Guest bedstuy Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 CIA warns of Iraq civil war By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union address. The CIA officers' bleak assessment was delivered verbally to Washington this week, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified information involved. [REST OF ARTICLE:] http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7765415.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest msclonly Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I would lay blame on the International community and the United Nations for not supporting Irag's move to democracy, because it was too dangerous. }( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValleyDwellerNorth Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 >WASHINGTON - CIA officers in Iraq are warning that the country >may be on a path to civil war, current and former U.S. >officials said Wednesday, starkly contradicting the upbeat >assessment that President Bush gave in his State of the Union >address. This is not shocking at all. And speaking of the State of the Union, what country was that man Bush speaking about? What union was he giving the state of because it sure WASN'T this union. His fantasy world sounds great and I hope he isn't developing a dependency on whatever he is taking. VDN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 >This is not shocking at all. And speaking of the State of the >Union, what country was that man Bush speaking about? What >union was he giving the state of because it sure WASN'T this >union. His fantasy world sounds great and I hope he isn't >developing a dependency on whatever he is taking. This is what our political dialogue has come to. Republicans accuse Dean of being psychotic, Clark of being a madman, and Gore of being a pathological liar. Democrats accuse Bush of being delusional due to medication addiction and of being wildly stupid. And both sides think only the other side does it, and that it's okay when they do it. How depressingly primitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValleyDwellerNorth Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 >This is what our political dialogue has come to. Your political dialog is not my political dialog so please don't use "our" when referring to any comment I make. I wasn't dialogging, I was just stating my opinion. And if I started a dialog with you you would resort to sarcasm within the 2nd or 3rd response. Is that what OUR political dialog has come to: Golden Girl sarcastic jibes between Rose and the tall one? >And both sides think only the other side does it, and that >it's okay when they do it. How depressingly primitive. That's politics. No matter if Bush cured Cancer and invented a fuel source that cleaned the environment the Democrats would accuse him of holding out and not sharing these secrets sooner. And when Democrats do something good the Republicans claim that is something they wanted to do but were always blocked by the Democrats. Political discourse is not always going to be didactic and insightful. Doug, you seem to crave political discourse on a message center where a politics forum was created as an after thought because talk of politics was crowding the talk of man on man sex. Maybe you would feel better at the following political message center and chat area: http://www.smithnetny.com/polboard/polboard.htm http://www.ircpolitics.org Unfortunalty, I don't know of any area where politics are discussed with misdirected rage and rudeness. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug69 Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 >Your political dialog is not my political dialog so please >don't use "our" when referring to any comment I make. I was referring to American political dialogue, not your and my dialogue. Wasn't that rather obvious? I >wasn't dialogging, I was just stating my opinion. When multiple people state their opinion and respond to each other's opinions, that's a dialogue. That is what you were participating in. And if I >started a dialog with you you would resort to sarcasm within >the 2nd or 3rd response. Is that what OUR political dialog >has come to: Golden Girl sarcastic jibes between Rose and the >tall one? Yes - having your "analysis" of the State of the Union address be comprised solely of an accusation that the President of the United States is delusional and addicted to medication is really a superior form of communication to sarcasm. >That's politics. No matter if Bush cured Cancer and invented >a fuel source that cleaned the environment the Democrats would >accuse him of holding out and not sharing these secrets >sooner. And when Democrats do something good the Republicans >claim that is something they wanted to do but were always >blocked by the Democrats. That's not politics - it's hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. And if your point is that it's common in politics, then your point is my point. And you illustrated it so well. >Doug, you seem to crave political discourse on a message >center where a politics forum was created as an after thought >because talk of politics was crowding the talk of man on man >sex. Maybe you would feel better at the following political >message center and chat area: Maybe you would feel better if you minded your own business and stopped telling people where and how they should spend their energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValleyDwellerNorth Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 >I was referring to American political dialogue, not your and >my dialogue. Wasn't that rather obvious? >When multiple people state their opinion and respond to each >other's opinions, that's a dialogue. That is what you were >participating in. Technically it wasn't a dialog yet as I was briefly responding to the main point and then went on another, unrelated, rant. Now, thanks to you, it's a dialog. >Yes - having your "analysis" of the State of the Union address >be comprised solely of an accusation that the President of the >United States is delusional and addicted to medication is >really a superior form of communication to sarcasm. I will either have to employ emoticons or realize you are very serious as I was making a funny (at least in my mind). >That's not politics - it's hypocrisy and intellectual >dishonesty. And if your point is that it's common in >politics, then your point is my point. And you illustrated it >so well. OH NICE - now you make me feel guilty for being mean by agreeing with me (that was sarcasm and humor). Seriously, WITHOUT A DOUBT, the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty you speak of, in my opinion, went into epidemic proportions when Regan was president and it hasn't seem to have subsided. >Maybe you would feel better if you minded your own business >and stopped telling people where and how they should spend >their energy. I wasn't telling, I was suggesting. I am a bit nosy, I will admit. All in all, with ALL honesty and NO sarcasm, you are extremely passionate with your views and you would make MORE than a worthy opponent in any debate on politics. In essence, you are shooting nuclear war heads when most of us here are shooting water guns. At first I thought you were just posting SHIT to get people crazy and fighting. If that was the case for some of your posts then you did it well. Politics: the spice of life that gives us all gas. PEACE DOUG VDN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts