Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To Make War, Presidents Lie
LewRockwell.com ^ | 1 October 2002 | Robert Higgs

Posted on 10/01/2002 3:13:22 AM PDT by Greybird

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-233 next last
To: JohnGalt
The fine folks you listed were not part of that failure. (I would say that the fact that they cannot be 100% prescient is not really a failure, BTW.) The chances of preventing 9-11 MIGHT have been increased with a better overall structure of the intelligence organizations, and a co-operative, rather than competitive, relationship. Those short-comings, however, are not the fault of anyone in office (or even alive) today.
121 posted on 10/01/2002 3:57:47 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Greybird; All
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was recently in Iraq and said on national television that President Bush would "mislead" the American people about Iraq and war, and that we should take Hussein "at his word."

Now, Greybird, I ask that you answer this one simple question with an up or down "yes" or "no:"

Do you stand with Rep. McDermott?

122 posted on 10/01/2002 3:59:11 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny); .30Carbine
....and from the link at #118, just fyi:

Indeed, this is the problem with most goofy theories about a war: They reveal a profound naiveté about how government works. If Bush were doing this for oil or for money or for "revenge" against the man who tried to kill his dad, he wouldn't be able to say so in a single meeting. He couldn't say such a thing to his inner circle, let alone his senior staff or the hundreds of people below them who make the policy. Word would get out. Opponents would leak it. Ambitious men would blow the whistle and become heroes. Decent men would blow the whistle too.

In other words, Bush would have to keep all of his motives secret from the people he'd have to convince to go along. Now, since most of these anti-Bush, antiwar types also think the commander-in-chief is an idiot, it's hard to imagine how they think he'd be smart enough to pull off a con like that.

123 posted on 10/01/2002 4:00:14 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
When were those commercial images taken?

Mid-September 1990, the same time the Bush Sr. administration was trying to drum up support for the coalition.

At one point, Iraqi troops had actually crossed into Saudi Arabia proper (right after they arrived in Saudi and got sent up to the border with Kuwait, some USMC buddies of mine found the tracks left by Iraqi T-54s).

I have no way of disputing this of course. I find it remarkable though, that tracks would still be identifiable for very long in the sand and dirt. Wouldn't they disappear pretty rapidly?
124 posted on 10/01/2002 4:03:52 PM PDT by jenny65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Kool screenname, BTW.
125 posted on 10/01/2002 4:05:00 PM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Hey, he replied:

Your hysteria belies your family name. Get a grip.

LOL! I fired back this to him:

I overstepped in calling you a liar. I honestly should have said I strongly disagree with your (implied) opinion that President Bush is a liar.

I suspect you are a Liberal. I am a moderate conservative (a true moderate, NOT moderate in the media elite definition). We are on two different pages. Just so I'll know, tell me your opinion of THIS article if you would please:

Same Old - Tiresome arguments of war
National Review Online ^
| October 1, 2002 | Jonah Goldberg

I gave him the link to the article you pointed me to. I'm sure he'll spew if he looks at that......

126 posted on 10/01/2002 4:15:18 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
There isn't enough data to determine whether Bush is misleading or not.

I'm beginning to think that we would be better off, leaving Iraq to the UN to handle, and make the UN our target. The UN is the group that is remiss in not enforcing their own resolutions. Let the UN do their own work, and give them the deadline. The President shopuld make sure they know that if they fail to comply they, the UN can clean their desks and pack their bags and get the heck out of the US.

A direct link between Saddam and 9/11 has NOT been established. Iraq is thus separate from the war on terrorists, even if the divide is a fine line. Without a connection it remains separate, and a continuance of the previous 10 years.

The unfortuante thing is that it will likely take an actual WMD attack for other nations to realize that a premptive strike was necessary. And unfortunately that attack will probably occur in the states instead of in France, Germany or Russia which would make a difference. The terrorists and scum know this.

But to start acting on 'suspicion', inches us towards a slippery slope, and other nations with better capabilities than Iraq could also act on 'suspicion' against the US.

Think about it. Do you really want to set a precedent that China could follow?

127 posted on 10/01/2002 4:17:36 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: jenny65
Mid-September 1990, the same time the Bush Sr. administration was trying to drum up support for the coalition.

OK, in other words, over a month AFTER Saddam's troops had scared King Fahd into accepting troops by driving right up to (and across, in some cases). Saddam backed down when the first US troops arrived. But the second they left, he'd be able to invade Saudi Arabia.

I find it remarkable though, that tracks would still be identifiable for very long in the sand and dirt. Wouldn't they disappear pretty rapidly?

If you're looking for a place that's as much like the Moon as possible and still be on Earth, the Saudi-Kuwaiti border region would be a good start. And my buddies got there in early September, only a month after they were laid.

128 posted on 10/01/2002 4:25:38 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
influential expansionists such as Captain Alfred T. Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and their ilk.

If I could be counted amongst such ilk as Mahan I would die a happy man.

129 posted on 10/01/2002 4:26:14 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Gosh, you can even make bold text. I'm so impressed.

Again, the portions you bolded do NOT prove your claim. They are part and parcel of the Stark/Turner/Wegener problem at OPNAV Headquarters.

The information may have been collected in Washington, but the intelligence cycle doesn't begin and end with collection. It has to be analyzed (and analyzed without the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight that Admiral Hart had) and distributed to the end users. Turner's actions at War Plans, and the Wegener brothers' activities in Navy Communications, choked off the intelligence cycle as a byproduct of their political infighting and empire-building.

130 posted on 10/01/2002 4:32:02 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Of course! Everyone knew EXCEPT FDR!!!!

Pooh..bwahahahahahahahahaha

131 posted on 10/01/2002 4:41:21 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Of course! Everyone knew EXCEPT FDR!!!!

No. If you don't know how intelligence works, kindly do me a favor and read up on it. Data gathering (which DID work, after a fashion) is only the start. The pieces of information thus gained need to be looked at by people who actually understand the topic (i.e., people who actually know something about both Japan and naval warfare) and studied carefully, then turned into a finished product (a report of the enemy's probable goals and courses of action to achieve those goals).

NOBODY knew about Pearl Harbor before the fact. Hart was able to analyze the information AFTER THE FACT (that's a big help) and interpret it correctly. However, not one person at OPNAV Headquarters had access to all of the information gathered, and everyone kept using their pieces of the data to support their preconceived theories. (Turner kept saying that the Japanese were going to attack Russia, the Wegener brothers were insisting on an attack coming down only in the Philippines, and all of the other intel wannabes were touting their own ideas to the exclusion of anyone else.) The Office of Naval Intelligence (which SHOULD have been analyzing and collating all of the data thus gathered) was completely ignored by all of the feuding parties, and never did get the information that had been gathered.

132 posted on 10/01/2002 4:50:33 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was recently in Iraq and said on national television that President Bush would "mislead" the American people about Iraq and war, and that we should take Hussein "at his word."

Now, Greybird, I ask that you answer this one simple question with an up or down "yes" or "no:"

Do you stand with Rep. McDermott?

133 posted on 10/01/2002 4:52:45 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
You're never getting an answer out of him on that question.
134 posted on 10/01/2002 4:53:18 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Greybird doesn't have the stones to answer that question rdb3. In fact, it appears Greybird was cursed with pebbles rather than stones. It flew the coop.
135 posted on 10/01/2002 4:56:23 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: jenny65; rabidone
OK...whay lie was told regarding the Gulf War?

Well, what about the claim that Iraq was amassing troops on the Saudi Arabia border after they invaded Kuwait and were ready to take SA? Commercial satellite images showed no troops on the border at all.

The big lie told during the first Gulf War was when Bush (I) pounded the lectern and in response to anti-war protestors, declared, "THIS IS NOT A WAR FOR OIL!!!" As if we would have sent 500,000 troops to free a country that isn't a major petroleum producer. Even Rush has disputed this "little white lie"..

OK..guess you guys busted my little bubble. Bush Sr must be a lier.

Guess that makes Bush Jr a lier too.

Case closed.

136 posted on 10/01/2002 4:56:32 PM PDT by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
oh brother.....

Does the 'home' know you are online?

Readjust your knee pads and blinders.

bye

137 posted on 10/01/2002 4:57:19 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Having received the first ad hominem attack, I hereby collect the win. Thank you for demonstrating a thoroughgoing lack of knowledge on the subject, BTW.
138 posted on 10/01/2002 4:59:22 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
No.. you gave the first 2 ad hominem attacks with your condescending comments about pasting and bolding. Merely returning them to you as I depart.
139 posted on 10/01/2002 5:04:01 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

Comment #140 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-233 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson