So hey, why don't we paint a plane UN colors and see if that will

[KrustyKidd]

Defending someone so obviously dishonest and incompetant who's f'd up things so badly is a thankless job.

Five and a half years and nothing. Yes, so obviously dishonest. Get an argument for crying out loud, this baseless conjecture and emotional drivel makes you look like a troll poster. Wait, why don't you just address the ones of mine you have conveiniently skipped over?

There's this one

It was the offical US policy to effect Regime Change in Iraq.

What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war?

Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant.

It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could.

I suppose that Saddam being in violation of resolutions and such and thus becomming a legitimate target for active regime change would then be the recipient of said support. After a decade of trying, the US was forced to act in order to get Iraq to comply.

Of course it can be argued ineffectively they did not have to act as nobody has to do anything. They could stand down the forces they had in theater and allow him to do whatever he wanted or, simply become isolationist and allow the world to go on with whatever it does when controlled by Great Powers such as France, Russia and China and an Iraq with Saddam unrestricted..

Oh, I get it. You meant in case Hondorus effected the regime change the US should have provided moral support in the form of the USO or something. Ok, gotcha.

And this one which was a tag along with Monty affair you didn't address which had some points which challenged your argument

His point is that if Bush knew that he was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what if possible, then he lied to the American people when he stated that war would be an action of the last resort.

And to him, that makes hime happy because it means there is an oppoortunity for Bush to be discredited or even in a fantasy world - impeached.

What he discounts is that Saddam was as predictable as a Musillini run train and that the administration knew he could never come clean even if he wanted to. Hence, it was a virtual given that the resolutions would be breached. And, if not with WMDs, it could and more than likely have been with the ecological reparations, POW returns, repatriation of foreign nationals, war reparations etc. Hence, when none of those had even been acted on in over ten years, one can figure without using a calculator that given that they take years to complete if they are even started at all that he would be in breach of something.

Lo and behold, in the two months that Iraq actually got serious they turned in a document that Blix himself called 'disappointing' containing fake documents and then even testified that the actions by Iraq were not 'immediate and unconditional' which BTW were the exact terms 687 said that Iraq must be in order to be in compliance with 1441 which reiterated the authority that the US and the coalition had to take whatever action was necessary to get Iraq to comply.

It's the stuff left wing dreams are made of is what the point is Monty. Same crowd that are angry for the US invasion killing Iraqs to the tune of thirty thousand while saving on average five hundred thousand from Saddam and his adventures. Very humanistic they try to portray themselves as they have a belief that by having the US leave Iraq as it is comming together, they now wish to have the US leave and watch a further two hundred fifty thousand die by disease and trauma. Very strange words for a group that are argueing that Bush did not give every oppoortunity to avoid war and are now saying that we should give democracy no more opportunity.

Nothing to worry about, go back to Kojack.

And then of course, you never once commented in any way to my speculation of what would happen if the US left Iraq.

You can go here to do so. You were the one who said Iraq would be much better off if the US left Iraq so it should be interesting to see you refute any of the possibilities with reason.

Oh, another argument maybe you can answer what Black Dog could not

Well, Saddam got twelve years of opportunity, why is it the Iraqis themselves only get three? To say sanctions and resolutions were working is wrong as they were not yet the Iraqis, with US help, have come together in a political process with a greater percentage of the population voting under threat of death than those who do in most democratic countries.

So, why is it the left was willing to cut Saddam so much slack when no progress was being made, yet give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political porocess?

It just seems so hypocritical.

I think this all ties in with the 72% thread and your last post there so won't bother addressing it unless you wish but, the points are here anyhow.

[gerryhatrick]

Five and a half years and nothing. Yes, so obviously dishonest. Get an argument for crying out loud, this baseless conjecture and emotional drivel makes you look like a troll poster.

Check the topic post.

A first hand account of his dishonesty is not exactly "conjecture" and "emotional drivel". Nice try though.

Ignoring the evidence presented in the topic makes you look like a "troll poster". Start debating in good faith. Pretending there's nothing wrong with pre-deciding a war while outwardly claiming effort to avoid it is dishonest. It's a breach of public trust of the worst possible nature.

That's not "emotional" lad, it's plain fact.

[KrustyKidd]

That's not "emotional" lad, it's plain fact.

"Lad?" Names? That is emotional. A sure sign you are running out of argument and, given the proof you have wihich is so old (Downing Street memo) and already been worked over with zip for results I wonder why you waste bandwidth here with it. Possibly, you might team up with Newbie who has started the exact thread and seems to be cutting your grass.

Gerry, one of the points here you can respond to is that two months before the invasion it was a virtual given that Saddam would never be able to adhere to any of the dozens of resolution points he was commited to in time. Bush did give him every opportunity as did the UN with military action being a lsat resort however, we all knew there was little possibility he would be able to come clean in time. As Blix said 'cooperation was not immediate and unconditional.' We all knew how it was going to go anyhow as it's pretty hard to carry out twelve years of comming clean in two months so, good thing Bush was ready cause that what was comming down the pipe.

[gerryhatrick]

That's not "emotional" lad, it's plain fact.

"Lad?" Names? That is emotional.

Oh, SORRY I called you "lad". What an awful "name". Certainly provides you the cover you needed to ignore my point about the topic post.

A sure sign you are running out of argument and, given the proof you have wihich is so old (Downing Street memo) and already been worked over

My God, you haven't even looked at the topic post. You don't even know what the topic is about.

Not the "Downing Street Memo" that came out a long time ago.

Brand new KK. Go look, if truth and reality interests you at all.

[KrustyKidd]

Gerry, I realize what the topic is however, it is the same argument as the Downing Street memo. Same crap, worked from a different angle. It does vindicate Bush from the left catch phrase of 'rushing to war' though doesn't it?

Anyhow, please do your homework and address the posts in which I have rsponded to you as you have a lot of catching up to do so no sense starting new stuff and falling further behind.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry, I realize what the topic is however, it is the same argument as the Downing Street memo. Same crap, worked from a different angle.

No, it's not the same information worked from a different angle.

And no, you didn't realize it. In your last post you clearly believed the topic was about the Downing Street Memo which came out over a year ago. This is a transparent attempt to cover up your ignorance.

This is a first-hand account. The DSM was a second hand account.

This time Bush is openly talking about methods to provoke a response to give him the excuse to invade (painting a US spy plane UN blue).

It's nothing like the DSM. Nice try. I'm glad you realize there's something new out there now at least.

[Black Dog]

First one I found, lots more

Can't follow the link.

Much as bin Laden did in his own recent release, al-Zawahiri touches on the morale of the American public and apparently tries to inflame anti-war sentiment, referring to President George W. Bush as the "Butcher of Washington" and "a curse on your own nation." Addressing the American people directly, he adds, "Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures." He says, "If the Pentagon calls to tell you that your son is coming home in a coffin, then remember George Bush."

Of course, this doesn't really prove your point that anti-war sentiment here is encouragiging the jihadis. More like the other way around.

Might. However, if the US left just to 'see' if you were right or not, the whole thing would more than likely go down the tubes completely. So, why not wait a bit like the UN and US did with Saddam?

Honestly? I don't think it matters a whit one way or another. Iraq is screwed, a Humpty Dumpty nation.

No government? Then who is this Talabani guy you refer to?

Don't be obtuse. There's a government, but it exists in name only: it has no authority.

[KrustyKidd]

'KrustyKidd'

Gerry, I realize what the topic is however, it is the same argument as the Downing Street memo. Same crap, worked from a different angle.

No, it's not the same information worked from a different angle.

And no, you didn't realize it. In your last post you clearly believed the topic was about the Downing Street Memo which came out over a year ago. This is a transparent attempt to cover up your ignorance.

Is that why I put 'DSM' in brackets and said it was the same thing? An attempt to screw Bush by saying he had already decided to go to war?

A sure sign you are running out of argument and, given the proof you have wihich is so old (Downing Street memo) and already been worked over with zip for results I wonder why you waste bandwidth here with it.

Is this information recent? It is same era crap and says the same thing and will get the same results - air time but no results.

Here is your quote from another thread and my reply.

Gerry

Do you think the latest details of a Jan.31 2005 meeting between Bush and Blair could contribute to impeachment proceedings? Nobody is denying the authenticity and it clearly describes Bush being decided upon war and even coniving for ways to start one over a month before it started. They even had a date. This was before Powel went to the UN and before weapons inspectors were done.

The narrative from Bush during this period was that he didn't want war and there were ways that it could be avoided. Clearly, a lie.

Here, you explain the entire concept of it (inconsiderately without providing a link, I had to get that off Newbie) And then I gave my reply.

My Reply:

No. I imagine that he was intent on invading Iraq immediately after, if not during the Afgan operation. The War was not illegal so what is the problem for him?

Well, there I addressed this meeting and, below, on the same thread I also address the DSM acknowleging they are not the same things.

Gerry

Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk.

Note: you might want to visit Impeach Bush to get with the times. (after you have the courtesy to answer the posts I reffer to at the end of this one)

KK

No? Downing St Memo, WMDs and such? Pick up a paper sometime.

Gerry

This is a first-hand account. The DSM was a second hand account.

This time Bush is openly talking about methods to provoke a response to give him the excuse to invade (painting a US spy plane UN blue).

It's nothing like the DSM. Nice try. I'm glad you realize there's something new out there now at least.

It's not? Here's what you say about it

Gerry

Regardless of what weapons inspectors found, OR of the 2nd resolution happening....he was doin' it!

Here is what I summed up to Monty when he wondered what your problem was.

KK

His point is that if Bush knew that he was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what if possible, then he lied to the American people when he stated that war would be an action of the last resort.

I guess I got it wrong and it really wasn't the same crap as the DSM who's main argument was;

The original "Downing Street Memo" -- in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's intelligence service MI6, reported that "war was now seen as inevitable" and that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" -- has been held up as a smoking gun, proof that the Bush administration lied about seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict with Iraq, and cherry picked intel to overhype the threat of Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD.

Hmm. It appears to be the same argument. Maybe I have it wrong though and there is some hidden meaning in there that escapes me. In any case, they are ineffectual in that Saddam was in breach of the Resolutions and had made no attempt to correct that fact. Hence, preparations for an invasion to go along with the policy of the times in the US which was regime change in Iraq were made.

In all Gerry, I wish you would stick to the threads and the point counterpoint arguments rather than try to sidetrack them into bitchy lilttle spats when you flounder. And, please address the things I asked you to last night. They were replies to your points and questions and it would be quite rude for you not to.

On a personal note, I saw this when I was gong over your stuff to gather the quotes (caps mine)

And no, you didn't realize it. In your last post you CLEARLY believed the topic was about the Downing Street Memo which came out over a year ago.

Just wondering, you have used this before on at least two occasions with me and on both occasions I shot your argument out of the water. So why do you think things are so clear when they are so ful of water they can't float? I use terms such as probably, possibly and things like that as I know nothing is absolute. Here again, I proved that it was not as 'clearly' evident as you said. It's an indication of somebody with a weak argument actually Gerry. A red flag if you will.

Anyhow, looking forward to you returns on last nights assignments.

Thanks

[gerryhatrick]

Just wondering, you have used this before on at least two occasions with me and on both occasions I shot your argument out of the water.

Hardly.

You've completely ignored the fact that this is new information.

The musing by Bush about painting a spy plane blue to provoke an attack shows more than just a decision to go to invade. It shows a callous desire to create a reason to invade in the most dishonest of fashions.

It's the behavior of a lying thug more than a President who deserves any respect.

[KrustyKidd]

You've completely ignored the fact that this is new information.

Gerry, it's the same shit, saying the same thing from a different source. I didn't ignore it, it just doesn't mean anything that we don't already know. I mean, when Bush shifted the entire public campaign to sell the war from WMDs to 'Regime Change; only an idiot would figure that the invasion was anything but a certainty. Now, run along so you and Newbie can make a thread called 'Impeach Bush' and add this to the long list of failures the movement and those like it have experienced, despite having 'groundbreaking evidence' for same time after time.

[gerryhatrick]

You've completely ignored the fact that this is new information.

Gerry, it's the same shit, saying the same thing from a different source.

No, it's not, Krusty.

First of all, it's first hand. That's an important point. That other "shit" was second hand heresay.

Second and most important, it's NOT the same "shit" or "thing" or information or whatever you want to call it.

Let me put it in bold so it's perfectly clear:

Bush is talking about painting a US spy plane in UN colors to try and provoke an attack from Saddam thereby giving the US an excuse to start the invasion!!!

Where, in your old "shit", does it talk about Bush actually wanting to take dishonest steps to induce hostilities?

Thanks.

[KrustyKidd]

Where, in your old "shit", does it talk about Bush actually wanting to take dishonest steps to induce hostilities?

Dishonest steps like painting your own aircraft? Then flying it along a route you are permitted to?

Ooooooo. How evil.

[gerryhatrick]

Where, in your old "shit", does it talk about Bush actually wanting to take dishonest steps to induce hostilities?

Dishonest step like painting your own aircraft? Then flying it along a route you are permitted to?

Ooooooo. How evil.

What "route"? You don't even know what route he was proposing to fly the plane over!

You want "dishonest"?

Let's pull out the mirror.

You portray this as "painting your own aircraft". A seemingly innocuous endevour, surely.

You leave out the part about painting it to look like it's not your own aircraft. Suddenly not so innocuous.

You leave out the part about WHY the aircraft would be painted to look like it's not your own. Suddenly dishonest.

If you want to lie alongside Bush go ahead. Hitching your wagon to this batch of lies only paints them on yourself!

[KrustyKidd]

What "route"? You don't even know what route he was proposing to fly the plane over!

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

You leave out the part about painting it to look like it's not your own aircraft. Suddenly not so innocuous.

You leave out the part about WHY the aircraft would be painted to look like it's not your own. Suddenly dishonest.

Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. So, if Bush has the planes fly under their own colors and they get fired on it is Saddam's fault but if they look like they might be UN planes then it is the US's fault. Or something to that effect.

Only in Gerry's world is Saddam allowed to fire on UN planes, or, US planes for that matter while under a gazillion resolutions.

Get real

If you want to lie alongside Bush go ahead. Hitching your wagon to this batch of lies only paints them on yourself!

Get some real stuff on him and make it stick. Stop the yapping with this hubris. Like I said, this is just another in a long line of time fillers and wasters. Like the Downing Street Memo.

[gerryhatrick]

Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. So, if Bush has the planes fly under their own colors and they get fired on it is Saddam's fault but if they look like they might be UN planes then it is the US's fault. Or something to that effect.

Nothing to that effect!!

You don't need to worry yourself about the details. It's enough for you to understand that Bush was talking about painting US spy planes in UN colors to provoke an attack that could be used as an excuse to invade.

And this was on Jan. 31 2005.

Get your head wrapped around that first of all.

[KrustyKidd]

Nothing to that effect!!

You don't need to worry yourself about the details. It's enough for you to understand that Bush was talking about painting US spy planes in UN colors to provoke an attack that could be used as an excuse to invade.

And this was on Jan. 31 2005.

Get your head wrapped around that first of all.

Yes Gerry. I knew that all when you asked me the first time. Remember this?

Gerry

Do you think the latest details of a Jan.31 2005 meeting between Bush and Blair could contribute to impeachment proceedings? Nobody is denying the authenticity and it clearly describes Bush being decided upon war and even coniving for ways to start one over a month before it started. They even had a date. This was before Powel went to the UN and before weapons inspectors were done.

My Reply:

No. I imagine that he was intent on invading Iraq immediately after, if not during the Afgan operation. The War was not illegal so what is the problem for him?

I would have had to read the articles to know what it was about so am familiar with all that. Duhh.

As for painting the planes, so what? He can dress them up as rubber ducks for all anybody cares. Saddam isn't supposed to be shooting at anything. As for trying to provoke a response, it's merely political expeidience as he had the legal excuse anyhow, this was merely justification for public consumption. Kind of like what politicians all over the world do on a day to day basis.

Yes, the Iranians talk to the US all the time, in private. They had to provide reasons in their favor to announce public talkks to their people though and tied in the Nuclear talks with it to make it less unpopular. The Iraq governemnt had to tell the US to leave, even though they won't as they know it will be the end of them in order to please all the different factions and such. See, they all lie.

[gerryhatrick]

Nothing to that effect!!

You don't need to worry yourself about the details. It's enough for you to understand that Bush was talking about painting US spy planes in UN colors to provoke an attack that could be used as an excuse to invade.

And this was on Jan. 31 2005.

Get your head wrapped around that first of all.

Yes Gerry. I knew that all when you asked me the first time.

Then why the hell are you heading off on tangents?

That is the crux lad.

[KrustyKidd]

Then why the hell are you heading off on tangents?

That is the crux lad.

ecause you said to

Get your head wrapped around that first of all.

So, I was mesrely trying to show you that I was in fact well withit. So much with it in fact that you cannot keep up and are recduced to name calling and actually ignoring points like the entire point of the last post which I will post for you again so you don't fall further behind than the two or three days you already are now.

As for painting the planes, so what? He can dress them up as rubber ducks for all anybody cares. Saddam isn't supposed to be shooting at anything. As for trying to provoke a response, it's merely political expeidience as he had the legal excuse anyhow, this was merely justification for public consumption. Kind of like what politicians all over the world do on a day to day basis.

Yes, the Iranians talk to the US all the time, in private. They had to provide reasons in their favor to announce public talkks to their people though and tied in the Nuclear talks with it to make it less unpopular. The Iraq governemnt had to tell the US to leave, even though they won't as they know it will be the end of them in order to please all the different factions and such. See, they all lie.

[gerryhatrick]

Then why the hell are you heading off on tangents?

That is the crux lad.

ecause you said to

Get your head wrapped around that first of all.

So, I was mesrely trying to show you that I was in fact well withit. So much with it in fact that you cannot keep up and are recduced to name calling and actually ignoring points like the entire point of the last post which I will post for you again so you don't fall further behind than the two or three days you already are now.

Oh goody, now we get to spend more time watching Krusty play lawyer with what he's said previously!

Can I play?

Ohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. So, if Bush has the planes fly under their own colors and they get fired on it is Saddam's fault but if they look like they might be UN planes then it is the US's fault. Or something to that effect.

That's a tangent. It's irrelavent to the point of the topic...the point I'm making. It's not worth discussing.

And you continue to do it with this latest:

As for painting the planes, so what? He can dress them up as rubber ducks for all anybody cares. Saddam isn't supposed to be shooting at anything.

So?

Listen closely KK, it doesn't matter that Saddam wasn't supposed to fire at stuff. It doesn't matter what flight path the plane Bush was talking about would have taken. None of what you want to talk about matters.

What matters is this:

BUSH TALKED ABOUT WAYS HE COULD PROVOKE AN ATTACK TO PROVIDE AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN AN INVASION ALMOST 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION BEGAN

The fact that his proposed plan was to paint US planes in UN colors to trick Saddam into firing is interesting, but don't get tripped up in the details of that. The details aren't important, it's the dishonest, coniving, stunningly irresponsible intent expressed by the POTUS.

Get it yet?

[KrustyKidd]

BUSH TALKED ABOUT WAYS HE COULD PROVOKE AN ATTACK TO PROVIDE AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN AN INVASION ALMOST 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION BEGAN

Oh I have it Gerry, you seem to be about a year behind though. See, Bush actually began planning this war a year and a half before this meeting took place so, this is only part of the process. I'm sure he speculated on a lot more than flyng planes around too but, when did this flight take place? It didn't so, only speculation. Leaving the point to be that he was planning on invading Iraq prior to the invasion. Not much of a news flash as the shift came for the public to read when WMDs went on the back burner and Regime Change became the focus. Well prior to this meeting.

[gerryhatrick]

BUSH TALKED ABOUT WAYS HE COULD PROVOKE AN ATTACK TO PROVIDE AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN AN INVASION ALMOST 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION BEGAN

Oh I have it Gerry, you seem to be about a year behind though. See, Bush actually began planning this war a year and a half before this meeting took place so, this is only part of the process.

You keep repeating the same nitwittery, and I keep telling you the same simple logical fact. This is different. It's different medium - firsthand. And it's different content - seeking to provoke a conflict through dishonest means.

This is not planning. Planning takes place all the time. They got plans for the invasion of all kinds of places.

This was sneaky, dishonest, coniving to start an invasion through a lie.

And then he walked out of the office and lied some more, saying he didn't want to start an invasion. That it would be a "last resort". Last resort? HA! He was thinking about how he could make it happen!!

Quit repeating the same nitwittery for petesake. It's foolish.

[lost&outofcontrol]

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

Didn't the Germans stage an attack by dressing up as Poles since they wanted an excuse to start war?

edit** It was the Gleiwitz incident

"The use of U.N. markings on spy planes to provoke a response from Iraq, which could then be used as a pretext for war, would have been a gross violation of the U.N. mandate for the No-Fly Zone." link

[gerryhatrick]

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

Didn't the Germans stage an attack by dressing up as Poles since they wanted an excuse to start war?

edit** It was the Gleiwitz incident

"The use of U.N. markings on spy planes to provoke a response from Iraq, which could then be used as a pretext for war, would have been a gross violation of the U.N. mandate for the No-Fly Zone." link

Wow, crazy stuff. They actually took a Polish sympathizer, dressed him up as an insurgent, killed him by lethal injection and then left him shot up at the scene to make it look like an insurgent attack.

This part from Wiki is chilling though:

Context

At the same time as the Gleiwitz attack there were other incidents orchestrated by Germany along the Polish-German border, such as house torching in the Polish Corridor and spurious propaganda output. The entire project, dubbed Operation Himmler and comprising 21 incidents in all, was intended to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany.

On the day following the Gleiwitz attack, 1 September 1939, Germany launched the Fall Weiss operation — the invasion of Poland — initiating World War II in Europe. In a speech in the Reichstag, Adolf Hitler cited the 21 border incidents, with three of them called very serious, as justification for Germany's "defensive" action against Poland.

21 seperate incidents. If Bush was talking about painting his planes with false colors to provoke an attack what else did they have going on? Oh yeah, they stepped up air strikes dramatically to try and provoke an attack as well. :angry:

[KrustyKidd]

This was sneaky, dishonest, coniving to start an invasion through a lie.

Sure was a good thing Saddam continued to violate the resolutions, otherwise Bush may actually have done something like that . The way you're carrying on, hate to see what you'd be like if he actually did something like that.

[gerryhatrick]

This was sneaky, dishonest, coniving to start an invasion through a lie.

Sure was a good thing Saddam continued to violate the resolutions, otherwise Bush may actually have done something like that . The way you're carrying on, hate to see what you'd be like if he actually did something like that.

What are you talking about? He did do it.

I said sneaky, dishonest, coniving. You know what coniving is, right?