Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
 

Those in the Bush administration have their heads up their collective asses.

[url]http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=10779322&src=rss/Entertainment[/url]

<snip>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

Bremer, interviewed by the network in connection with release of his book on Iraq, recounted the decision to disband the Iraqi army quickly after arriving in Baghdad, a move many experts consider a major miscalculation.

When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said "we really didn't see the insurgency coming," the network said in a news release.

As bad as I hate to blow things out of proportion I have to say it: WHAT A ****ING RETARD!!!! I was a SPC (E-4) when the war started and even I foresaw the insurgency. How was it possible that military units were using and practicing insurgent specific tactics and this guy will deny the obvious forthcomings in Iraq? That is a prime example of what happens when you mix incompetence with a lack of ethics.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]As bad as I hate to blow things out of proportion I have to say it: WHAT A ****ING RETARD!!!! I was a SPC (E-4) when the war started and even I foresaw the insurgency. .[/QUOTE]

I'm a civilian, not even a forign policy wonk, and I forsaw the insurgency, civil war, and creation of a theocratic regime.

What a bunch of no-talent assclowns.

Bull****.

How can you not expect an insurgency? Especially when attempting to occupy an Islamic country? Last time it was tried on a much smaller scale numerous men went above the call of duty in the ****hole known as Somalia.

Although it’s very disconcerting it really doesn’t matter too much if Bremer didn’t realize an insurgency was possibly, or if many politicians didn’t think so either, especially now. What matters the most is that a vast majority of those fighting the fight in camouflage knew it and were calling the shots (and are continuing to call the shots to the best of their ability) unlike during Vietnam when the assclowns were.

[QUOTE=Salty]Bull****.


Although it’s very disconcerting it really doesn’t matter too much if Bremer didn’t realize an insurgency was possibly, or if many politicians didn’t think so either, especially now. [/QUOTE]


You're wrong. It [b]does matter[/b]..

It [b]matters[/b] that the administration cherrypicked intelligence to make a case for war when there wasn't any

It [b]matters[/b] that they failed to forsee the possible consequences of intervention there.

It [b]matters[/b] that we have soldiers over there for no damn good reason, with no exit strategy.

I know I am in no good position to lecture you about this, but I feel very strongly that this administration did wrong by the people of the United States, and especially our young men and women serving over there.

I get so tired of your bold print. We can all read!

-The “cherrypicking” of intelligence is nonsense. With the exception of the the slight difference in intel the President received that may have been weak in some respects, Democrats have had access to the same crap and always have. The difference is that everyone was ill-informed with the information and nobody did any digging or research. The scapegoat in the entire ordeal was that Republicans brought forth this mess in the first place. You only hear about it from the yahoo's in the Senate because it's in their best interest as Democrats to go against the grain of anything Republican. Hitting the Republican and Bush pinata has been a growing trend for most Democrats concerned about gaining ground for re-election.

-Yes, it matters that some of the idiots at the top failed to foresee the possible consequences of an insurgency there. But guess what!? This very possibility was known with or without "cherrypicked intelligence" and the majority of Democrats still voted to go as well!

-You mean the volunteers of this country that went to Iraq for what you believe to be no good reason? Although the amount of money spent on the war makes me feel skeptical about what eles I would have done as a priority, I don't understand why so many people like you think it was for nothing?

[QUOTE=Salty]I get so tired of your bold print. We can all read! [/quote] In the future, I'll use italics. I do it to emphasize certain words in a phrase.

[quote=salty]-The “cherrypicking” of intelligence is nonsense. With the exception of the the slight difference in intel the President received that may have been weak in some respects, Democrats have had access to the same crap and always have.[/quote] That is patently untrue. The democratic caucus had access to the information that the administration [i]chose to include in the briefing[/i].



-[quote=salty] This very possibility was known with or without "cherrypicked intelligence" and the majority of Democrats still voted to go as well![/quote]

First of all: the MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted [i]against the IWR[/i]

[url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml]House roll call; IWR[/url]
[url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237]Senate roll call; IWR[/url]

Secondly: damn it....the president misled both the american public and congress with intelligence that was incomplete, and in some cases, [i]known to be unreliable[/i]

[quote=salty] I don't understand why so many people like you think it was for nothing?[/QUOTE]It's worse than "for nothing" because we have enabled the creation of a theocracy which is in phillosophical allignment with Iran...a much more dangerous nation than Iraq ever was. Because the administration which is now in place in Iraq is arguably worse for at least half the populace of Iraq (women)....and probably for some men too (gays, for instance)

Edit: I'm proud to say that both of my senators voted against the IWR along with a [i]a majority of the democratic caucus[/i].

[QUOTE=lojasmo]First of all: the MAJORITY of congressional democrats voted [i]against the IWR[/i]

[url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml]House roll call; IWR[/url]
[url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237]Senate roll call; IWR[/url][/QUOTE]

I need to chose my words more carefully as I knew this... I was using “majority” to mean “a lot.”

These arguments are worthless. It's always completely Bush's fault even though a large amount of Democrats have their hands dirty as well. They just don't seem to think before they vote for something. Harry Reid's **** eating grin on during the patriot act signing in 2001 is a prime example of this. Unfortunately this type of back peddling has become increasingly common. The people in the Senate have had access to an extreme level of intelligence that even the President's slightly more sensitive intelligence wasn't enough to break this deal as much as certain Dems say it is. It's all about being embarrased and about them being tied to Republicans which hurts their career efforts.

Face it, if everyone on the right truly didn't know or even acknowledge the possibility of an insurgency (which I think is impossible being common knowledge in any occupation), then 115 Democrats are guilty as well. Because according to liberal logic, Republicans that voted for going to Iraq are blind and incapable of thought in every respect.

[QUOTE=Salty]

Face it, if everyone on the right truly didn't know or even acknowledge the possibility of an insurgency (which I think is impossible being common knowledge in any occupation), then 115 Democrats are guilty as well. Because according to liberal logic, Republicans that voted for going to Iraq are blind and incapable of thought in every respect.[/QUOTE]

I am just as pissed at every congressional democrat who was hoodwinked by the Bush administration as I am at every republican who towed the party line.

I can guarantee I will [i]never[/i] again vote for a candidate who enabled the Bush administration to run roughshod over Iraq and the U.S. constitution....republican or democrat.

[QUOTE=Salty]I get so tired of your bold print. We can all read!

-The “cherrypicking” of intelligence is nonsense. With the exception of the the slight difference in intel the President received that may have been weak in some respects, Democrats have had access to the same crap and always have. The difference is that everyone was ill-informed with the information and nobody did any digging or research. The scapegoat in the entire ordeal was that Republicans brought forth this mess in the first place. You only hear about it from the yahoo's in the Senate because it's in their best interest as Democrats to go against the grain of anything Republican. Hitting the Republican and Bush pinata has been a growing trend for most Democrats concerned about gaining ground for re-election.

-Yes, it matters that some of the idiots at the top failed to foresee the possible consequences of an insurgency there. But guess what!? This very possibility was known with or without "cherrypicked intelligence" and the majority of Democrats still voted to go as well!

-You mean the volunteers of this country that went to Iraq for what you believe to be no good reason? Although the amount of money spent on the war makes me feel skeptical about what eles I would have done as a priority, I don't understand why so many people like you think it was for nothing?[/QUOTE]


its not bull**** do i have to bump my OSP post again?

How can you honestly say they WERENT CHERRY PICKING **** when they created their very own quasi Intel Service in the whitehouse?

Seriously man... google up for OSP or office for special plans

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans[/url]

[url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=office+of+special+plans&btnG=Search[/url]

come on man..

[QUOTE=dr3d1zzl3]its not bull**** do i have to bump my OSP post again?

How can you honestly say they WERENT CHERRY PICKING **** when they created their very own quasi Intel Service in the whitehouse?

Seriously man... google up for OSP or office for special plans

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans[/url]

[url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=office+of+special+plans&btnG=Search[/url]

come on man..[/QUOTE]

Yeah, OSP plus WHIG equals very bad policy.

[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=White_House_Iraq_Group[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group[/url]

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on,"

President G.W. Bush

[QUOTE=lojasmo]"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on,"

President G.W. Bush[/QUOTE]
More reason why I like him. A man that will not back down. That wont give up on something he started.