Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Dowly

To get this BS over with, here's a link to what Tribesman is talking about:
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/17/zinni/

Thank you. And here's one of the others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/op...day-after.html

Tibesman, why do you do this? Here is a case where you were right, and you could have just posted the links. It might have taken about 15 seconds, but instead you let this drag on for days. Sheesh.

Tibesman, why do you do this?

To see how deep people will dig their own hole instead of actually thinking about it.

Like I said I was dissapointed when the 9/11 inqiry link was edited into a post.
Given the wide acceptance of that line of nonsense your side of the water I was amazed when people were on here denying that it had even been claimed.

One thing that always strikes me about the topic of Iraq is that the cheereaders try and twist what is clearly recorded history to still attempt to justify things which are long known to be false.

Though on the media issue bilge rat did have an understandable problem. There was plenty of coverage, but it was largely drowned out in your neck of woods by the crazy chants of cheese eating surrender monkeys or why do you hater freedom or you love saddam.
However when the information is all freely available via your keyboard I am stumped that people remain ignorant of it even though the US govtheld hearings within months of the invasion about how they had messed up in the face of all the warnings they were given.

There better be a better example than that because nowhere in that article is a Sunni/Shia civil war even mentioned.

Errrrr.... read the one above your post, its a month earlier.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

To see how deep people will dig their own hole instead of actually thinking about it.

But all that happens then is that you give weight to your detractor's assertion that you don't discuss anything, but only play games. Moreover, you just plainly admitted that you are just playing games. And in the end, it just makes people like me look stupid for sticking up for you, as you are doing this even when you are right.

Like I said I was dissapointed when the 9/11 inqiry link was edited into a post.
Given the wide acceptance of that line of nonsense your side of the water I was amazed when people were on here denying that it had even been claimed.

One thing that always strikes me about the topic of Iraq is that the cheereaders try and twist what is clearly recorded history to still attempt to justify things which are long known to be false.

Though on the media issue bilge rat did have an understandable problem. There was plenty of coverage, but it was largely drowned out in your neck of woods by the crazy chants of cheese eating surrender monkeys or why do you hater freedom or you love saddam.
However when the information is all freely available via your keyboard I am stumped that people remain ignorant of it even though the US govtheld hearings within months of the invasion about how they had messed up in the face of all the warnings they were given.

Look, I agree with you. And if you posted this and added the links below we wouldn't have had two days of this silliness. Instead, we had this ridiculous dance of "show me the links", "no, I don't have to show you the links", "yes, show me the links", "no, show yourself the links", and so on.

Takeda, do you really think I would have been doing it if I wasn't sure I could back it all up?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Takeda, do you really think I would have been doing it if I wasn't sure I could back it all up?

That's not the point. The point is that you knew that you could back it up, I knew you could back it up, Dowly knew you could back it up, and most everybody knew you could back it up. All of that and you refused to actually back it up. Instead, we got this game.

I give up.

[Bilge_Rat]

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

So I pulled out one of the many books I have read on Iraq, in this case "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to see what he had to say about the civil war. Thomas Ricks was the senior Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and a leading critic of the war.

So I checked the pre-war period and the objections people raised to the war, odd, no mention of a possible civil war; checked late 2003, 2004, 2005 still no discussion of a possible civil war. Finally, when he wrote the conclusion in the fall of 2005, he discusses the possible outcomes as best, middle or worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a civil war which he mentions as a possibility. So, one of the leading critics of the war did not think a civil war was an obvious outcome as late as the fall of 2005.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

So I pulled out one of the many books I have read on Iraq, in this case "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to see what he had to say about the civil war. Thomas Ricks was the senior Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and a leading critic of the war.

So I checked the pre-war period and the objections people raised to the war, odd, no mention of a possible civil war; checked late 2003, 2004, 2005 still no discussion of a possible civil war. Finally, when he wrote the conclusion in the fall of 2005, he discusses the possible outcomes as best, middle or worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a civil war which he mentions as a possibility. So, one of the leading critics of the war did not think a civil war was an obvious outcome as late as the fall of 2005.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.

Bam!

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

See your problem, you were writing about the poster not what was written.

You dug your hole nice and deep and jumped right in youself with only the slightest hint of a push. Now you are stuck in your hole claiming that you are not.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.

Obvious to anyone who actually looked and thought.
No doubt you can provide books from the past few years which will still claim that the WMD claims were true, yet it doesn't make it so.
You can probably provide links to the flat earth society too.
What is obvious is never obvious to everyone.


You were provided with indications to public statements from the US chief of staff, the US special envoy, the official stance of the Turkish government , the Indian foriegn minister visiting Washington to discuss the matter, the Saudi foriegn minister doing the same , the ruler of Jordan visiting Blair on the way to meet Bush, the British MPs raising the concern in their parliament, references to many news articles stating the same.
You were provided with US politicians rubbishing the warnings and a US hearing where the administration are castigated for ignoring the obvious warnings.
You come back with one reporter and one book he wrote

I must say though, I did have a good laugh about your attempt on S. Africa.
Off hand can you tell me the ethicity of just the cabinet, maybe stretch it out to deputy ministers to include more blacks, do the same with the military the police and the judiciary...all blacks you see

Bam!

Is that the explosion of those WMDs you recently claimed really did exist

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Obvious to anyone who actually looked and thought.
No doubt you can provide books from the past few years which will still claim that the WMD claims were true, yet it doesn't make it so.
You can probably provide links to the flat earth society too.
What is obvious is never obvious to everyone.

is that the best you can do, man you are really stuck in that hole you dug. Keep digging.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

So I have to admit I was having doubts and thought perhaps my memory was failing me, but then I thought, nah, this is Tribesman we are talking about.

So I pulled out one of the many books I have read on Iraq, in this case "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks to see what he had to say about the civil war. Thomas Ricks was the senior Pentagon reporter for the Washington Post and a leading critic of the war.

So I checked the pre-war period and the objections people raised to the war, odd, no mention of a possible civil war; checked late 2003, 2004, 2005 still no discussion of a possible civil war. Finally, when he wrote the conclusion in the fall of 2005, he discusses the possible outcomes as best, middle or worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a civil war which he mentions as a possibility. So, one of the leading critics of the war did not think a civil war was an obvious outcome as late as the fall of 2005.

So as usual Tribesman you have no idea what you are talking about. The civil war was not obvious to everyone, unless you can explain why Thomas Rick or any of the other persons he interviewed in his book did not see it coming as late as the fall of 2005.

I just gave you an article that did. This is what you asked for back in post No. 74. Now you are moving the goalposts and claiming victory.

No worries Tak, even with his shifting of the goal posts his "evidence" undercuts him and puts him in a deeper hole.
When Ricks writes of the terrifying concusion that the white house wasn't listening to the generals warnings he is writing about the generals warnings that invasion lite wouldn't allow for any containment of the inevitable blood letting which would come about due to the ethnic divisions in Iraq.

Or
Another virtue of retelling the whole ugly tale is to dispel a favourite accusation of the Bush administration: that its critics are “Monday morning quarterbacks”, emboldened only by hindsight. At every step, in fact, from the pre-war intelligence to American interrogation tactics, wiser men than those in power questioned each facet of the Iraq policy.

Or maybe
A lot of people were saying that this is going to be harder than you think. But that advice was systematically excluded. It was aggressively not welcome in the inner circle.

Perhaps
A phrase that came to haunt me in the research for my book was [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz's "hard to imagine." It turned out that, yeah, it was the imagination. Wolfowitz said it was hard to imagine that you'd need that many more troops for an occupation than for an invasion.

Not wanting to quote Bilges source of "supporting" "evidence" too much of course

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No worries Tak, even with his shifting of the goal posts his "evidence" undercuts him and puts him in a deeper hole.
When Ricks writes of the terrifying concusion that the white house wasn't listening to the generals warnings he is writing about the generals warnings that invasion lite wouldn't allow for any containment of the inevitable blood letting which would come about due to the ethnic divisions in Iraq.

“President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy,” Mr. Ricks writes. “The consequences of his choice won’t be clear for decades, but it already is abundantly apparent in mid-2006 that the U.S. government went to war in Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information — about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda’s terrorism — and then occupied the country negligently. Thousands of U.S. troops and an untold number of Iraqis have died. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, many of them squandered. Democracy may yet come to Iraq and the region, but so too may civil war or a regional conflagration, which in turn could lead to spiraling oil prices and a global economic shock.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0

"may" is not "obvious".

read the book, you might learn something.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I just gave you an article that did. This is what you asked for back in post No. 74. Now you are moving the goalposts and claiming victory.

He is the one who claimed that it was obvious to everyone that there would be a civil war, when it obviously was not. As usual, he is just trying to score cheap debating points and is not interested in the truth.