Bitchin’

My own opinion is that I really hope they’re lying with this “Nobody anticipated…” crap. There were so many clues (especially with the levees and the Iraq violence). Being led by somebody who does nothing but lie is scary, but the only thing worse is being led by somebody who honestly doesn’t have a single clue about what’s going on around them.

And what steps did the president and his staff take to determine the extent and nature of the planned attack? None?

That is correct. The president took a month off, and no action of any kind was taken to assess the nature of the attack the briefing warned about. So even though the information regarding the use of planes as weapons had been discussed in a number of fora, and the FAA had received an unprecedented number of warnings that year about possible terrorist hijackings, they didn’t do enough homework to prevent it.

Beyond that, however, after an unspecific warning, would a prudent person put together a PLAN to respond to an attack one was warned about, if it could not be prevented? Would that “plan” be to sit in stunned silence and continue to let a second grade class read about a pet goat? Then to take a few more minutes to pose for a photo-op outside the school? Then to fly aimlessly around the country, without asking the JCS a single question about status and response?

I guess that part of the plan worked.

Now, having made a mistake setting up a computer / putting together bunk beds / building a bicycle, how many times have you picked up all the pieces, and thrown the damn thing away?

Then why do that in Iraq?

The other stuff I knew about, because anyone who ever thought about it could have predicted that the Iraq invasion was the worst strategic decision in American history and would result in an endless insurgency, and of course because I read the Scientific American article published TEN YEARS BEFORE KATRINA, I knew the levees were at risk.

they didn t blame anyone else; they didn t claim they could feel  somebody s pain ; and they didn t turn tail and run, as suggested by so many Democrats.

They didn’t blame the mayor and governor for Katrina? Breaking news!

They didn’t blame the “dead enders” and “insurgents” for the strategic failure in Iraq? They didn’t blame the press for failing to report all the “good” news from there?

I love the “turn tail and run” comment, made by people who never served in the military, about decorated combat veterans like Kerry and Murtha, who have looked other men in the eyes and killed them because their country asked them to.

Tell you what. Kill someone for your country from a distance close enough to smell his fear and his blood and his shit, and see how that makes you feel. See if it makes you want to be sure you killed the right man, for the right reasons, and not merely so some safe, comfortable politician who has never worn a uniform can get re-elected.

“The U.S. intelligence community had been divided about the state of Saddam’s weapons programs, but there was little disagreement among experts throughout the government that winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war.

“The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious,” warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an “overwhelming” effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: “The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America’s own making.”

A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush’s top foreign policy advisers, but there’s no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.

“It was disseminated. And ignored,” said a former senior intelligence official.

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency was particularly aggressive in its forecasts, officials said. One briefing occurred in January 2003. Another, in April 2003, weeks after the war began, discussed Saddam’s plans for attacking U.S. forces after his troops had been defeated on the battlefield.

Similar warnings came from the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. The council produced reports in January 2003 titled “Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq” and “Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq.”

Unlike the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in which Iraqi troops were trying to maintain their grip on Kuwait, “they are now defending their country,” said a senior defense official, summarizing the Joint Staff’s warnings. “You are going to get serious resistance. This idea that everyone will join you is baloney. But it was dismissed.”
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

“They’re lying.”
“Oh, like you can read their minds.”
“Fine, then, they’re incompetent.”
“How can they be incompetent if everything is going according to plan? By the way, 9/11. And homosexuals.”

Granted, it’s the VP, and granted, I can’t read minds as you continue to insist upon, but what’s the scenario for Cheney making this statement honestly? That he never read worst-case scenarios about an insurency? That he never heard of Algeria? Either he’s lying and did read them, or he didn’t, which means he’s not fit to be advising the President. I submit that it is most likely that he did read them, and just dismissed the possibility of an insurgency, which means he most likely lied when he made that statement.

Quiz. What left wing media outlet said this?

Funny how the wingers jump in with the childish OT posts.
It was the irresponsibly naive Republican leadership of cowboy W and Cheney that got us mired in Iraq, with plenty of wishful thinking but woefully little preparedness for what happened after the mission was accomplished.

1) I’m not sure if we want David Arquette being First Brother.

2) Perhaps we could go for the Dead Zone ticket of Christopher Walken/Anthony Michael Hall. With Stephen King as their speech writer, we would always be well-versed in the impending threat of lamp monsters.

3) Failing #2, Haley Joel Osment will eventually be of electable age.

1) She couldn’t be any worse.
2) She’d be easier on the eyes than the current occupant.

There were voluminous pre-war assesments that said there would be an insurgency (in addition to numerous other bad things that happened).

They aren’t just lying, they are serial liars who don’t care about people’s deaths and the future of our nation.

Predicting the power of Katrina, as good as that prediction was, was flawed. First of all, the so called Force five hurricane was Force four when it hit land.
And no one could have predicted that the Governor and the Mayor would drop the ball on their task.

And no one can anticipate the precise amount of resistance woll receiv in an invasion.

So they weren’t lying. I’ll tell you what they weren’t doing: they didn’t blame anyone else; they didn’t claim they could feel “somebody’s pain”; and they didn’t turn tail and run, as suggested by so many Democrats.