• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The 100 Year Lie

Texan

Well-known member
Democrats lie? Nothing new there. :???:


================================


The 100 Year Lie
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON --
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq War, McPeak (a war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)

Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.

As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.

Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.

But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'"

The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:

-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico.

It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hoping_for_100_years.html
 

passin thru

Well-known member
I t is disgusting that they flat out lie in order to run McCain down.
However it has happened all the time...............just one instance, Dole was condemning the Teachers Unions antics....................then all we hear is that Dole doesn't like teachers.

Just Liberals and their dirty polotics
 

fff

Well-known member
passin thru said:
I t is disgusting that they flat out lie in order to run McCain down.
However it has happened all the time...............just one instance, Dole was condemning the Teachers Unions antics....................then all we hear is that Dole doesn't like teachers.

Just Liberals and their dirty polotics

OH MY GOD! You take the prize fo being the hypocrite of the day. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

One word: Swiftboaters

McCain has said time and time again that he supports the invasion of Iraq and the war. Only recently has he thrown in the, well if no American gets hurt line. I think he's getting ready to make the switch to the get us out of Iraq side. He is a politician, after all.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
How many Democrats voted for the war, ff?

In Congress? Most of them. But most of us have realized over the last seven years that Bush promoted the intelligence to make the case for war and hid the intelligence that didn't make his case. For some reason, there're a few Bush lovers that just won't give up the ship. And that's ok. As long as we can keep Bush in the conversation, the better it is for for Democrats. :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
How many Democrats voted for the war, ff?

In Congress? Most of them. But most of us have realized over the last seven years that Bush promoted the intelligence to make the case for war and hid the intelligence that didn't make his case. For some reason, there're a few Bush lovers that just won't give up the ship. And that's ok. As long as we can keep Bush in the conversation, the better it is for for Democrats. :D

What intelligence was hid?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
How many Democrats voted for the war, ff?

In Congress? Most of them. But most of us have realized over the last seven years that Bush promoted the intelligence to make the case for war and hid the intelligence that didn't make his case. For some reason, there're a few Bush lovers that just won't give up the ship. And that's ok. As long as we can keep Bush in the conversation, the better it is for for Democrats. :D

What intelligence was hid?


Thats what I always wonder- is how much info who gets and who doesn't...This really came to light the other day when the Repub Minoity Whip called for the first closed session of Congress since 1980- citing that as co-chairman of the intelligence committee and one of the Bush insiders, he had intelligence info that was vital for the House members to know before they voted on the FISA bill- but that had not been made available to other members....

So some know the whole info and get all the intelligence info (that the intelligence community and Administration wants to release- that is) and others only get bits and pieces and are suppose to rely on their bought out crook co-Congressmen on the Committee to guide them :???:
 

fff

Well-known member
There might be some insight here. Senator Graham voted "no" on the invasion of Iraq. Bush routinely classified intelligence that was detrimental to his push for war and our "liberal" press routinely printed what the White House was promoting as "facts."

What I Knew Before the Invasion
By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005; Page B07

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.


The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
PBS had a great show on the other night giving the history leading up to and then on thru the war to current date...They used interviews with former diplomats, Bush Adminstation folks and retired and current military leaders- that are finally talking out about the farce the whole thing was......
Complete total disarray and lack of direction- infighting between Defense, State, and Military...

The Dept of State had a plan put together for after the military action to transition to an Iraqi government- Rumsfeld didn't like Powell (since Powell didn't support going into a pre-emptive, unprovoked war) or the State Department getting any power, so went to Cheney and got Cheney to overrule it- appointing their own temporary interim head (a retired General)- who only had a months notice/no staff :roll:- who when he tryed to hire people with former State Department/mideast experience to help him, Rumsfeld overruled and said he could only use exmilitary ....Rumsfeld also wanted Chalibi for the new puppet President, which most in state and the military saw with too close of ties to Iran...
Rumsfeld didn't respect Condi Rice, who was the National Security Advisor at the time, so she had to use "spys" to get info out of the Pentagon of what was happening... :shock:

Then when things started going bad- they appointed Bremer- who most could not believe as he has no mid-east experience at all...They said he immediately did 2 things which the State Dept and anyone with knowledge of that part of the country were absolutely against- the DeBathification Rule ( removing anyone with prior Bathist party connection from their jobs or positions) and the breakup of the former Iraqi military-- the both of which sent millions of unhappy, now out of work folks, all with guns, out into the streets- and creating thousands of more potential terrorists which grouped together in their religious/political cliques, which now felt they needed to fight to survive....It also removed all those with knowledge of running the infrastructure needed to just provide basic needs....

When the military protested these moves-and the fact that they were putting Civilians in control of the US military's policy- Bremer/Rumsfeld went to Cheney again who intervened and backed Bremer/Rumsfeld...This was when Tommy Franks just up an quit- along with most the top brass there....Rumsfeld in looking for a "yes" man appointed the most junior General in the sector- General Sanchez to head up the war...Sanchez and Bremer hated each other and would not even talk to each other...Sanchez was forced to retire after Abu Gharib prison became known....

ETC.,ETC.,ETC....Same thing continued and is continuing....MASS CONFUSION is the best description....Too many Chiefs....They needed a Douglas MacArthur to put in control with absolute control for a few years to get the country going.....Forced democracy won't work in a country that has never known democracy in 1000 years....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bob Graham wasn't the only Dem. on that committee. I'd also say it is a good bet that he shared his views with the other Democrats as well - yet they voted for war.
 

fff

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
PBS had a great show on the other night giving the history leading up to and then on thru the war to current date...They used interviews with former diplomats, Bush Adminstation folks and retired and current military leaders- that are finally talking out about the farce the whole thing was......
Complete total disarray and lack of direction- infighting between Defense, State, and Military...

The Dept of State had a plan put together for after the military action to transition to an Iraqi government- Rumsfeld didn't like Powell (since Powell didn't support going into a pre-emptive, unprovoked war) or the State Department getting any power, so went to Cheney and got Cheney to overrule it- appointing their own temporary interim head (a retired General)- who only had a months notice/no staff :roll: ....Rumsfeld also wanted Chalibi for the new puppet President, which most in state and the military saw with too close of ties to Iran...
Rumsfeld didn't respect Condi Rice, who was the National Security Advisor at the time, so she had to use "spys" to get info out of the Pentagon of what was happening... :shock:

Then when things started going bad- they appointed Bremer- who most could not believe as he has no mid-east experience at all...They said he immediately did 2 things which the State Dept and anyone with knowledge of that part of the country were absolutely against- the DeBathification Rule ( removing anyone with prior Bathist party connection from their jobs or positions) and the breakup of the former Iraqi military-- the both of which sent millions of unhappy, now out of work folks, all with guns, out into the streets- and creating thousands of more potential terrorists which grouped together in their religious cliques, which now felt they needed to fight to survive....It also removed all those with knowledge of running the infrastructure needed to just provide basic needs....

When the military protested these moves-and the fact that they were putting Civilians in control of the US military's policy- Bremer/Rumsfeld went to Cheney again who intervened and backed Bremer/Rumsfeld...This was when Tommy Franks just up an quit- along with most the top brass there....Rumsfeld in looking for a "yes" man appointed the most junior General in the sector- General Sanchez to head up the war...Sanchez and Bremer hated each other and would not even talk to each other...Sanchez was forced to retire after Abu Gharib prison became known....

ETC.,ETC.,ETC....Same thing continued and is continuing....MASS CONFUSION is the best description....Too many Chiefs....They needed a Douglas MacArthur to put in control with absolute control for a few years to get the country going.....Forced democracy won't work in a country that has never known democracy in 1000 years....

And yet there are people on this board who will continue to support Bush and the war in Iraq. Amazing, ain't it? :?
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
OK, fff, we pull out of Iraq tomorrow - you tell us what is going to happen next......

We stop spending $2billion a week, or we start spending it in this country to provide medical care for our vets, rebuild our military, send kids to college, retrain out of work people, don't cut Medicare reimbursements, rebuild our roads and bridges, stem cell research, extend unemployment benefits for laid off workers..... for starters.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
We stop spending $2billion a week, or we start spending it in this country to provide medical care for our vets, rebuild our military, send kids to college, retrain out of work people, don't cut Medicare reimbursements, rebuild our roads and bridges, stem cell research, extend unemployment benefits for laid off workers..... for starters.

Don't ya just love it when Libs get lost in their own little Utopia.........never another worry. :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
OK, fff, we pull out of Iraq tomorrow - you tell us what is going to happen next......

We stop spending $2billion a week, or we start spending it in this country to provide medical care for our vets, rebuild our military, send kids to college, retrain out of work people, don't cut Medicare reimbursements, rebuild our roads and bridges, stem cell research, extend unemployment benefits for laid off workers..... for starters.

What happens in Iraq.....?
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
OK, fff, we pull out of Iraq tomorrow - you tell us what is going to happen next......

We stop spending $2billion a week, or we start spending it in this country to provide medical care for our vets, rebuild our military, send kids to college, retrain out of work people, don't cut Medicare reimbursements, rebuild our roads and bridges, stem cell research, extend unemployment benefits for laid off workers..... for starters.

What happens in Iraq.....?

Do you honestly care what happens in Iraq when we're gone? If so, why. Then I'll answer your question.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
We stop spending $2billion a week, or we start spending it in this country to provide medical care for our vets, rebuild our military, send kids to college, retrain out of work people, don't cut Medicare reimbursements, rebuild our roads and bridges, stem cell research, extend unemployment benefits for laid off workers..... for starters.

What happens in Iraq.....?

Do you honestly care what happens in Iraq when we're gone? If so, why. Then I'll answer your question.

Our credibilty as a nation is at stake. If the world, and especially the whacko-muslims, view our withdrawl as us getting beat, we have just lost one of the greatest detriments to future wars - a credible threat. I want a whipped enemy, not an emboldened one.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
What happens in Iraq.....?

Do you honestly care what happens in Iraq when we're gone? If so, why. Then I'll answer your question.

Our credibilty as a nation is at stake. If the world, and especially the whacko-muslims, view our withdrawl as us getting beat, we have just lost one of the greatest detriments to future wars - a credible threat. I want a whipped enemy, not an emboldened one.

:lol: :lol: You're such a sad case. First, Saddam was our enemy (after he was our friend). He's dead. Al Qaida was not in Iraq when Bush invaded the country. You can't kill an idea and that's what radical Islam is, an idea, a dream. When George W. Bush ignored the world and invaded a country that posed no threat to us, he destroyed the credibility of this country. All that has happened in Iraq since has destroyed more of our credibility, as it has damaged our military strength and showed the world that the US could be stopped in their tracks by a small, militant band of idealists. Look at Vietnam. Bush still likes to talk about the "coalition" in Iraq, but if you look, they're all gone or leaving soon. Even Australia is taking most of their troops out and they've been one of the most Bush-faithful countries. They have a new leader; maybe that's why. The Brits are leaving or gone. The big fight between Maliki and Sadar is going in the British zone and the Brits that are left are holed up in their compounds while the US military supports Malaki's Army.

What do I think will happen when we leave Iraq? I don't know. It will be up to the Iraqis. They can work together and build a nation (unlikely) or they can fight each other (oh, silly me, that's what they're doing now, isn't it?) until someone wins. It makes me sad that my country is responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people, but I don't see that staying and dragging this thing out will make a speck of difference in five years, ten years.
 
Top