Send a Message
to Intuit

Comments

327

Joined

Nov 13, 2007

Intuit Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

No, just misrepresent, cherry-pick, strawman and outright lie sometimes is all. ;-) Again, you have to see the whole picture and within context. Administrations are key in selecting heads of the Intelligence Community: http://www.washing tonpost.com/wp-dyn /content/article/2 008/11/11/AR200811 1103055.html If you knew that the boss of your boss was seeking to improve the bottomline by focusing on getting as many of the subprime market as possible; over the competition, wouldn't you feel pressure to comply regardless of the fact that your training was telling you that it was a bad idea ? It's possible that they're indeed telling the whole truth. But I'm not going to be completely naive and claim there is no possibility, of there being a conflict-of-intere st, or even unintentional pressure to produce specific results.  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #707)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

They were a minority in Congress and didn't have control of the Whitehouse. Without the vote of the Republicans, nothing would've happened anyway. :-) BUt it was a great move for the President to create a commission to investigate himself. :-) Nixon would've been proudHow many times do I have to tell you that your disbelief, does not disqualify what others witness ? Again, whether you believe or not, is your personal prerogative. Again, it is reasonable to ask for proof. But don't continue to *itch and moan over the FACTS that 1) I witnessed those quotes and 2) unfortunately, not everything is available online. Now, if you can indeed PROVE that EVERYTHING is indeed available online, then that would directly counter what you've already admitted. Again, you want to discuss outright lies and twisted realities, shall we discuss your alledged, personal conversations with intelligence personnel, who filled your desk with thank you medals ? Yet again, I personally witnessed Junior stating: 1) "...we MUST attack, NOW." and banged his fist on the podium with the word, "NOW." He was clearly frustrated with the constant opposition, international opposition, toward going to war. The basic point is, there was a sense of urgency that was being echoed in other places as well. Again, don't believe it ? Fine. But don't *itch over the facts that everything Presidents state, aren't available online. However many times you wish to label that "a lie," won't change the fact that I witnessed it. :-) :-P  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #706)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

Misrepresentation. The issue was never whether anyone was executed. The issue was whether waterboarding was considered torture; and your quote acknowledges that you realized that. "There is nothing legally stating that waterboarding is illegal or even wrongSo let me get this straight. Iraq, has nothing to do with Hussein !? That's a stretch. Now you're cherry-picking LOL. :-) No wonder you left out a link. Here's the part you conveniently excised from the paragraph... "...Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAQ RESPONDED TO THIS REQUEST." Also, "... But to date, we have seen NO EVIDENCE that these or earlier contacts EVER developed into a collaborative relationship ..." Al'Qaeda wanted WMDs from Iraq, except whoops, all they had was remnants of what we gave them to aid Hussein in his rise to power. Wasn't that also in those intelligence reports, also supported by UN Inspection non-findings. (however, satellites would've, which the Chinese later figured out how to target, would've caught any of that in tandem with scrambled spy planes) You say IC was broken, but these were the same folks who supplied us with info on Bin Ladin, also the 9/11 hijackers. The primary or only thing that was proven awry with intel, was their inability to communicate/share and disseminate the information they collected between other agencies. So you understand me, I have no problem them wanting to go in and remove Hussein. The part I have a problem with, is simply NOT being 100% honest with us. They were defeated in the original Gulf war. Then we established an active military blockade on them, and proceeded to satellite monitor them, spy-infiltrate and bomb them for over a decade. Our military, intelligence would've had to have been COMPLETELY incompetent not to have rendered them inert. The purpose for a blockade, is to weaken a nation in preparation for conquer... regime change. By ALL indications, they were ripe for the pluck'n. I heard prior reports about a weakened army, weakened infrastructure, weakened people. When our troops entered, the lot of his army, unpaid and unfed, just outright surrendered or fled; they practically disbanded. We got more resistance from the rebel forces than did his official army. We helped Hussein, but he didn't support Democracy. We therefore logically had a responsibility to remove him. But instead of making the case based upon that and more, we were instead told that the country he ran was this big bad immediate threat with ties to the group that attacked us on 9/11... that this wasn't about nation building, wasn't about resources, etc. That's what I don't like.  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #705)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

http://www.google. com/search?num=100 &hl=en&cli ent=opera&hs=o TF&rls=en& q=waterboarding+ja panese+war+crimes &aq=0&aqi= g2&aql=&oq =waterboarding+jap a&gs_rfai= We prosecuted the Japanese for doing the same thing. "... After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death." ...." Internationally speaking, it is indeed, considered torture. I mean if it isn't torture, then what the hell is it ? Instead of just "grilling " or interviewing suspects in criminal cases, perhaps we can also start waterboarding them ?!?!! http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Waterbo arding I mean, damn. I almost drown once as a kid. Can't even remember the last time was even near a pool.  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #699)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

http://www.google. com/search?num=100 &hl=en&cli ent=opera&hs=o TF&rls=en& q=waterboarding+ja panese+war+crimes &aq=0&aqi= g2&aql=&oq =waterboarding+jap a&gs_rfai= We prosecuted the Japanese for doing the same thing. "... After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death." ...."  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #698)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

How many times do I have to point out that EVERYTHING that Presidents, former Presidents say, isn't available online ? Especially 8 YEARS LATER. Hell, I watched the President say something 220% looney in an one-on-one interview with the late Tim Russert one Sunday or Monday morning, and expected that there would be a SH*T storm abroad over it. But the next day... NOTHING. Didn't exist. Can't get transcripts and attempts to get unmodified versions are ignored. Can't believe they even aired-it. (especially pre-recorded, yeesh) http://www.topix.c om/forum/city/cinc innati-oh/TU6DKU3D LQHNBLHM7/post694 Yeah I saw how he formed a commission to investigate himself. hehehe, in his position somebody like Nixon proably would've done the same thing. :-)  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #697)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

There you go with another misrepresentation. .. linking the argument with his urgency to go to war, with the argument on 9/11 links. Don't do that. The quote was about his urgency to go to war. The 9/11 links was used as an example to to show that his Administration has set a precedence for cherry-picking intelligence to fit predetermined goals. Re specifically, 9/11 claims... http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=7SUBG tRIiXo&feature =related http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=QSU_s U_rLv8 Yes, WE THE PEOPLE, are, stupid. Junior isn't...  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #696)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

Just found it... http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Iraq_In telligence_Commiss ion ...President formed a commission to investigate himself. In his place, would've done the same thing hehehe...  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #694)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

I've Googled: http://www.google. com/search?num=100 &hl=en&cli ent=opera&hs=9 g0&rls=en& q=iraq+investigati on&aq=f&aq i=g1&aql=& oq=&gs_rfai= But keep getting torture-related stuff. Help me out here with a link. Re quote, you're certainly not illiterate. How many ways, times, do I have to say that it isn't available online ? But that doesn't change what I witnessed.  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #692)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

Junior just released a book and did an interview. http://www.huffing tonpost.com/nan-ar on/rule-of-law-tak es-a-holid_b_78170 7.html I see a pattern. He got bad intelligence on the 9/11 - Iraq links. Got bad intelligence on the Iraq - WMD links. Got bad intelligence on waterboarding. (his lawyer okayed) Does it NOT stop !? I KNOW Junior isn't stupid. Unfortunately, it seems WE are.  (Nov 12, 2010 | post #691)

Pontiac Sunfire

1997 Pontiac Sunfire - Purchasing Tips ???

Thanks Alan. Very helpful. DexCool isn't good news. Cooling system is probably MUD.  (Nov 11, 2010 | post #3)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

http://web.archive .org/web/200707121 72023/http://downi ngstreetmemo.com/i ndex.html  (Nov 11, 2010 | post #689)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

LOL Sawber you are clearly full of it. :-) I taught you a new term and then you immediately proceed to misapply it. :-) (and in the process of that misapplication, commit one yourself) GRAND! I would recommend that you look up the definition but I've provided you links several times already. A strawman essentially argues against one point IN PLACE OF, another. It's usually a form of dishonesty and that's what you typically do in response to arguments that you can't counter using the Great Book of NeoCon Talking Points 101. In your case, I'm willing to consider that it maybe more of an inability to process new information properly... basically a learning disorder; versus dishonesty. Sit back and THINK for a minute. Do trial lawyers win cases on StrawMen ? Generally no; they don't. But they do win cases by establishing precedences for certain behaviors, actions... bringing to light, possible patterns. For instance, someone with a past conviction on rape & battery is MUCH more likely to be convicted again, involving cases with only circumstantial evidence. That's all I did... establish a precedence and a pattern. But you can't handle that for some reason and mislabel that a "strawman. " As far as your theory that most of the World saw Iraq as a threat, you conveniently don't remember news reports concerning the Downing Street Memo. I don't blame you for not remembering the Head of the UN Inspection team's conclusions though. Wasn't widely reported in the propagandized media of the time; unless some portion agreed with the Administration's assessment that is. There was a quote stating "not concerned," in regard to Iraq's weapons program that isn't even available anymore. Heard that on NPR. Good luck finding that quote too. Re the cease fire, in each case Iraq was RESPONDING to repeated bombings from the US. As far as outright lying, LOL, who was it that was talking about speaking with intelligence officials who thanked them by filling their desk with medals eh ? :-D Oh and by the way, if I really wanted to play your little misrepresentation game, I would've responded to your 'don't believe you heard those statements' claim by replying as though you said, 'don't believe that everything can't be found online.' But it never even occurred to me to do that until I asked myself, "How can I give him a good example?" As I said before, it's reasonable to ask for confirmation and/or not believe it. However, you denying it, won't change the FACT that I witnessed these statements, and action, on television. It doesn't change the fact that little 'ol me, not knowing any intelligence officials who graciously filled my desk with thank you medals, (LOL!) knew that the whole Iraq = Threat fiasco was BS from the beginning. I remember getting into a disagreement with family members over it and guess who was right ? Gee, must've taken a crystal ball... or simply putting two-and-two together. Look, I'd LOVE nothing more than to own your ass at every turn... but just haven't the proper time to digup all those now ancient facts, links (many of which are now defunct,) and arguments all over again. You CLEARLY have far more time than I do Sawber. :-) Have a good one....  (Nov 11, 2010 | post #687)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

I don't think that asking the same congress, that passed a bill, to then rescind it, would be a productive use of time Sawber. Again, the President doesn't have a line-item veto. He won't abuse signing statements, as the former President has done. You either veto the entire ball of wax or pass along everything. If Presidents regularly vetoed over a minority of objectionable content, nothing would ever get past. Just the nature of the beast. ============ Alright, you keep dodging points by simply responding to points that weren't made. Worse, you quite frankly pulled something clear out of your rear on that "I quoted it in two sections and had discussion in between" quote. There simply isn't a point in continuing. This could quite literally, go on forever. I correct you, you then reply correcting some point that was neither stated or made. See the problem ? It would be very time consuming to keep addressing responses to points that quite simply, weren't made. For instance, the point wasn't that intel was changed. The point and again, was that intel was selectively picked to fit a predetermined ideology. A precedence and pattern was established. For instance, I point out Bush's "...we MUST attack NOW." statement, pounding his fist on the podium, you ask for a link, (which is perfectly reasonable,) I reply that everything isn't available online, (a fact,) you again imply that *I* am the only one who says this, so I provide the Googles showing others repeating it in some form or other and then you come back to, 'it's not Bush.' You asked for anything and that's what I gave you. You were already told from the beginning: "...you well know every piece of video, even of past Presidents, isn't transcripted nor available online; neither would it be quick or easy to find." Many videos are not transcripted, and therefore cannot be easily Googled; and that's if it's even available online at all. (which I seriously doubt it is available) If you can't accept that fact then don't bother with repeatedly asking. For instance, you respond "Your beliefs do not change the facts." but AGAIN, a disbelief in intelligence was never stated or implied; only pointed out that unreliable and a minority of total intel was selected to support a predetermined ideology; a Confirmation Bias approach. SO, we come back full-circle, to: 1) Administrations are key in appointing head intelligence officials. Those in Congress were relying on reports published by the Administration. 2) Established a precedence over subordinates taking the fall in lieu of their COs. 3) Pointed out that while they've successfully isolated themselves in the case of pressuring their appointees on Iraq intel, they failed to accomplish the same with pressuring over 9/11 - Iraq links; establishes the possibility of a pattern. 4) Established a commonality over nations seeking nuclear capability; pointed out that using the same methodologies and justifications, we could've launched an attack on countries as benign as Switzerland. 5) Pointed out that based upon the circumstances of the time, militarily, economically, Iraq was neither a threat in the near, or distant future. (in fact a head of the UN inspection team repeatedly indicated this) 6) Pointed out the fact, the Administration went against decades worth of anti-nuclear proliferations policies; which largely proved counter-productive . 7) Pointed out the FACT that Junior Bush stated, "...we MUST attack NOW." and pounded his fist on the podium stressing the word, "NOW." Can I provide links ? Nope. Will I ? What did I just say ? In all the many gaffes of our former President, these statements (including the God-Iraq,) wouldn't exactly be uncharacteristic. But again, could care less what you think of me, I KNOW WHAT I HEARD and SAW and will continue to repeat it wherever, whenever I choose to do so.  (Nov 9, 2010 | post #684)

Cincinnati, OH

Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

Alright, minimal time wasted here. You're playing games with my replies, ignoring and rewriting key points expressed. "... It's unfortunate that they've [Administration] been able to so effectively, isolate themselves from those they left [Intel heads] to take the fall alone. ..." doesn't equate to: "...Administr ation was found to be guilty of manipulating intelligence... ". You also totally ignored the point about Administrations' role in appointing Intel heads. I simply pointed to other areas where they HAVE been found to be guilty of manipulating intel, specifically on the 9/11 Iraq links, and made a brief case that there is a patternThen you conveniently missed a few instances; unrelated. http://www.google. com/search?hl=en &q=%22we+must+ attack+now%22& sa=N&tbs=nws:1 ,ar:1 http://neo-neocon. blogspot.com/2006/ 01/lies-and-lying- liars-who-hear-the m.html#c1136598922 56822303 You are wrong. I witnessed that speech, and the Tim Russert "God...Iraq " statement with my own ears. (mouth about hit the floor on that God statement, but whatever) But I do appreciate the fact that you dropped the pretense. I think we're done hereFirst, you combined two separate paragraphs, in an attempt to give a different meaning to the statements. Please do not play those games with me. Also, I think you're lying about speaking to intel personnel, but that's irrelevant at this pointThen explain the article in regard to 9/11 - Iraq links ? Conspiracy theorists cherry-pick facts all day everyday. Again it's called, Confirmation Bias.  (Nov 9, 2010 | post #678)