Comments on: Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
Add a Comment
- Allways Questions!
Bush %u2026 changed the Clausewitz Axiom: %u201CWar is continuation of politics by other means %u2026 Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd; for it is policy that creates war. Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.%u201D Ther%u2019e doing vice versa: Policy is the continuation of war by other means!
They are working by Bernoulli-Shifts. Bernoulli-Shifts indicate historical processes. Classical exemple for Bernoulli-Shifting: Plutarch: %u201CAudacter caluminare, semper aliquid haeret%u201D (Disgrace just boldly, anything allways get caught in the memory [Truth is what works%u2026]).
Credo: You can%u2019t change history%u2026
Remember the question by Sen. Robert Kennedy jr.Was The 2004 Election Stolen? (http://rollingstone.com/election04)
Another problem is the 9/11 as you can see by the Essay of Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14921.htm). He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and he is the author of Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington. In %u201Cinformationclearinghouse%u201D
he asks the question: Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?
In that way you have one question after another%u2026
Remember the great founder of FBI: %u201CThe individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists%u201D J. Edgar Hoover - Reply to this comment
- Allways Questions!
Bush %u2026 changed the Clausewitz Axiom: %u201CWar is continuation of politics by other means %u2026 Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd; for it is policy that creates war. Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.%u201D Ther%u2019e doing vice versa: Policy is the continuation of war by other means!
They are working by Bernoulli-Shifts. Bernoulli-Shifts indicate historical processes. Classical exemple for Bernoulli-Shifting: Plutarch: %u201CAudacter caluminare, semper aliquid haeret%u201D (Disgrace just boldly, anything allways get caught in the memory [Truth is what works%u2026]).
Credo: You can%u2019t change history%u2026
Remember the question by Sen. Robert Kennedy jr. Was The 2004 Election Stolen? (http://rollingstone.com/election04)
Another problem is the 9/11 as you can see by the Essay of Paul Craig Roberts (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14921.htm). He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and he is the author of Supply-Side Revolution: An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington. In %u201Cinformationclearinghouse%u201D
he asks the question: Is American Democracy Too Feeble To Deal With 9/11?
In that way you have one question after another%u2026
Remember the great founder of FBI: %u201CThe individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists%u201D J. Edgar Hoover - Reply to this comment
- If it was a choice between:
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: chimpeach dot info. - Reply to this comment
- If it was a choice between:
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: chimpeach.info/Iraq.html - Reply to this comment
- If it was a choice between:
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: www.chimpeach.info/Iraq.html - Reply to this comment
- If it was a choice between:
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: http://www.chimpeach.info/Iraq.html - Reply to this comment
- If it was a choice between:
A. Saddam, who was not really a threat to US security or anybody else after the first Iraq war.
and
B. Iraq war
* 2600+ dead US soldiers,
* 41,000 civillian deaths,
* Untold numbers of wounded US soldiers and civilians
* Badly damaged US credibility and rise in anti-US sentiment around the world
* Over 300 billion dollars in US taxpayer money,
* Increase in significant terrorist acts and recruitment since the war began
* Horrific human rights abuses by the US
* The possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq
I would take option A, Saddam and say Rockefeller is spot on. It would be better if the US had not went into Iraq at all. This war was a major miscalcuation from the start. Rumsfield thought we would just go in, take out Saddam and leave right away. Now we are facing an all-out civil war. Bush should be impeached for not telling us the truth: http://www.chimpeach.info/Iraq.html - Reply to this comment
- I would like to know why in this interview Senator Rockefeller was not asked to comment on his speech on the senate floor prior to his vote in favor of the resolution to go to war. I believe he said several times that Saddam posed a significant threat based on all the evidence.
It is inconceiveable to me that CBS News just conveniently ignores the fact that the senator had the same intelligence the president had and everyone came to the same conclusion. If he has changed his mind about the war since that vote he is entitled to do that. He just have the guts to stand up and admit what he said originally. He is not entitled to act as though he never had another opinion nor should you as a news organization be willing to let him get away without explaining why he should not also be considered a liar.
He voted for the war and gave a very lengthy speech on his decision making process. It is patently adsurb for all of these democrats to now act as if they never saw or ever agreed with the intelligence that was used in the decision making process. - Reply to this comment
- Jane,
You don't want any name calling!? You wrote of "Islamic facsist." But of course "those people" do not figure in a discussion, do they. See how the administration has so muddied the water that even intellegent discouse is impossible? But it was this administration that has overseen the maiming of tens of thousands, and the death of thousands of our children...Iraq wasn't the right target. The guys that attacked the WTC in the '90's are in jail! Where is Osama? - Reply to this comment
- Jane,
You don't want any name calling!? You wrote of "Islamic facsist." But of course "those people" do not figure in a discussion, do they. See how the administration has so muddied the water that even intellegent discouse is impossible? But it was this administration that has overseen the maiming of tens of thousands, and the death of thousands of our children...Iraq wasn't the right target. The guys that attacked the WTC in the '90's are in jail! Where is Osama? - Reply to this comment
