Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lookout123
hmm, tw steps in and claims repeatedly that Franks was furious at being told to dust off 1003. I've seen no evidence that this is true and yet tw's response is to say that i must prove he wasn't angry.
|
The expression "mini-explosion" in Woodward's book does not prove that Frank's was incredulous? He was ordered to plan an attack on Iraq when he had not yet even invaded Afghanistan - this sentence in direct contradiction what Lookout123 posted previously. Of course Frank's was angry. Anyone in his position would have been, considering that the Afghan war was only just starting and was far from success. bin Laden was not captured or killed. Lookout123 says a "mini-explosion" could not happen because, "I've seen no evidence that this is true". That is his proof? Lookout123 has been accused previously of having opinions without sufficient information. Just because Lookout123 did not hear of this means it did not happen? That proves Gen Franks did not have a mini-explosion?
That "Franks was not angry" position is to avoid the more serious questions. Reasoning by Lookout123 is same as those who preceded him to support Nixon. He is our president; therefore he must be right to invade Cambodia. He must be right to even censor the news and letter going to the troops. Lookout123 endorses people who have no problem with boldface lying. Today's new lie - it was just an honest mistake about those aluminum tubes; but those lies are justified; the ends always justified the means. What happened to the word - credibility.
Saddam was a threat to no one. Iran's adjacent neighbors said same even before 11 September. George Jr supporters even forget that little fact to endorse a lying president. What happens if George Jr must decide to launch nuclear weapons? Will he be as responsible as Kennedy; use the doctrine of containment? Or will he use the principles of Tojo and Hitler - a preemptive strike only because they *might* be a threat. A future and possible threat always justifies unilateral war. Is a potential threat also sufficient to launch nuclear weapons? So we just lie a little. After all, a nuclear bomb is just another bomb. Does anyone remember the definition of the word 'integrity'?
Once the US said we would never execute a "first strike". Already, Lookout123 endorses principles of "first strike". He supports George Jr and those who say "first strike" is good. It is called preemption.
We are talking about White House credibility: people who literally encouraged war with China over a silly spy plane. People who have no problem with preemtive strikes on India, Russia, and Germany - if necessary (doctrine upon which the Project for a New American Century was created). Lookout123 endorses these neocons? Even Republicans such as Richard Lugar and Billy Kristol (Weekly Standard) have declared this administration as incompentant in Iraq. What will they do when we have a real crisis? These leaders could not even authorize fighter planes to go 'weapons free' - to protect US buildings when America was under attack. The leader even sat in a FL schoolroom for seven minutes and never even asked one question. We are talking about basic management competance that also considers outright lying as acceptable.
To avoid all this, Lookout123 argues whether Franks got angry.
Even Pat Buchanan says their fundamental concept - preemption - is a perversion of conservative principles. Same conservative principals that kept us out of WWIII on multiple occasions. Fundamental questions about management competance in George Jr administration. Questions that Lookout123 will avoid answering - instead denying that Gen Franks had a "mini-explosion". Questions will be reposted so that Lookout123 can provide answers; demonstrate that Lugar and Kristol are wrong; to justify his endorsement of George Jr. To demonstrate that the president is competant even though he even subverted the Oslo Accords andoutrightly lied about the WMDs. Do you really think this president is investigating who outted a CIA agent? What is one more lie? Ahh, but we return to other questions that Lookout123 side stepped.