It just came to me, an epiphany. in 2003 Putin said there were no WMD in Iraq. The US intelligence community and government at large said there was. Who should we believe? Currently, Putin says there was no interference. The same people that claimed WMD say there was. Who should we believe? https://www.washingtontimes.com/…/aug/20/20030820-081256-6…/
While there is rabid anti Trump sentiment in the media and amongst cool aid drinkers. After the sugar high, people may begin to realize, those that criticized the war are the same ones criticizing Trump, who was also against the war.
In 2012 Romney was ridiculed viciously for saying Russia was our #1 strategic threat. Today those that threw stones at him are saying the same thing.
It is the resistance that is undermining our democracy and influencing our elections.
Are they Putin puppets?
Ex-spy fingers Russians on WMD
On March 20, Russian PresidentVladimir Putin denounced the U.S.-led “aggression” against Iraq as “unwarranted” and “unjustifiable.” Three days later, Pravda said that an anonymous Russian “military expert” was predicting that the United States would fabricate finding Iraqi weapons of…
it could be interpreted that Putin was once right about WMB.
or it could be interpreted that our government lies to us on a regular basis.
perhaps it depends on your bias.
what is your explanation for the lefts changing attitude and cold war mentality?
Bush / Cheney lied a bit (distorted, shaded, exaggerated the certainty of, pick your euphemism) about the WMD intelligence. We know Trump flat-out lies on a regular basis. Your conclusion then is Trump is right, this time? Compelling logic.
actually, my argument is with the hypocrisy of Trump Critics, He is doing what OBama and Clinton spoke of doing and Obama Clinton supporters criticize him for it.
To the thread starter, I hope you know the Bush Administration with Cheney and Rumsfeld leading the charge pressed out the IC to find something to justify a preemptive attack no matter how small, sketchy or insignificant it may be. The Administration highlighted some aspects while ignoring others because it didn’t fit their narrative in going to war. There were huge arguments between agencies because some reported there were no relevant evidence while others, under pressure from the administration found whatever to appease the administration. There were major arguments between the State Department, the department of energy, intelligence agencies as it relates to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons because there wasn’t any relevant intelligence that said that Iraq was were indulging in the production of WMD’s. There were way too many gaps. The information was so bad that at one point former CIA director Tennet warned the administration about going with weak intel.
Now I’ll be a fool to believe that the Intelligence community didn’t have any fault in this because for the most part some analyst believed Iraq stayed on their path in stockpiling chemical/biological/nuclear weapons after the first gulf war despite the fact those programs were scrapped. The Bush Administration pretty much took whatever information that fit their case while ignoring thousands of dissent notes. At the end of the day, the Administration used the IC for political purposes.
It was because of this why the IC now have policies in place to keep this type of thing from happening again. They put procedures in place to keep BS intel from making its way to the light of day. Also, before a major decision is made, agencies heads of the sourced out agency must confirm and agree. Pretty much they all have to be on one accord.
What really should have ended this thread was the OPer’s implied assetiom that Putin’s deep state is inherently more trustworthy than our “deep state”.
Because that is essentially what the OPer is saying- that he trusts Vladimir Putin more than he trusts our own government.
that was a position of the left since Hubert Humphrey and it included, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who went on an apology tour.
The OPer is pointing out to the left how they hate the left. Donald Trump for all practical purposes holds the historical positions of the democrats, he was against the Iraq War like Obama and the resistance can’t understand he is one of them.
I hate him because he is. Putin need not do anything to undermine our democracy we have democrats to do that. That is why he is laughing at you.
Democrats showed us why being the leader of the free world is not always a good thing. Donald Trump has repeated assured us that our commitment with the world extends too far. We need to pull back and take care of America First. The rest of the world is strong, and they can take care of themselves for once. They’ve sucked at the tit of America exceptionalism for too long. It’s time for us to let Russia raise up in the world and takes it’s rightful place as a leader in Christianity, a leader in what strong leadership looks like, and a leader who takes care of business and rules with an iron fist. America is ready to be a vassal state once again!
almost sounds like you are talking about Mueller and fake intelligence in the dossier. So much for safeguards. Big gap in the hacking controversy was they never examined DNC server.
I remember that all too well. I also remember the Bush administration pushing Secretary of State Colin Powell out front to make the case for going to war in front of the United Nations Security Council. Later he regretted that mistake, endorsed Barak Obama’s presidential campaign and has been labeled a RINO ever since.
I have a dream that one day someone will be able to defend arguments they take without ever once uttering the phrase “But (Insert name of someone with the opposite political philosophy than me)”
I’m so sick of “But Obama”, and “But Clinton”, “But Bush”, “But liberals”, and “but conservatives” that I could vomit.
Does no one have an ounce of faith in their own positions that they can articulate them without referring to what positions they DON’T hold?
JJ, the OP points out the conflict of the lefts positions, giving examples is to elucidate the hypocrisy. do you deny the left has often been skeptical of a cold war mentality. look at the platforms from 1968 on. so why don’t you address the issues raised and say they are not true. give examples.
No doubt the right has been more Hawkish and the left more Dovish, but the roles have changed. do you deny that?
