Pabst, your perspective is far broader than mine. I only see what's in front of me, such as it is. I am less concerned with what others might have done and prefer to focus on what has already been done and by whom. You seem to be playing this game many moves in advance. I will content myself with an assessment of the moves already played. If, as alleged, Bush did indeed have intelligence skewed to his liking, then perhaps this fact will surface in the fullness of time. Suggesting that others would have welcomed the fabrication may or may not be true. I certainly hope not, but I don't pretend to follow these matters as closely as you do. Regardless, that point is moot insofar as Bush's alleged culpability is concerned. Let's focus on the matter at hand, shall we? If Bush was indeed engaged in willful deceit, would you not want to know? That's the question.
Think like a trader T-dog. That's why you should be here. I look at the market from EVERY side. If I'm buying what's motivating sellers? What prices or news invalidates either my or their hopes? Use CRAP DETECTION. Accept NOTHING at face value. People lie, the tape lies, hell we lie to ourselves. Think the WORST of every situation and look at every motive as self serving. I'll bet ya this. If you put Obama under a lie dtector and asked "would you mind a million people dying if it meant you becoming President"? The truth would be let 'em bleed. The same way Farve would rather start for a .500 Packers team than play behind Rogers on a Super Bowl winner. Such is life.
PROSECUTOR: Did you commit the crime in question? DEFENDANT: Yeah, but anyone else woulda done the same thing. JUDGE: Oh, well in that case, you're free to go. As an aside, Pabst, you seem to be fairly at ease with Clinton's comeuppance for lying under oath. Why, then, are you so willing to overlook a substantially more significant (alleged) deception on the part of the current president?
The very worst thing a President, as the Commander In Chief, can do is send American servicemen and servicewomen into combat, thereby jeopardizing their lives, for anything but a genuinely noble and necessary purpose. No one needs to go any further in their analysis, really. If you think President Bush satisfied the genuinely noble and necessary purpose regarding Iraq, you probably are more forgiving in your assessment of him and his record. If not, you can't come to any other conclusion other than he erred in the most fundamental way possible. I would hasten to add that shredding the constitution is fairly significant, too, but you only need to go to that next level of analysis if you give him a passing grade on the first. I won't even get into deficit spending.
I've just been observing you and pabst discussing all this. I think you are fighting an uphill battle with someone who is so entrenched in their bias and extreme right wing thinking, that the word discussion or discourse is a second language. Those who resort to name calling and language to belittle the others in the debate have already thrown away the key to any possible rational thinking. We don't know each other, but I've been around at least as long as pabst, and I did not vote for Clinton nor Bush, but extremes on either side are destroying the America I grew up in. Pretty sad state of affirs, in my opinion. c
The same people pulling Bush's strings will be pulling Obama's. Iraq and Iran were the two black sheep that threatened to sell oil in Euros. If anyone seriously expects change, they are delluded
If you think President Bush satisfied the genuinely noble and necessary purpose regarding Iraq ========================================== What was your plan after 911, anyone's for that matter? Do nothing? Needless death of our soldiers? You tell them it was senseless, I'm not. A soldier in Iraq can say it is senseless, I'm not there, I wouldn't know.
My plan? If I had been in a position of power, it most certainly would have been to invade the right country, for starters. Have you noticed the shortage of NATO/U.S. troops, and resurgance of the Taliban, in Afghanistan? Yeah. If you don't realize that the Iraq War will enter the history books as one of the most counterproductive, asset draining, demoralizing and destabilizing wars the U.S. has engaged in by now, you're unlikely to be persuaded by anything I or anyone else will likely say. And you say only a soldier in Iraq has a say on this matter? Dick Cheney, to name but one person, obviously would beg to differ with you, no?
I'm not pro-war but it's statements like yours that drive me crazy. "One of the most...." Compared to what? This is a "war" that has cost only 4000 American lives and accounts for around 2% of the Federal budget. This isn't even the biggest war being fought on the planet right now let alone some major historical event. More people die in Sudan each week than have died in 5 and a half years in Iraq. Are you going to compare the cost and loss of life in Iraq to Vietnam? Or Korea? How about 90% less deaths in Iraq vs. Nam (in a U.S. that's 50% more populated to boot). How about Nam costing 12% a year in GDP. Let's not even talk about WWll where almost half a percent of America perished. Not to mention this war was fought with VOLUNTEERS. Your sentiments are why I call us Whiner Nation. Half your posts are some sort of bitching. Saddam attacked Kuwait. We kicked his ass. He surrendered. He signed an agreement with the U.N. stating no support of International Terrorism. Seven years later he was funding Hamas suicide bombers. The anti-Israel U.N. (Syria was a member of the U.N. Security Council at the time) told Israel to take a hike, so we did what the spineless U.N. refused to do. We got together with THIRTY other countries and got rid of Saddam. Now according to all reports Iraq is on the road back. Their oil production is the highest in history, their own troops are quelling unrest and for all practical purposes the "war" is over. No thanks to people like you. If you think Afghanistan is "winnable" without a draft then fine. Go enlist. How did the USSR do over there?