Whether you agree or disagree--you should watch this!

[Big Shot Rob]

FYI--Bush lovers will hate this commentary; Bush haters will love this commentary.

I consider myself neither.

Nevertheless--he makes alot of points--very compelling--about the lack of credibility about President Bush and the path that led us to where we are today.

Watch this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/

[dude1394]

Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Olberman is the left's buchanan. Full of shit. Fine that he doesn't agree with the policy. But his first statement belies his inability to think logically about it. So it's some sort of religious quest, pretty close to the same way that AlQueda thinks about it. Idiot.

Only this president could extol the “thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,” and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — “engage Syria and Iran” — and transform it into “threaten Syria and Iran” — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

Only this president as well as the majority of the decision makers in washington. Another journalist with no responsibility spouting crap out of his mouth because there are no consequences to his actions.

And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, “Ok, which one of you is next?”

The folks in Iran/Syria and the Insurgents look at this pos commentary and know that they are winning the battle of public opinion because idiots like this actually have a forum and a following. This is some sort of intelligent commentary. Olberman is an idiot.

The plan fails militarily.

Really let me scan the rest of this and see where you point out that it fails militarily.. Hmm...none.

The plan fails symbolically.

Really...in that it doesn't have us running out of iraq and leaving them to it? What is your plan keith...oh yea..the same run

The plan fails politically.

Really...and again how is that? Oh nevermind, no need to provide an alternative in this rant.

This is just another leftist, getting on his high horse, re-gurgitating crapola that he's been saving up for years and putting it over the current news. Some of the worst crap I've ever read. Not even close to being anything intelligent here.

Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.[/quote]

[rmacomic]

While I think Olberman is full of wind, it doesn't change the fact, Bush has created a second Nam. His strategy is the same, trickle in more troops and never actually commit to winning this war. He has gone from assuring victory, to covering his ass. His legacy will show him to be one of the worst Presidents in history. I'm sure you can come up with arguments against this, but history will tell the truth. 20 years from now he will be vilified as the selfish brat he is. I know he is from Texas and alot of you guys are homers in that regard, "He's our boy, so no matter what I'll support him". But everone outside of Texas is ready for him to go, the sooner the better.

[Big Shot Rob]

I am from Texas.

I voted for him twice.

I am part of the 60% who want our men and women out of that civil and home with their families.

I have no faith in the Iraqui government.

I am not trashing our President. I was in favor of the war initially.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

I am from Texas.

I voted for him twice.

I am part of the 60% who want our men and women out of that civil and home with their families.

I have no faith in the Iraqui government.

I am not trashing our President. I was in favor of the war initially.

I am still in favor of a war against terrorism. This is not that war. I feel that (and this is only my opinion ) this was a personal war for Bush and his people's own agenda. 9-11 was a tragedy, and test of our nations leaders. Bush has failed that test.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

I am still in favor of a war against terrorism. This is not that war. I feel that (and this is only my opinion ) this was a personal war for Bush and his people's own agenda. 9-11 was a tragedy, and test of our nations leaders. Bush has failed that test.

Personal war - bs.
"vilified as the selfish brat he is." - That's it, he's a selfish brat so he forced the country into a war. Stick to comedy.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Personal war - bs.
"vilified as the selfish brat he is." - That's it, he's a selfish brat so he forced the country into a war. Stick to comedy.

Like I said. It was only my opinion . But can you give me a credible reason why we are spend so much time, effort and money in Iraq, instead of going after Bin-Laden? Bush never really has. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some tree hugger, who thinks every problem can be solved with happy thoughts. Bush has been dishonest to the American people from the beginning. Had he come out and said, "Iraq is important, because it provides a staging point for bigger and more important actions in the region for years to come" I would be more inclined to trust him. But he was never honest about his reasons. He sent Collin Powell in front of the UN with a vial of "Anthrax" and erroneous reports. I'm sure Bush's agenda is one he is certain is right, But he has never been upfront about it. The Iraq war has been mishandled and Bush has never been clear about its justification.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Like I said. It was only my opinion . But can you give me a credible reason why we are spend so much time, effort and money in Iraq, instead of going after Bin-Laden? Bush never really has.

A couple of reasons
1. First I don't think you've actually heard what dubya has said about this.
2. It's not sure that he's alive.
3. Killing him tommorrow wouldn't stop anything.
4. Putting 130,000 US troops in Afghanistan walking through every cave is not a very good use of the military imo.

This is a big problem and you have to look at it very stregically. If we didn't have such an open society none of this would be going on. We'd close the borders to islamic people and we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism "here". But the rest of the world would, we could say screw 'em but we don't do that, we prefer to preserve "international" or at least business security. Islamic terrorism has morphed into an international issue it seems, not a local (i.e. Israel) issue only.

You either fight it, or it will contiue to topple other governments. Probably the stupidest thing Bin Laden did was 9/11 as it got our attention. Until then he could blow up embassies, boats and we wouldnt' do anything about it.

Bush has been dishonest to the American people from the beginning. Had he come out and said, "Iraq is important, because it provides a staging point for bigger and more important actions in the region for years to come" I would be more inclined to trust him.

This is false. He has not been anywhere near dishonest. Go back and look at the Iraq war resolution. Go back and look at his address to congress and the UN on this.

But he was never honest about his reasons. He sent Collin Powell in front of the UN with a vial of "Anthrax" and erroneous reports.

Another falsehood. Collin Powel created that report, analyzed the intelligence and those are his words. He WAS sent to make the case (which he believe in) to the UN.

I'm sure Bush's agenda is one he is certain is right, But he has never been upfront about it. The Iraq war has been mishandled and Bush has never been clear about its justification.

Another falsehood. He's always been upfront.
1. Get rid of WMD from Saddam who is an aggressive ruler who supports terrorists both here and abroad.
2. Provide a model of democracy to the arab culture.

Here are the points in the Iraq War Resolution. Tell me where he's lied to you about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
* Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

No less a partisan than John Edwards recently said that he had all of the intelligence that dubya did, nobody pulled anything over his eyes and he voted FOR the resolution.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

I am from Texas.

I voted for him twice.

I am part of the 60% who want our men and women out of that civil and home with their families.

I have no faith in the Iraqui government.

I am not trashing our President. I was in favor of the war initially.

It's great that you are part of the 60% that want us out. No problem. I have no problem with olberman wanting that as well. But crapola like messianic this is bullcrap. I think we'll let history judge his legacy and I'll have no problem with that.

I'm not "happy" about how iraq is going either, but to just say "oh well" let's get the f out and not think that there are repurcussions is childish. There will be, big ones.

Again..I have a son-in-law who has been there twice, he's (my daughter and his family) really paid a price. A very big one for doing his duty. But not for a minute do I think dubya did this cavaliarly. It does seem that the mistakes I have with the policy is not killing more terrorists much,much more brutally in Iraq. It appears he gave the iraqis a lot more credit for being civilized than he thought. I've had issues negotiating with Arabic folks as well, they revel in brinksmanship, it's very difficult. That seems to be the reason there is another deadline being put on the iraqi's, they have to know that this is it.

But I(and many) thought Sadaam had WMD. Dubya didn't pull the wool over anyones eyes, it was done right out front with consensus of the people and the elected politicians. To come out now and talk about how he is on some sore of crusade is bs.

If we want to talk about the plan now, let's do.
- He's decided we (and the iraqis) have to be given a set of goals to meet or we will have to leave. He's basically setting the stage for DOING what olber-ass is saying, but responsibly and not like an idiot journalist who wants to pull a saigon helicopter lift.
- He's decided that the sadr-army and the militias have to be taken on and he's giving the Iraqi' guvment that ultimatum.
- He's decided that security in Baghdad is paramount to getting the rest of the country to get to some normalcy.
- He's decided to take a much more aggressive stance with iran/syria. I'm really hoping he basically closes those borders and bombs the crap out of anything moving that hasn't gone through a checkpoint.
- I'm "hoping" that the rules of engagement will become much more brutal for us. No more win the hearts and minds bullcrap that the british and everyone else has been saying. Kill the badguys, kill anyone who's helping the badguys.
- We've had a problem with the wack-a-mole fighting that has gone on. Clear one place, leave and the mole comes back up. He's going to embed many more folks with the iraqi divisions to try and bolster them up.

One very,very big problem that I have had with dubya on this is his "backing off" to let the military guys do it INSTEAD of micro-managing it. You just cannot let the generals run the show( see Lincoln, Churchill, etc), it's too complicated and they will cover their asses as is most peoples instincts. These decisions have to be made by dubya, he's abrogated that imo and it's caused a terrible lack of momentum. He had hoped that the iraqi elections would serve as a calming influence (as many did) but it has not. Therefore another startegy.

Olberman isn't close to even THINKING about what dubya has proposed, he just wants to leave as fast as possible and consequences be damned...because he has no responsibility.

[Big Shot Rob]

I believe that sooner or later, we would face Saddam. The fact that we found no WMD does not mean that somewhere along the line, he might try to get a nuke.

I am torn because by going in, we now are in a quagmire and are losing young lives to prop up Malaki--who I just don't trust.

I think that Olberman gave an impassioned litany which seemed to sum up the case against President's Bush's credibility.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Big Shot Rob

I think that Olberman gave an impassioned litany which seemed to sum up the case against President's Bush's credibility.

It does provide the left's case against dubya. It's full of crap, but it does sum it up pretty well.

[Murphy3]

Is the link to something done by Olberman? If so, I have no interest. There's no one alive that makes me throw up in my mouth more than that guy.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Is the link to something done by Olberman? If so, I have no interest. There's no one alive that makes me throw up in my mouth more than that guy.

The minute I saw Olbermann was the minute I realized that this thread was worthless.

[dude1394]

BSR needed help.

[rmacomic]

Like I said, obviously I've been talking out my ass. I'll concede you this one and maybe we can talk about it later.
I will add you mentioned John Edwards, I met the guy. He came across like a pandering douche bag that will say anything as long as it helps his career. And when I met him his stance was vehemently anti-war in Iraq. Probably not a guy you want to mention when making an argument about credibility.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Like I said, obviously I've been talking out my ass. I'll concede you this one and maybe we can talk about it later.
I will add you mentioned John Edwards, I met the guy. He came across like a pandering douche bag that will say anything as long as it helps his career. And when I met him his stance was vehemently anti-war in Iraq. Probably not a guy you want to mention when making an argument about credibility.

He's EXACTLY the kind of guy I want to mention when it comes to showing that dubya wasn't cooking the books on the intelligence. Even the most pandering, vehement anti-war politician (i.e. Edwards) says that he wasn't fooled, wasn't given false intelligence and his vote FOR the invasion was based on that intelligence. He was on the intelligence committee. If you are saying that he'll do anything that is popular, well that's a pretty common symptom on that side of the aisle.

Only John F. Kerry would be stupid enough to SAY he was too stupid to understand the intelligence.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by dude1394

He's EXACTLY the kind of guy I want to mention when it comes to showing that dubya wasn't cooking the books on the intelligence. Even the most pandering, vehement anti-war politician (i.e. Edwards) says that he wasn't fooled, wasn't given false intelligence and his vote FOR the invasion was based on that intelligence. He was on the intelligence committee. If you are saying that he'll do anything that is popular, well that's a pretty common symptom on that side of the aisle.

Only John F. Kerry would be stupid enough to SAY he was too stupid to understand the intelligence.

Last word