Nsa Director Odom Dissects Iraq Blunders

Former National Security Agency Director Lt. General William Odom dissected the strategic folly of the Iraq invasion and Bush Administration policies in a major policy speech- America’s Strategic Paralysis, at Brown University for the Watson Institute for International Studies. "The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In a mere 18 months we went from unprecedented levels of support after 9-11..to being one of the most hated countries…Turkey used to be one of strongest pro-US regimes, now we’re so unpopular, there’s a movie playing there- Metal Storm, about a war between US and Turkey. In addition to producing faulty intel and ties to Al Qaida, Bush made preposterous claim that toppling Saddam would open the way for liberal democracy in a very short time...SOURCE.

Not real found of his internationalist views but he did come out and admit "our" governemt's use of terror and of course the hypocricy of those who use terrorism as a tool fighting a "war against terrorism."

Then there's this...

A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.

Full Article...

Is there anyone out there who still believes "our government" would never resort to terrorism to get what it wants?

Apologies for interupting all the normal leftie vs rightie fantasies for a minute.

 

Nobody even wants to defend the government's use of terrorism? C'mon what ever happened to all those loyal Bush 30 percenters who'd defend anything the state did?

Did they all turn into Obama bots?

 

Do you approve of it's use?

 

No oh no. There's no buts about it. Either you are for or against it's use. So which is it?

 

No he's adding conditions on his answer. Either he's for it or against it. I'm trying to find out what he's asking about "regards to terrorism". I have to know that before I can anwser his question. Can ya dig it?

Besides Rev he just read what a three star general said about the government's use of terrorism and maybe he even went through some of the links at George Washington blog. I dunno all that but is he calling a three star general a "conspriacy theorist". Is that supposed to make the fact that our government is guilty of the same tactic it accuses others of all disappear?

The magical words of the hopelessly underinformed aren't going to change the facts so, his attempt to pre qualify his answer shows me that he has no idea of what our government has done in the past but is more than willing to try to excuse it by muttering the magic words.

Either he's for the use of terrorism or he isn't. Either he's willing to face the truth or he's isn't. I'm betting "isn't" because "is" brings along citizenship's responsibilities along with it.

 

I edited my post to try.

 

Anyways the bottom line is "our" government by it's own definition has and is engaging in terrorism. See the U.S.A. Patriot Act (s) for the definition.

And all the people say amen but we're the "good guys" so our use of terrorism is for the good of the country and the world. Which is basically aiding and abetting terrorists by silence or consent.

Is that what you intended to do webdog? Try and make excuses for state sponsored terrorism because the real terrorists are our own politicians?

So how about now...are you for the use of terrorism or against it? No "buts" you're either for it or against it.

 

Rev with all do respect I have answered this same stupid question asked by every member on this board to dazed and lazy to look it all up on google for themselves.

I'm getting tired of doing your homework for you like you are a bunch of kids. Over and over. You should know this stuff already. Why have I got give out free history lessons to people who should already know this stuff just to try and have a doscussion about that which really effects us?


Webdog can do his own homework.