extremely unpopular stimulus package in order to win back a great deal of seats in 2010. 2012 is a different matter and I'm not sure that's on the radar of too many just yet.

I know conservatives blame the economy as the reason why Obama won. That is part of the reason (along with the war in Iraq), but the biggest reason why McCain lost is because of Palin. She scared off any chance of capturing the moderates and independents. She was too extreme and uneducated for the independents. And McCain thought he was too moderate for the core conservative base - so he picked Palin to get the core conservatives (classic Rove strategy), which worked, but scared off a large percentage of independents that he needed. The last election had the biggest turnout in 40 years. With the popular vote, Obama won by about 10 million votes. So how is the GOP going to capture a majority of those 10 million voters they need for the next election? And that is the problem right now. They have to find a way to bring in the independents including the black, Hispanic and female voters at the same time keep the core happy.

I'm somewhat surprised at this analysis given what is relatively recent history. McCain/Palin were gaining on Obama/Biden in the polls. It wasn't until McCain publicly suspended his campaign and ran to Washington to sign on to a package that 60+% of Americans opposed that he would lose ground never to be gained back. By not clearly separating himself politically from Obama on the economy, you were left with whomever was the more effective orator and the one with more Presidential gravitas. Clearly Obama on both counts.

If people had put a lot of stock in VP picks, they'd have been scared to death of Biden as well. They just don't matter as much as people seem to think. This was between the two at the top and one came out clearly more level-headed. If Palin was a factor, it's only because the McCain camp was not as effective at manipulating her press as the Obama camp was for Biden.

If the economy is still in the crapper 3 years from now, I can see the GOP has a chance. And if the economy is better, good luck, because the Dems are going to stick it in the Repubs face how they fought against it. If the GOP wants to have any chance, they need to get Rush to shut up. Pay him off, give him OxyContin, hookers or whatever it takes. They need to distance him as the implied leader of the Republican party. Also, If the GOP can’t tap into the individual donations like Obama did, they are toast. Obama will out spend them like there is no tomorrow. Expect to see more Obama-infomercials. And last but not least, for the love of God, whoever runs on the GOP ticket, please pick a solid running mate.

Republicans don't want Rush to shut up. If anyone can drum up support for the Republican base, it is Rush Limbaugh. I'm telling you that what people say about Rush is not what they do about Rush. They love him; Republicans, Independents, and even some Democrats, make no mistake. Where I agree with you and most others here it seems is that the Republicans have a substantial identity crisis that Rush Limbaugh cannot solve. I don't think Rush is destructive in the least bit, but I do think we'd better not be putting too much stock in Palin/Jindal as the future of the party. I was excited about Steele, but he's not been loud enough quite frankly. I'd personally like to see some folks like JC Watts get back into the fray. Others like Thune and Cantor should be kept out front as well.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Reagan and Bush II had to pay for wars (and the result of 9.11)

Bush I had no real control over the purse strings.

Obama wants to spend money on stuff we really don't need, in a way that economists say will hurt us for which there is no Constitutional mandate for (unlike defense).

Remember which party was in control of Congress (and forced the President to go along) when there was no real war, and we had a balanced budget.

What big expensive war did Reagan have to pay for?

You know the $2.8 trillion budget in 2008 under Pres. Bush doesn't even include the cost of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War.

Yet you bitch and complain about $3.6 trillion budget where increase spending is necessary during a deep recession.

You know we are still fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan right?

[OldManMac]

Newsweek isn't the only one taking shots at Limbaugh, who is desperately out of touch.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/08/...ch-irrational/

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What big expensive war did Reagan have to pay for?

The one he didn't start, that he eventually won.

You know we are still fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan right?

I thought you guys voted Obama in to start pulling troops out immediately, right? I thought that after all the hooha! over Bush and "get our boys home", they'd be leaving already, right.

Oh yeah...the "war" was one more thing Obama ended up being wrong about.

[hyteckit]

stupendousman,

I love that you made up one fact to back up another made up fact to back up another made up fact.

Can you please come back to reality?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

stupendousman,

I love that you made up one fact to back up another made up fact to back up another made up fact.

Can you please come back to reality?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wake up. Wake up. Time to come back to reality.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Wake up. Wake up. Time to come back to reality.

Your fairy tales put me to sleep.

[BadKosh]

0bamas policies and lies will cause a massive loss of Democrats in both houses - worse than the 1994 incident. Earmarks, and pork spending, and leftist political agendas have very short shelf lives.

[BadKosh]

Rush Limbaugh took a lot of heat for saying he wants President Obama to fail -- but a lot of Democrats felt the same way about former President George W. Bush during his second term.

An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. Thirty-four percent of independents also did not want Bush to succeed.

By comparison, 90 percent of Republicans said at the time that they wanted Bush to succeed, and 40 percent of Democrats said the same.

Conservative radio talk show host Limbaugh says he doesn't want the economy to fail -- just Obama's policies. But his comments last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference drew sharp criticism from the White House.

After CPAC, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CBS' "Face the Nation" that Limbaugh's stance was the "wrong philosophy for America."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Earmarks, and pork spending, and leftist political agendas have very short shelf lives.

Republicans are just as guilty in regards to earmarks and pork spending.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Oh yeah...the "war" was one more thing Obama ended up being wrong about.

That would be the Bush Administration fabricating evidence that wasn't there and using one of the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as a scapegoat to fuel support for their agenda in Iraq.

Or are you talking about being wrong on a different part of the war?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Republicans are just as guilty in regards to earmarks and pork spending.

Except for guy who was running against Obummer.

I think I may have actually misjudged McCain.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Republicans are just as guilty in regards to earmarks and pork spending.

Actually, they aren't.

They all do it yes, but the Democrat party has a far worse record.

Not that it matters.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Actually, they aren't.

They all do it yes, but the Democrat party has a far worse record.

Not that it matters.

It's hypocritical and extremely annoying when Republicans take the high horse in regards to earmarks and pork. Just take a look at the first bailout bill, or any economic bill passed. Doesn't matter which side drafts it, by the time it's ratified and passed, both sides have so much crap in there.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That would be the Bush Administration fabricating evidence that wasn't there and using one of the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as a scapegoat to fuel support for their agenda in Iraq.

How did the Bush administration force the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies to fabricate evidence? The war had bi-partisan support, and the Democrats knew everything the Republicans did.

Or are you talking about being wrong on a different part of the war?

The part he admitted being wrong about.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How did the Bush administration force the CIA and foreign intelligence agencies to fabricate evidence? The war had bi-partisan support, and the Democrats knew everything the Republicans did.

They didn't force the CIA to do anything, they just completely ignored all other intelligence reports in regards to the matter. The Democrats knew everything the Republicans did, which was whatever scraps the Administration threw to them.

When it became apparent that Iraq posed no credible threat before any commitment was made in the region, the Bush Administration then turned its focus on trying to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq so they can justify going in. The focus moved away from Iraqi Freedom to a War on Terror that couldn't possibly be won by any measure.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The part he admitted being wrong about.

And that would be?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

0bamas policies and lies will cause a massive loss of Democrats in both houses - worse than the 1994 incident. Earmarks, and pork spending, and leftist political agendas have very short shelf lives.

I love how everybody keeps talking about earmarks and pork, when they account for 1% of federal spending. They're easier to target for water cooler talk than the real issues, like defense and education, and health care. Those would require some research, and that's too much work.

[stumblinmike]

It's laughable, the bravado of the minority party. "Just wait and see" they screech. They fail to realize that their party is over. The right has screwed things up so bad! The entire country is willing to do whatever President Obama wants to get us out of this awful hole. And that is the ONLY thing we can thank W for. Heck of a job, Bushie!!!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They didn't force the CIA to do anything, they just completely ignored all other intelligence reports in regards to the matter. The Democrats knew everything the Republicans did, which was whatever scraps the Administration threw to them.

They were given the same briefings and the same information as the President. The majority of intelligence information coming in was that there was reason to believe that Iraq was hiding WOMD and were seeking to get more.

You aren't talking about the BS that Mr. Plame was caught lying about, are you?

And that would be?

Were he admitted to O'Reilly that he didn't have a clue about how to solve the problems in Iraq and that John McCain's plan succeeded way beyond his expectations. So much so that he's continuing them well beyond when he's previously promised to pull troops out.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They were given the same briefings and the same information as the President.

No, they weren't.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, they weren't.

Powerful rebuttal.

Yeah, the Dems were kept in the dark and fed scraps, right? If that were true, wouldn't that make them the worst ****ing idiots imaginable (even worse than Bush)? C'mon, they may be wrong on many points, but they aren't stupid.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, they weren't.

Yeah they were. The same type of intel that Bill Clinton was provided that played an integral role in the Clinton doctrine of regime change in Iraq. C'mon OldMan, others might be able to get away with this degree of ignorance, but you were an aware adult during all this. Don't act like you can't recall any of it, it's beneath you.

[Chongo]

Under the "seriousness of the charges" category..
Many on the left like to ignore Iraqi Air force General Sada's claims That during long lead up to war, Saddam had the much of his WMDs transported to Syria.

Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981. (When asked if there was any chance there were nuclear weapons or on their way to nuclear weapons when USA invaded, he said): Not in Iraq.

What exactly did Israel bomb in that raid on September 6th, 2007? The press reported it was a nuclear facility being built by the North Koreans. If Saddam's WMDs are in Syria, and are used against Israel, Issiah 17:1 will be fulfilled.

Behold Damascus shall cease to be a city, and shall be as a ruinous heap of stones.

Keep in mind, Damascus is the oldest continuously occupied city in the world.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, the Dems were kept in the dark and fed scraps, right? If that were true, wouldn't that make them the worst ****ing idiots imaginable (even worse than Bush)? C'mon, they may be wrong on many points, but they aren't stupid.

No. The President, his cabinet, etc. have access to greater volume of intelligence information than the Congressional Intelligence Committee is even allowed to see. The President may restrict what information is passed onto the Congress. The Congress also doesn't have access to identities of intelligences sources, the means by which the intelligence was gathered, access to the raw intelligence (before it's been evaluated, restricted, etc.), or any intelligence information that is tailored specifically to the President or others in the administration.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Under the "seriousness of the charges" category..
Many on the left like to ignore Iraqi Air force General Sada's claims That during long lead up to war, Saddam had the much of his WMDs transported to Syria.

So Syria has the WMDs, which is why we invaded Iraq?

I don't think that's helping your argument, considering the Republicans also had to ignore the Iraqi General by continuing to invade Iraq instead of Syria.

[Chongo]

General Sada made his claims after the war.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So Syria has the WMDs, which is why we invaded Iraq?

Moved there temporarily, and secretly apparently. Either Saddam had something he wanted to hide, or he was a complete idiot - given the fact that he was always moving truckloads of stuff from inspection sites right after his people were tipped off that an inspection was going to occur - but before the UN inspectors arrived. The goal was to retrieve them once they got their pals in France and Russia that were being payed off, to call off the UN/US hounds. Saddam took a gamble. He lost.

I don't think that's helping your argument, considering the Republicans also had to ignore the Iraqi General by continuing to invade Iraq instead of Syria.

[ironknee]

cheneny and bush wanted to invade iraq before 9-11.

bush jr has an oedipus complex with his father. i will do what my dad couldn't

it was a war of choice.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

General Sada made his claims after the war.

So why are you blaming Democrats for ignoring the General during the long build up to the war?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

cheneny and bush wanted to invade iraq before 9-11.

bush jr has an oedipus complex with his father. i will do what my dad couldn't

it was a war of choice.

9/11 gave them the support they needed. Bush (or was it Cheney?) said so himself.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So why are you blaming Democrats for ignoring the General during the long build up to the war?

I did not say anything about them ignoring Gen. Sada before the war. I said they (D)s ignored his claims that there were WMDs, and that Saddam had moved them with all the telegraphing that went on.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No. The President, his cabinet, etc. have access to greater volume of intelligence information than the Congressional Intelligence Committee is even allowed to see. The President may restrict what information is passed onto the Congress. The Congress also doesn't have access to identities of intelligences sources, the means by which the intelligence was gathered, access to the raw intelligence (before it's been evaluated, restricted, etc.), or any intelligence information that is tailored specifically to the President or others in the administration.

Alright, you've convinced me. If that's true, then they really are "the worst ****ing idiots imaginable".

Being tricked by Bush is just... wow.

[stupendousman]

More info pointing out the shear hypocrisy and lunacy of Carville, et. al.

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

"I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
James Carville, On GWB Sept. 2001

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed!"
James Carville, this month, on CNN.

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So are Democrats going to keep up with this dishonest and already proven as a failure tactic and further doom themselves by not letting hypocrisy and a lack of any rational plan that can work stand in their way? Looks that way.

[stupendousman]

The Evil Genius Karl Rove™ weighs in about the Limbaugh thing, and essentially says EXACTLY what I've already written here:

The White House Misfires on Limbaugh - WSJ.com

Rove should know a thing or two about the demonization Carville/Begala/Emmanuel practices because he was in Rush's shoes not too long ago. He was targeted after Ken Starr no longer became a issue for this team of Democrat "plumbers" our elected leaders always seem to hire to take out the people on their enemies list.

G. Gordon Liddy had to go to prison and wait years to get his own show on the airwaves. Carville/Begala (and Sid Blumenthal when Bill and HIllary are involved) get to do theirs and at the same time practice their dishonest brand of partisanship.

[stumblinmike]

Stupendousman=Karl Rove? Tell me something I didn't know...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They were given the same briefings and the same information as the President.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, they weren't.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Powerful rebuttal.

NO ONE in Conress was given the same amount of detailed intelligence information as the President. Leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees were given much more detailed information (than the rest of their Congressional colleagues) regarding the intel on Iraq obtained by the CIA and others, but no one, apart from the Vice President, the chair of the National Security Council, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the DCI could be given all the intel information given to the President. They would not have enough clearance to be briefed at the same level as the President.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

NO ONE in Conress was given the same amount of detailed intelligence information as the President.

Hogwash. If that's true, and they let themselves be led that badly, then they're largest ****tards in US history. Which is an amazing accomplishment in light of GWB's track record.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Hogwash. If that's true, and they let themselves be led that badly, then they're largest ****tards in US history. Which is an amazing accomplishment in light of GWB's track record.

Umm, you don't get it. Congress CANNOT know as much intel as the President due to security restrictions. It's not like Congressional leaders can summon the DCI to the Capitol for a briefing as detailed as the President's. Certainly, Congress can, and does, summon the DCI before Congress to testify before important issues--sometimes even behind closed doors when even the most basic information to be discussed is not classified for non-secure dissemination--but Congress can ONLY receive as much intel information as is authorized by statute and by exemptions to statute authorized by the President.

As for being led badly, Congress can only make decisions on the information they are given. So yes, they were led badly but not by any willful action on their part.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, you don't get it. Congress CANNOT know as much intel as the President due to security restrictions

Horse hockey. They have the power and influence to get any type of information they want, just about anyone can if they decide to spend a few grand a year on a subscription to Jane's (which was stating the facts 4 months before any strike on Iraq). If there was hoodwinking going on, they allowed themselves to get fooled.

Yes, they're just as much at fault as Bushie.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Horse hockey. They have the power and influence to get any type of information they want, just about anyone can if they decide to spend a few grand a year on a subscription to Jane's (which was stating the facts 4 months before any strike on Iraq). If there was hoodwinking going on, they allowed themselves to get fooled.

Yes, they're just as much at fault as Bushie.

So you're saying Jane's Defence Weekly had published all the detailed intelligence related to the war in Iraq that is given to the President? That is a pretty bold claim. Doing so would have subject Jane's to charges of espionage or worse. (Remember, we are debating stupendousman's assertion that Congress has the same level of access to intelligence information as the President.)

Congress can only get the amount of intelligence authorised to them by statute or by exemptions to statute authorized by the President. Care to reference a news article or non-classified summary of an Executive Order where President Bush authorised Congress, or even the members of the Congressional intelligence committees, to obtain the same level of intelligence information as he received?

You are supporting stupendousman's claim that the Presidency = the Congress in levels of intelligence information available to them. If you and/or stupendousman wish to modify your argument such that you don't state an unequivocal equality between the two in terms of their access to intelligence, then maybe we can debate the question of how much intelligence was available to the different parts of government and how did they act on that intelligence. But right now, you are both stupendously wrong in your assertions of un-equivocal equality of access to intelligence information for the Presidency and the Congress. In simpler terms, you're just plain wrong.

[Shaddim]

I'm saying that Jane's was speculating that the WMD had been moved to Syria months before the war started.

It was speculation, but if they were able to voice doubts then surely the Democrats could too. Capital Hill has access to unlimited information services, they just chose not to react. They were likely hoping to ride the wave of approval with Bush, then decided to hop off when it suited them.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm saying that Jane's was speculating that the WMD had been moved to Syria months before the war started.

It was speculation, but if they were able to voice doubts then surely the Democrats could too. Capital Hill has access to unlimited information services, they just chose not to react. They were likely hoping to ride the wave of approval with Bush, then decided to hop off when it suited them.

That's all fine and dandy expect the posts of your to which I responded had to do with you supporting stupendousman's assertion that the Congress = the Presidency in their levels of access to intelligence information and nothing to do with your subsequent claims regarding outside sources of information (NOT from the intelligence community) available to Congress. Heck, after re-reading the whole page of posts again I see that you went through this same go-round with olePigeon regarding the comparison of Congress and the Presidency in their levels of access to intelligence information before I ever raised my questions on the matter.

You are correct, there plenty of other ways for Congress to obtain information, but that was not the point made by stupendousman, backed up by yourself, and counter-argued by olePigeon, OldManMac, and myself. You and stupendousman both argued for an equivalency of access between the Presidency and the Congress that does not exist.

Like I said before, if you want to debate the question of how much intelligence was available to the different parts of government and how they acted on that intelligence, we can do so. But you need to retract your assertions in support of stupendousman's claims of equivalency of access between the Presidency and Congress. That is just plain wrong and we can't further debate with you with such a stupendously wrong claim by you still being treated as accurate and correct.

[Shaddim]

I'm glad you concede. It's very obvious that the Dems went along with Bush and never questioned his decision. If I were suspicious of a person, especially if that person were an adversary, I'd cast doubts and dig up information, even such information given by other sources. Plainly those other sources were as reliable, if not more so, than what was being given to the President himself.

So, the choice still stands. Were they were riding his wave of approval, or were they simply stupid?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm glad you concede. It's very obvious that the Dems went along with Bush and never questioned his decision. If I were suspicious of a person, especially if that person were an adversary, I'd cast doubts and dig up information, even such information given by other sources. Plainly those other sources were as reliable, if not more so, than what was being given to the President himself.

So, the choice still stands. Were they were riding his wave of approval, or were they simply stupid?

If your post is addressed to me I am not sure what you think I conceded. I have done nothing but to continue to point out the inaccuracy of your statements in support of stupendousman's assertion that the Congress had access to the same levels of intelligence information as the President. Until we get beyond that incorrect assertion there isn't really room for further debate. I don't know how you can think I can concede a point when all I have done is point out how ridiculously wrong you are in supporting stupendousman's claims of Congressional access to intelligence information. You are making patently false assertions which pretty much ends any possibility for discussion or debate until you retract or disavow those assertions and proceed to argue from a reality based in logic.

For right now, anything you say about the level of information obtained by Congress is tainted by your continued assertion of the stupendously false claim that the Congress had access to the same levels of intelligence information as the President. Once you disavow or retract that statement we can start to discuss the matter of which parts of our government had access to which types of information and how they did or did not use that information.

[Shaddim]

Your fetish with Stupendousman aside, my points are all valid. If you choose to be blind to the stupidity or duplicity of the Democratic party, then that's your own fault. Both parties are vile and used the war to further their own agendas. To think otherwise is illogical (and dangerous).

Both sides had access to ample information, both chose to manipulate the situation to suit them. Those are the facts, but you can choose to ignore them if you want.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Your fetish with Stupendousman aside, my points are all valid. If you choose to be blind to the stupidity or duplicity of the Democratic party, then that's your own fault. Both parties are vile and used the war to further their own agendas. To think otherwise is illogical (and dangerous).

Both sides had access to ample information, both chose to manipulate the situation to suit them. Those are the facts, but you can choose to ignore them if you want.

My "fetish" is with the principles of sound, logically based debate. That is all. And in this thread this evening you have been making surprisingly illogical posts with no basis in logic or facts. (I say surprisingly because I expect these types of ridiculous, illogical assertions from stupendousman but not from you.) All I am wondering is if you are going to renounce or retract the assertions you made regarding equivalency of access to intelligence information that I have shown to be false from both a practical and legal standpoint. Are you going to retract those assertions?

And I am NOT ignoring any of the other assertions you have made regarding access to other sources of information outside of the intelligence realm--If you had bothered to ask me what I thought of those assertions you would have found out I agree with you in the main. But, we can't really move forward to discuss seriously these other assertions you have made while these wildly inaccurate claims of yours regarding equivalency of access to intelligence information are still out there. You can't ask us to take seriously your other assertions in this debate when you so vociferously support assertions shown to be logically false and factually incorrect. That's like me arguing the moon is made of green cheese followed by arguments that water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen. The believability of my latter statements would be, and should be, called into question by my support for the unbelievable, illogical assertions I made previously.

In order to be taken seriously in a debate, you need to be consistently correct with both your facts and your logic. And you have not been arguing that way this evening.

[BadKosh]

When the Clinton admin put the 'wall' up to keep the various Intelligence gathering entities from sharing information, or being able to quickly connect the dots, the US didn't have reliable information. Clinton claimed WMD's back in 1998 as a reason to bomb those buildings. Bush said the same thing, but the libs only claim Bush Lied, not mentioning Clinton.

In the final days before the US and it's allies went into Iraq MANY satellite photos showedcaravans of trucks going into Syria. At one point they caught 3 18-wheelers full of counterfeit US currency! This made the news all over. They also observed over 70 trucks in one day, closely guarded by smaller vehicles heading into Syria, but the final destination was obscured by a large sandstorm. They HAVE shown those photos on various news channels and the Military Channel.