The Lanny Papers

[CaptainCrunch]

If the American's were willing to fabricate information to justify a war in Iraq, then it stands to reason that they would justify the evidence once they had Iraq in thier hands. It just stands to reason that the last thing that Bush and the rest of his people wanted, was to be have thier knickers ripped down in front of the world.

How hard would it have been for the American's to "find" a stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, or a couple of old type 61 warheads just laying around.

U.S. cops do it all the time when they harrass those dirty hippie teenagers.

Sometimes gentlemen, a banana is just a banana

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by calculoso+Nov 3 2004, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Nov 3 2004, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Nov 3 2004, 12:25 PM
Lanny is very frank in saying what he thinks and believes

If he'd stop at this, there would be no problem.

Cow.. I know you have a running feud with Lanny, but c'mon. You're bigger than this. [/b][/quote]
If I were smaller than this, I would have posted it a week ago without an invitation.

All of us here have a record of what we've said on this board in our various arguments. If we're waffling or wavering from our previous position, we're reminded of that by our opponents in an aggressive manner, and that's fair.

I simply find it hypocritical that one member would be making the statements he does in the fervent manner he does while ridiculing the intelligence of those in opposition to those statements, when its pretty clear he shared those identical sentiments, if not more, not so long ago.

I have no problem with Lanny changing his mind. I have no problem with his right to an opinion. We're all in the same boat that way. The difference today is that we know Lanny is in the muck with the rest of us in that regard.

The next time Lanny wants to tell us he was "right all along" we'll have something on which to judge that statement, the same test any of us have to face.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 07:42 PM
That just isn't factual.

It may be true, Lord knows I don't have the inside goods. But all official evidence has pointed to flawed intelligence, and no fabrication or lying of any kind.

Choose to believe that or not ... up to you, but don't state fabrication as a matter of fact because it just isn't.

I would believe the "flawed intelligence" argument if well more than half the people in the world were not telling Bush that he was wrong. I can't believe that most ordinary people in the world would have known better than U.S. intelligence.

[Faid1]

Wow, that's great

Get over yourselves.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 07:47 PM
The next time Lanny wants to tell us he was "right all along" we'll have something on which to judge that statement, the same test any of us have to face.

Cowperson

Sure thing Cow. Just as long as we get to throw Greg Gilbert/Marc Savard in your face (and Bingo's too) and hold your feet to that fire.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 12:42 PM
It may be true, Lord knows I don't have the inside goods. But all official evidence has pointed to flawed intelligence, and no fabrication or lying of any kind.

Maybe "fabrication" is the wrong word. You tell me what to call it when someone has a predetermined outcome in mind (going to war with Saddam), gets his subordinates (Cheney/FBI/CIA) to build a case to support that conclusion, and then presents that to the world. I may be naive, but it seems to me that we elect our leaders not to be.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Nov 3 2004, 07:47 PM
If the American's were willing to fabricate information to justify a war in Iraq, then it stands to reason that they would justify the evidence once they had Iraq in thier hands. It just stands to reason that the last thing that Bush and the rest of his people wanted, was to be have thier knickers ripped down in front of the world.

How hard would it have been for the American's to "find" a stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, or a couple of old type 61 warheads just laying around.

U.S. cops do it all the time when they harrass those dirty hippie teenagers.

Sometimes gentlemen, a banana is just a banana

Bush doesn't care about what the rest of thinks. He has never given any indication that it matters to him. The only thing that matters to him is enough support to get re-elected.

It is much simpler and safer for him to just back-track and change what the excuses were for the war. All he had to do to keep his job was convince an already devout following that the new excuses were the ones all along.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 3 2004, 01:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 3 2004, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 07:42 PM
That just isn't factual.

It may be true, Lord knows I don't have the inside goods. But all official evidence has pointed to flawed intelligence, and no fabrication or lying of any kind.

Choose to believe that or not ... up to you, but don't state fabrication as a matter of fact because it just isn't.

I would believe the "flawed intelligence" argument if well more than half the people in the world were not telling Bush that he was wrong. I can't believe that most ordinary people in the world would have known better than U.S. intelligence. [/b][/quote]
Exactly. That's some seriously flawed intelligence if even casual observers knew there was know way it could be true.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Nov 3 2004, 07:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Nov 3 2004, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 07:42 PM
That just isn't factual.

It may be true, Lord knows I don't have the inside goods. But all official evidence has pointed to flawed intelligence, and no fabrication or lying of any kind.

Choose to believe that or not ... up to you, but don't state fabrication as a matter of fact because it just isn't.

I would believe the "flawed intelligence" argument if well more than half the people in the world were not telling Bush that he was wrong. I can't believe that most ordinary people in the world would have known better than U.S. intelligence. [/b][/quote]
Like I mentioned earlier, the thing that points to flawed intelligence is the fact that when they got there they found nothing to justify it.

Why would Bush et al, allow that to stand so they could look stupid on the world stage. Plant some warheads, or a rip build a couple of chemical weapons plants and then accidentally stumnle upon them.

world opinion certainly would have swung in America's direction if they had done that.

On a individual basis, every American soldier in Iraq was issued a chemical warfare kit, including atrophine injectors. The Soldiers responsible for the invasion of Baghdad were put on alert when they hit the ring road out of a fear of chemical attacks.

Why is this important. Carry a full bio/chemical suit, the mask, and other accessories adds about 20 pounds to your pack, now when you consider that standard kit weighs between 30 and 65 pounds depending on your profession within the military, it dosen't make sense to add that kind of weight for no apparent reason.

The American's fully expected to find something in Iraq, when they didn't thier whole justification for the war as advertised went down the toilet. Why would they want that, it dosen't make sense.

I believe it was flawed intelligence over an outright half cooked conspiracy

[Savvy27]

I don't see that huge a change of position either. Especially considering 3 years of new information along with time to cool off and look at the situation more objectively.

This was before the administration failed to prove that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq AND that there was a connection between bin Laden and Hussein.


This is a pretty weak attempt to make Lanny look bad. I'm more curious about why you have saved his email for 3 years than I am about how Lanny could have altered his position on some points he made at a time when people were still sitting around watching CNN 6 hours a day.

I don't think that you can deny that Lanny has made a point of giving examples of reading he's done to form his *new* position. What is the point of this thread? To show that Lanny is rude? I hope so because it hasn't proven much else...

Or you could get stoned and stab your buddy just to see him die.

Jesus... what kind of drugs have you done?

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Nov 3 2004, 01:50 PM

Sure thing Cow. Just as long as we get to throw Greg Gilbert/Marc Savard in your face (and Bingo's too) and hold your feet to that fire.

Go for it....

Where and when did I change my mind on Savard/Gilbert after belittling others for thinking differently?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Nov 3 2004, 07:57 PM
I don't see that huge a change of position either. Especially considering 3 years of new information along with time to cool off and look at the situation more objectively.

This was before the administration failed to prove that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq AND that there was a connection between bin Laden and Hussein.


This is a pretty weak attempt to make Lanny look bad. I'm more curious about why you have saved his email for 3 years than I am about how Lanny could have altered his position on some points he made at a time when people were still sitting around watching CNN 6 hours a day.

I don't think that you can deny that Lanny has made a point of giving examples of reading he's done to form his *new* position. What is the point of this thread? To show that Lanny is rude? I hope so because it hasn't proven much else...

Or you could get stoned and stab your buddy just to see him die.

Jesus... what kind of drugs have you done?

I'm on the whole Johnny Cash thing right now

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Pileon@Nov 3 2004, 01:51 PM
Maybe "fabrication" is the wrong word. You tell me what to call it when someone has a predetermined outcome in mind (going to war with Saddam), gets his subordinates (Cheney/FBI/CIA) to build a case to support that conclusion, and then presents that to the world. I may be naive, but it seems to me that we elect our leaders not to be.

See there you go again ...

Some people allege there was a predetermined outcome in mind - going to Iraq. But that's far from a factual statement too.

I think it's possible that Bush and others have always had concern for Hussein and what he could ultimately do to the United States and their allies. Also possible that the shock of 911 brought that to the forefront.

But it's not a fact to say that he was always going to Iraq, and he just needed to find a reason.

One of the biggest hammer points on Bush when he was elected in 2000 was his complete lack of foreign policy. He only saw inside the US borders. Doesn't sound much like a guy hell bent on global imperialism to me.

911 made many think that you have to go out and be proactive against insiduous enemies and not just lay back and hope for the best.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Nov 3 2004, 07:54 PM
Like I mentioned earlier, the thing that points to flawed intelligence is the fact that when they got there they found nothing to justify it.

Why would Bush et al, allow that to stand so they could look stupid on the world stage. Plant some warheads, or a rip build a couple of chemical weapons plants and then accidentally stumnle upon them.

world opinion certainly would have swung in America's direction if they had done that.

On a individual basis, every American soldier in Iraq was issued a chemical warfare kit, including atrophine injectors. The Soldiers responsible for the invasion of Baghdad were put on alert when they hit the ring road out of a fear of chemical attacks.

Why is this important. Carry a full bio/chemical suit, the mask, and other accessories adds about 20 pounds to your pack, now when you consider that standard kit weighs between 30 and 65 pounds depending on your profession within the military, it dosen't make sense to add that kind of weight for no apparent reason.

The American's fully expected to find something in Iraq, when they didn't thier whole justification for the war as advertised went down the toilet. Why would they want that, it dosen't make sense.

I believe it was flawed intelligence over an outright half cooked conspiracy

Like I said, Bush has not shown that he is the kind of leader that cares what non-Americans think. I also get the impression that in his own mind, he is regarded as a hero around the world for invading Iraq and that his personal and religious reason are greater than any of the political reason he stated. If he feels in his heart that what did was right, then why would he go and plant weapons there? Let's say he did care what the world thought, that would be a risky move and if it backfired would just make him look worse. He is smart enough to not even try that. Bringing chemical suits to Iraq really means nothing as far as Iraq having large stockpiles of WMD. I have a fire extinguisher in my car, that does not mean I expect a fire to break out any time.

It's not a as much of a half-baked conspiracy to think that Bush had personal and economic reasons for invading Iraq. If anything, the stories of WMD and imminent threats from Iraq are the half-baked conspiracies.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 07:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 07:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 07:47 PM
The next time Lanny wants to tell us he was "right all along" we'll have something on which to judge that statement, the same test any of us have to face.

Cowperson

Sure thing Cow. Just as long as we get to throw Greg Gilbert/Marc Savard in your face (and Bingo's too) and hold your feet to that fire.

[/b][/quote]
I don't recall dodging anything about Marc Savard/Greg Gilbert if that's what you're implying. As with Bingo, my thoughts are out there in black and white.

As you know, that's not the issue in this thread.

One humourous faux pas of mine was declaring Oleg Saprykin dead as a Flames prospect when he walked out of St. Johns. Displaced kicked my butt around the parking lot for that.

I'm more curious about why you have saved his email for 3 years

There are 3,171 e-mails in my in-box alone right now. It's true I could archive them but I like to have them handier than that. Believe it or not, it has a purpose. Its actually accidental Lanny's would be there. Coincidence.

Cowperson

[Savvy27]

911 made many think that you have to go out and be proactive against insiduous enemies and not just lay back and hope for the best.

How can you write all that stuff about what is and isn't fact and then write that. Its totally ridiculous to assume that people who don't think that blowing up all the terrorists is the answer, really believe that nothing should be done. I know this because I am a person who believes that blowing up pockets of terrorists isn't only NOT working, but actually making things worse. It is the opinion of those who think similarily to myself that they are fighting the wrong kind of battle. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm on the whole Johnny Cash thing right now

LOL

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo+Nov 3 2004, 08:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Nov 3 2004, 08:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Pileon@Nov 3 2004, 01:51 PM
Maybe "fabrication" is the wrong word. You tell me what to call it when someone has a predetermined outcome in mind (going to war with Saddam), gets his subordinates (Cheney/FBI/CIA) to build a case to support that conclusion, and then presents that to the world. I may be naive, but it seems to me that we elect our leaders not to be.

See there you go again ...

Some people allege there was a predetermined outcome in mind - going to Iraq. But that's far from a factual statement too.

I think it's possible that Bush and others have always had concern for Hussein and what he could ultimately do to the United States and their allies. Also possible that the shock of 911 brought that to the forefront.

But it's not a fact to say that he was always going to Iraq, and he just needed to find a reason.

One of the biggest hammer points on Bush when he was elected in 2000 was his complete lack of foreign policy. He only saw inside the US borders. Doesn't sound much like a guy hell bent on global imperialism to me.

911 made many think that you have to go out and be proactive against insiduous enemies and not just lay back and hope for the best. [/b][/quote]
Well, those in the know say otherwise Bingo. When the military (the Pentagon generals) say that the admin asked for Iraqi intel right after the attack, and there are books published by very credible people that say the same thing and that there was a desire to find a link to Iraq, well it seems that maybe there is more to that than meets the eye?

Now when you add in the neo-con hawks that he brought into his cabinet to advise him on international affairs, well I think we start to see the linkage to the whole Iraq issue. Those in his cabinet that had been around for a while (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) have a history with Iraq and wanted back in there. That's where all the criticism comes in IMO. Bush just happens to be the department head and is taking the fire. He's not the majority of the problem, just representative of it.

You place a lot of trust in a man who has never accomplished much in his life prior to being elected President and throwing his arm around a fireman's shoulder. Why is that? What has Bush done that makes him believable?

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 02:15 PM
One humourous faux pas of mine was declaring Oleg Saprykin dead as a Flames prospect when he walked out of St. Johns. Displaced kicked my butt around the parking lot for that.

Hey I still have a 2000 word article in our story archive berating Flames ownership for dumping Button and hiring the zero experienced Darryl Sutter as the club's GM!

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Savvy27@Nov 3 2004, 02:17 PM
How can you write all that stuff about what is and isn't fact and then write that. Its totally ridiculous to assume that people who don't think that blowing up all the terrorists is the answer, really believe that nothing should be done. I know this because I am a person who believes that blowing up pockets of terrorists isn't only NOT working, but actually making things worse. It is the opinion of those who think similarily to myself that they are fighting the wrong kind of battle. Why is that so hard to understand?

I didn't assume anything ... I feared that would or could be the case. No assumptions made at all.

I do think the Clinton administration was somewhat guilty of letting the terrorism issue fester to the point of boiling without doing much to combat it. I don't hold him responsible for 911 however, please don't assume I'm making that jump. It's not an easy problem to deal with, and I'm sure they considered many options, but in the end not a whole lot got done.

I personally think that is a recipe for disaster.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 02:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 02:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

See there you go again ...

Some people allege there was a predetermined outcome in mind - going to Iraq. But that's far from a factual statement too.

I think it's possible that Bush and others have always had concern for Hussein and what he could ultimately do to the United States and their allies. Also possible that the shock of 911 brought that to the forefront.

But it's not a fact to say that he was always going to Iraq, and he just needed to find a reason.

One of the biggest hammer points on Bush when he was elected in 2000 was his complete lack of foreign policy. He only saw inside the US borders. Doesn't sound much like a guy hell bent on global imperialism to me.

911 made many think that you have to go out and be proactive against insiduous enemies and not just lay back and hope for the best.

Well, those in the know say otherwise Bingo. When the military (the Pentagon generals) say that the admin asked for Iraqi intel right after the attack, and there are books published by very credible people that say the same thing and that there was a desire to find a link to Iraq, well it seems that maybe there is more to that than meets the eye?

Now when you add in the neo-con hawks that he brought into his cabinet to advise him on international affairs, well I think we start to see the linkage to the whole Iraq issue. Those in his cabinet that had been around for a while (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.) have a history with Iraq and wanted back in there. That's where all the criticism comes in IMO. Bush just happens to be the department head and is taking the fire. He's not the majority of the problem, just representative of it.

You place a lot of trust in a man who has never accomplished much in his life prior to being elected President and throwing his arm around a fireman's shoulder. Why is that? What has Bush done that makes him believable? [/b][/quote]
Sure ... and I could likely find sources that say otherwise. That doesn't make either side fact. Public record just doesn't hold that as a fact that you can hang your hat on.

heck Clinton backed going into Iraq, but with UN support. A difference? Sure, ... but Iraq was clearly on his agenda as well.