Righhhttt. We’ll just expect the nasty mouth next time intellect is called for.

Dugger

I could care less about you. You, and your words mean nothing to me. They never have.

In responding to your lengthy, mental masturbatory posts, my intention is that whatever I write might reach someone who is willing to listen.

JK

And sometimes a foul mouthed poster will use profanity and name calling when he/she is too immature to debate. Is that you JK? Look up the definition of lying and tell me how you know the president is lying. And you have yet to dig yourself out of this hole: if presidents have special unique abilities to judge, who better to judge: ex president out of the loop with no staff or current presdient in the loop surrounded by experts. Seems then we would have to go with Pres Bush over Pres Clinton. How bout it? Got an answer for that or do we get more childish profanity?
And BTW, I have some respect for Clinton, but I can recognize he is also a strong partisan, has been moreso lately and, like Carter, is somewhat bitter over his own failings.

Dugger

Note to Dugger: only 43 people in the history of the United States have held the Office of the Presidency. At any given time, we’re lucky if FIVE of them are alive.

Given the extraordinary complexities, and enourmous responibilities of holding that position, we’d better pay attention to the wisdom they have to offer us, regardless of their political affiliation, and not be so casual to dismiss them because of their personal weaknesses.

Or is that you some of us don’t want to learn from other people’s valuable experiences, insight, or God forbid, their mistakes?

If you don’t like Clinton, then just say it, you lightweight.

Sometimes, a duck, is just a duck.

Sometimes, a hack, is just a hack.

JK

The regular Bloggers in this forum, most notably you, have “credibility” when talking about the committment of U.S. troops in combat.

However, the former Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, does not, because he was on the recieving end of a blow job in the Oval Office.

You remain dumb. Do you think you’re playing with the big boys, Dugger?

What you do, Dugger, is “mental masturbation.” Nothing more.

JK

P.S.

1.) My mom is no longer living.

2.) If I was “spanked,” I must have missed it.

I don t understand why you wouldn t agree that he s at least capable of deceit

Because in the case of WMD, he repeated the same information that had been passed along from the intelligence community since the 90’s. The Senate Intelligence Report confirmed that the intelligence community blew it big time. The (correct) dissenting opinions were presented along with the (incorrect) claims about WMD, but they were overwhelmed by the supportive information. Many non-WMD claims were found to be reasonable, but the WMD claims were colored by the presumption that Iraq maintained their previously declared stocks.

A reminder of what Clinton said:

Clinton…said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Now that things have gone bad, the country’s made a retrospective decision to say, hey, the president deceived us. Obviously the broad middle of the country wouldn’t feel that way if the war were going well. But the fact remains that the administration approached the war like they approach every other issue from social security to the medicare bill: as a problem with a neat ideological answer backed by a gigantic marketing machine. Then, as with 9-11, they used it as a political weapon to beat up Democrats. So the man gets no presumption of somehow being above exaggeration, distortion, crimes of omission, or flat lying in making his case, since he’s already tarnished the holy purity of his war by the political marketing process he put it through. And frankly, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t agree that he’s at least capable of deceit (or at least, willfull ignorance), given that you think he’s lying about torture (I’ll admit he could be willfully ignorant in this case as well, not that it would excuse him).

JK, Surprised your mommy let you at the keyboard again. I thought you were on a cyber time-out because from the last time you got nasty nad had to be spanked by the adults. Pay attention! If being president alone is an overriding qualification for judging the intelligence and wisdom of presidential decisions, then it should be obvious to even immature vulgarians that that presdient who has more data and a full staff of advisors would be the much, much better judge than the ex president out of the loop.

Now, clean the Spaghetti-Os off the keyboard, wipe the foam from your lips and go back to your etch-a-sketch. And if you want to impress big people, try thought instead of profanity.

Dugger

How come you didn t vote of Kerry if you love nuance so very much?

Who did I vote for?

We agree that Bush is lying when he says we don t torture prisoners, at least.

I think we can find some agreement there.

Here’s Josh Marshall’s catalogue of Cheney’s scare tactics regarding Saddam/9-11 ties.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007026.php

Here’s Kevin Drum’s list of five claims the administration made before the war, the evidence contradicting which the administration kept classified until after the war.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php

It’s Islamofishes. We’re fighting the Islamofishes.

How come you didn’t vote of Kerry if you love nuance so very much?

If you want to describe that as being at peace, so be it.

Fine. EXTREMELY MORE PEACEFUL? How’s that?

Damn, you guys are real touchy these days. Feel the heat much?

I think you’ve got that backwards. You seem to get very touchy when your cherished tropes–not much more than slogans, actually–are challenged with, you know, actual evidence.

I understand the GOP narrative that we have been at war with Islamo-whatsit-thingie since Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, but are you saying that because people died in America and Americans died abroad from the years 1992 to 2000, we were not, in fact, at peace?

You sound like our current President, as quoted in the the Onion (which means it’s real): “”My fellow Americans,” Bush said, “at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”

while suppressing any contradictory evidence…
non-existent ties to al-Qaeda

I suppose I have to keep bringing this up from the Senate Intelligence Report:

The Committee focused its evaluation of the Intelligence Community s WMD analysis primarily on the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): Iraq s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This document was selected for several reasons:

First, according to the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) are the IC s most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues. The process by which the IC produces NIEs – including the one on Iraqi WMD – has been honed over nearly 30 years. According to the Central Intelligence Agency s (CIA) webpage, it is designed to provide policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches with the  best, unvarnished, and unbiased information – regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy.

Second, the 2002 NIE addressed all of Iraq s WMD programs and was a coordinated community judgment in which all agency views were represented and dissenting opinions were noted.

and

Conclusion 93: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

Conclusion 95. The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safehaven – that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control – was reasonable.

So no, we don’t agree. Contradictory evidence was supplied in the NIE and there were ties to al-Qaida.

Because he held the Office of the Presidency, and also made decisions that put U.S. trooops in harms waw?

You friggin nitwit, Dugger. Go buy some more talking points.

JK