[Jansar]

Surely, I just read the headlines of the news and found that a head bin Laden aid was just captured. However, I'm thinking to myself, "I'm sure he could have been captured six months ago." My point is, I'm watching these 30 second videos for example, which state "facts" about what the President has not done, but the truth is, as ordinary citizens, you have no freaking clue! If it was really that important (and quite classified for the time being), why the heck would our country release the news to the public? When Saddam was captured, what evidence is there to say that he was captured right before it was announced?

It's just something to think about. I'm on the impression that liberals tend to jump to conclusions without really knowing what's going on. I'm not being a hypocrite either...I'll fully support claims if they're really true.

[Johnny Lydon]

When you categorize people as liberal then you can pin a lot of things on an entire group of people that is really a diverse segment of the population. I agree that if you want to lump all people who don't agree with Bush into one group that they tend to be reactionary. However, while you do this you discount what in many cases is an extended amount of time reading and thinking abou these issues. e.g. Many professors tend to be liberal for very obvious reasons. It is their job to think about things in depth. Just as it is Jonh Public's job to be very educated in electircal wiring professors have to understand their respective systems. I tend to think that, what you call, "liberals" are doing is examining a well documented pattern.

If one really takes the effort to understand some of the things the United States government and corporations have done over the last 50+ years it is pretty easy to see the patterns. I don't have to watch the news anymore to know what is going to happen over the long-term in general. The news that most people get is a very small percentage of what is actually happening filtered by a network of organizations (mainly corporate) who have a vested interest in keeping the masses from knowing and understanding the systems involved in policy.

You are correct. On a day to day basis I/we have no clue what is going on. What I do have a clue to is what the plan is. The plans are all very clear once you understand the systems that divine them. To do this however, one must make a choice to let go of one's preconceived notions and prejudices. This is very difficult for most people. It threatens their whole belief system.

Believe me when I don't think about politics I am quite content. I had a relatively easy childhood and I was quite happy for a long time being ignorant of the world. Unfortunately we must grow up and deal with the facts. If one is not interested in searching for the truth then they become cogs in the system. The internet is an awesome tool. The truth will be exposed and it will do so with much greater speed. The combination of a divisive president and the internet is quite a thing to be witness to. An interesting time to be alive.

One point I would make: If you are going to talk about "evidence" around here and hope to have a meaningful debate you had better bring more than television propaganda to the forum. Many people here rely on many diverse sources of information that have little or nothing in common with what you may see on American TV.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Jansar:
It's just something to think about. I'm on the impression that liberals tend to jump to conclusions without really knowing what's going on. I'm not being a hypocrite either...I'll fully support claims if they're really true.

Libbies are not that popular anymore. They are losing ground. They are reverting to bad tactics trying to gain ground. It's only making them less popular.

Good job.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Surely, I just read the headlines of the news and found that a head bin Laden aid was just captured. However, I'm thinking to myself, "I'm sure he could have been captured six months ago." My point is, I'm watching these 30 second videos for example, which state "facts" about what the President has not done, but the truth is, as ordinary citizens, you have no freaking clue! If it was really that important (and quite classified for the time being), why the heck would our country release the news to the public? When Saddam was captured, what evidence is there to say that he was captured right before it was announced?

If there was a point in this post, you've hidden it very cleverly.

Where are the "liberals" in this case, what have they to do with the news report, bin Laden's aid, and what exactly has the president "not done"?

What exactly are you trying to say?

-s*

[Jansar]

I have just seen a lot lately about how "Bush hasn't found WMD yet" or "Bush has made no progress in his anti-terror war" among others. I just was trying to clarify that no, people don't know what's going on, only the people in the White House and Pentagon do, so these people should stop making assumptions. These people predominantly (I'm estimating 99.999999%) are liberals, so that's why I (in a way) directed this their way. I mean, do you really think a conservative would create the "Bush in 30 Seconds" commercial?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Libbies are not that popular anymore. They are losing ground. They are reverting to bad tactics trying to gain ground. It's only making them less popular.

Good job.

Please to support this argument with actual facts. More than a few recent polls will not support this conclusion. I'd just like to see your evidence, is all.

I would like you to think about something, though, in the midst of all this armchair commentary on how this country leans: Can you imagine how much of an ass you will look if, in fact, Bush does NOT win the White House? Where will your rationale go then? I know you will blame someone. I am just wondering who that will be?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I mean, do you really think a conservative would create the "Bush in 30 Seconds" commercial?

Nah. They'll have something more clever and hard hitting and, of course, more "true". Because that is what politics is all about: "truth".

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I have just seen a lot lately about how "Bush hasn't found WMD yet" or "Bush has made no progress in his anti-terror war" among others. I just was trying to clarify that no, people don't know what's going on, only the people in the White House and Pentagon do, so these people should stop making assumptions. These people predominantly (I'm estimating 99.999999%) are liberals, so that's why I (in a way) directed this their way. I mean, do you really think a conservative would create the "Bush in 30 Seconds" commercial?

Also: are you lumping those who make assumptions in there with those who would ask questions? I see such hypocrisy in a statement like the one you just spelled out, there. Why? Well, I'll refer you back to the whole Ken Starr thing. Lots of folks so willing to jump to a conclusion then, but unwilling to do so now. This begs the question: what is the thread? Answer: your party and/or political leanings. I didn't question the war when it happened. Now I do. The more I question, the more I feel I was manipulated and mislead.
As for the effectiveness of the war on terror- well, how would we know, as you point out. FOr 15 years, we have been told the war on drugs is working. We all know that it isn't. It isn't hard to see at all. And yet, that is not what our leaders tell us. Incidences of terrorism continue and continue and continue and yet we are being told the war is working. OF COURSE WE ARE. It is an election year. Am I to trust what they tell us? Why? What have they demonstrated to show us we can trust what they say?
Next: only the White House and Pentagon know? Why is that? They are acting in our names. Shouldn't we have the evidence with which we may make an informed decision? That would be the CORRECT information, I mean. REAL evidence. Turns out we can't get that, either.

Now we run back to blame: you'll take the above and say "Intelligence community's fault. Old news."
To which I will reply: where exactly does the buck stop, again? Been so long since it actually stopped there.

[tie]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I have just seen a lot lately about how "Bush hasn't found WMD yet" ... I just was trying to clarify that no, people don't know what's going on, only the people in the White House and Pentagon do, so these people should stop making assumptions. These people predominantly (I'm estimating 99.999999%) are liberals

Like the chief US weapons inspector himself. Why would he know what's going on?

I see, it's a big conspiracy, Bush is deliberately trying to make himself and the US look incompetent. Kay is on board, too. Of course that's what is going on.

I'm sure we've caught Osama Bin Laden, too, and Bush is just keeping it a secret to keep Americans scared.

Is this a fair summary of your argument? It's pretty far out there.

[thunderous_funker]

Ah, you mean "liberals" like:

The Army War College?

Veteran CIA professionals?

Karen Kwiatkowsky?

Robert McNamara?

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I have just seen a lot lately about how "Bush hasn't found WMD yet" or "Bush has made no progress in his anti-terror war" among others. I just was trying to clarify that no, people don't know what's going on, only the people in the White House and Pentagon do, so these people should stop making assumptions. These people predominantly (I'm estimating 99.999999%) are liberals, so that's why I (in a way) directed this their way. I mean, do you really think a conservative would create the "Bush in 30 Seconds" commercial?

Wait, Jansar, I thought you had a bunch of evidence you would like to share with us. Your thread title makes a allusion to having some evidence. Uh, so where is yours? Having trouble? 99.99999%? Good estimate. Accurate I am sure.

Only the people in the White House and the Pentagon know what is going on? So the people on the streets of Iraq don't know what is going on? The followers of OBL don't know what is going on? Israeli military don't know what is going on? Saudi Arabians don't know what is going on?

See what happens when you get all your info from the TV?

[mr. natural]

Obviously, any dissenting thoughts about Bush is just Liberal BS, promoted by the liberal media, and we're all just parrots to this pack of lies because we just *hate* Bush. It's as simple as that.

The reality, t_f, is Ignorance is their strength.

Along with War is Peace, and Propaganda is Truth.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Johnny Lydon:
Wait, Jansar, I thought you had a bunch of evidence you would like to share with us. Your thread title makes a allusion to having some evidence. Uh, so where is yours? Having trouble? 99.99999%? Good estimate. Accurate I am sure.

Only the people in the White House and the Pentagon know what is going on? So the people on the streets of Iraq don't know what is going on? The followers of OBL don't know what is going on? Israeli military don't know what is going on? Saudi Arabians don't know what is going on?

See what happens when you get all your info from the TV?

re-slipping in
is Bushhimself informed 99,99999999999999999% considering where he gets his info from....

btw wasnt it the liberals who started a conspiracy stating saddam had been captured beforhand, and it was for propaganda purposes that he was then pulled out of his rat hole?

[swrate]

Originally posted by Jansar:
Surely, I just read the headlines of the news and found that a head bin Laden aid was just captured. However, I'm thinking to myself, "I'm sure he could have been captured six months ago." My point is, I'm watching these 30 second videos for example, which state "facts" about what the President has not done, but the truth is, as ordinary citizens, you have no freaking clue! If it was really that important (and quite classified for the time being), why the heck would our country release the news to the public? When Saddam was captured, what evidence is there to say that he was captured right before it was announced?

It's just something to think about. I'm on the impression that liberals tend to jump to conclusions without really knowing what's going on. I'm not being a hypocrite either...I'll fully support claims if they're really true.

replied to your post above

Liberal?
jumping to conclusions for example the conclusion Iraq had WMD was not a liberal view.
There was no evidence saddam was captured that moment you are right, and the issue was lifted by many, Saddam being presented as gift.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Ah, you mean "liberals" like:

The Army War College?

Veteran CIA professionals?

Karen Kwiatkowsky?

Robert McNamara?

I just heard an interview with Lt. General William Odom of the Hudson Institute, not exactly a liberal hornet's nest. He's an expert on intel and was director of the National Security Agency under Reagan. He was asked whether this was a situation of bad intelligence well used, good intelligence badly used, or bad intelligence badly used. He chose the latter, "unequivocally."

[dialo]

Originally posted by Jansar:
I have just seen a lot lately about how "Bush hasn't found WMD yet" or "Bush has made no progress in his anti-terror war" among others. I just was trying to clarify that no, people don't know what's going on, only the people in the White House and Pentagon do, so these people should stop making assumptions.

The vast majority of intel comes from open sources and always has. Iraq WMD intel in particular has been exceptionally open. OSP gathered intel almost exclusively from the UN inspection process and INC defectors. Ultimately, the INC defectors turned out to be passing false information and subsequently all of those INC reports have been made public (almost all of them already were).

Furthermore, classified policy information is almost never really secret. The only truly 'secret' info by and large tends to be recent operational information, but often even this is very open, as seen in stratfor's coverage of troop movements during the Iraq war.

The specter of secret info is essentially a myth left over from a disconnected cold war world.

Of course, even then it is estimated that 80-85% intelligence during the cold war was open information, much of it recieved through the Foreign Broadcast Information Service.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I just heard an interview with Lt. General William Odom of the Hudson Institute, not exactly a liberal hornet's nest. He's an expert on intel and was director of the National Security Agency under Reagan. He was asked whether this was a situation of bad intelligence well used, good intelligence badly used, or bad intelligence badly used. He chose the latter, "unequivocally."

I heard that interview too. It was a smackdown-caliber interview. This issue is not going to go away as quickly as Rove would like.

In private, some administration officials acknowledged Tuesday that Dr. Kay's conclusion that the intelligence was deeply flawed was becoming an unwelcome political problem that the White House would have to confront, either now or when the presidential campaign heats up.

Two administration officials reported that a debate has erupted within the administration over whether Mr. Bush should soon call for some kind of reform of the intelligence-gathering process. But the officials said Mr. Bush's aides were searching for a formula that would allow them to acknowledge intelligence-gathering problems without blaming the Central Intelligence Agency or the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, who approved that National Intelligence Estimate.

"We spent the summer with the White House and the agency spitting at each other," said one official, recalling the arguments over who was to blame for Mr. Bush's inaccurate accusation in the State of the Union address last year that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy nuclear material in Africa. "We can't afford another of those."

from this article

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by swrate:
re-slipping in
is Bushhimself informed 99,99999999999999999% considering where he gets his info from....

btw wasnt it the liberals who started a conspiracy stating saddam had been captured beforhand, and it was for propaganda purposes that he was then pulled out of his rat hole?

I'm not sure what the first part means.

Yeah there is a meeting where all the "liberals" get together and decide to concoct conspiracy theories that all the "liberals" then must commit to memory and spout whenever possible. It is a vast left-wing conspiracy.

I don't think anyone really cares when he was captured. So any theory would be irrelevant. And there aren't any "liberals" AFAIK who are unhappy that the human POS Saddam is in prison for the rest of his pathetic life. Just a bunch who don't like to be lied to about why we do what we do and how we do it.

Capturing Saddam was a happy side-show. The main attraction is the selling of Iraq to the highest bidder and milking the American tax-payer for military protection and all the costs of rebuilding while the profits go to CEOs and wealthy share-holders.

[Johnny Lydon]

Originally posted by tie:

I'm sure we've caught Osama Bin Laden, too, and Bush is just keeping it a secret to keep Americans scared.

The defense contractors including the Carlyle Group don't want OBL caught. Get rid of Public Enemy #1? What are you crazy? The economy would come crashing down around us! The dirty communists folded and left us with no one to fight. We won't make that mistake again.

If we caught OBL we would have to come to the realization that the 9/11 hijackers were all Saudi! OMG! What? We are financing terrorism? And supporting a terroist nation? What? No! We need the oil!

North Korea looks around and realizes they have no oil so they had better get some nukes pronto.