Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11

If you want to keep discussing Iraq, I stand by my point that no one predicted a Shia-Sunni civil war before the event. Unless you can show otherwise, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So you are claiming that no newspaper articles featured the warnings, General S and General Z didn't give the warnings in 2002 and get publicly attacked for it, and that wolfowitz wasn't appearing before a hearing shortly after the invasion regretting that they hadn't taken heed of the warnings given before the war?
A novel approach, you really did dig yourself a hole there.

On Syria, I think it should be obvious to everyone that the U.S. will never, ever intervene in the present conflict.

Your president has already set out the conditions where he would intervene, currently he is in the mid east discussing that very issue(plus of course the issue of Assads allies).

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you are claiming that no newspaper articles featured the warnings, General S and General Z didn't give the warnings in 2002 and get publicly attacked for it, and that wolfowitz wasn't appearing before a hearing shortly after the invasion regretting that they hadn't taken heed of the warnings given before the war?
A novel approach, you really did dig yourself a hole there.

no, you will never find anything supporting that. Making stuff up again?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Your president has already set out the conditions where he would intervene, currently he is in the mid east discussing that very issue(plus of course the issue of Assads allies).

it will never happen.

no, you will never find anything supporting that. Making stuff up again?

Thats true, in february 2003 I must have wrote
the arab yugoslavia
I never told you write for the NY Times did I

Could you run through the objections of George Bush's special envoy and elaborate on that Generals made up objections which he didn't voice (first not voiced on BBC and Washington Post, June 2002)

Come to think of it since you are apparently unable to see at all perhaps that generals later statement from Oct 17th 2002 is apt
I am not sure which planet you are on. (though altering just one word as of course he was refering to Cheney and Rummy not you)

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I am not sure which planet I am on. (though altering just one word as of course he was refering to Cheney and Rummy not me)

agreed....just one word.

agreed....just one word.

Two words work well.
two pairs of two words of what to expect

tribal revenge
factional splitting

Though of course as he put it(definately not reported in the British and US media both in June 2002& Oct2002) he had his eyes opened in Somalia about what to expect.
Not like those errrrr..."neo con hawks"

Damn that American general was really scathing wasn't he. You can see why Rummy and Cheney were laying into him before the war, how dare he say such things in public

[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/

Thats not the BBC or the NYtimes Dowly.

Why not go with wolfowitz' testimony? after all thats an official government record

[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.

[August]

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/

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

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Thats not the BBC or the NYtimes Dowly.

Why not go with wolfowitz' testimony? after all thats an official government record

It wasnt my job in the first place to post any links, I just wanted to get this thread
moving somewhere.

And like Tak says, this one you are right in, why not just post the links?

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

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

yeah and Zinni was head of CENTCOM 1997-2000 so he was familiar with the region.

[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.