Badgers? Our President's crazy. Did you hear what he said? - Talking Heads, "Pull Up The Roots" Well, in the midst of the Valerie Plame leak investigation - wait, I mean, the Paul O'Neill investigation - I don't want to let this go totally unnoticed. First, O'Neill has a pretty solidly pro-Bush source for his statements that the Cabinet had a big war hard-on long before 9/11: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20040113/bs_ft/1073280995917 Mr. Woodward wrote in Bush at War: "Before the attacks, the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq." Funny, no one has bothered to pillory Woodward, maybe because “Bush at War” was a big syrupy Tribute to the Kneepad. But, this is a bit more troublesome...Bush's response to the direct question. An embarrassing non-denial, sickening invocation of 9/11 - naturally.... "Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with desert badger or fly-overs and fly-betweens. And then all of a sudden September 11 hit." Imagine if Howard Dean had bungled the name of Desert Fox, the keystone of Clinton’s Iraq policy. I think Bush has been at this site too long: www.badgerbadgerbadger.com
By Al Kamen Wednesday, January 14, 2004; Page A17 Asked Monday about former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill's allegation that the administration was preparing to attack Iraq from its first days in office, President Bush told reporters that "we were dealing with Desert Badger or flyovers and fly-betweens and looks, and we were fashioning policy along those lines." Desert Badger? This led to some head scratching around town. A Nexis search reveals no public mention of a recent operation called Desert Badger, although there are references to the University of Wisconsin Badgers. So it seemed we're left with several alternatives: 1. Bush has revealed a heretofore undisclosed Pentagon name for some campaign in Iraq, maybe to enforce the "no-fly" zones or to suppress antiaircraft operations. 2. He's thinking of the famous Project Badger, a biological warfare vaccine study. 3. He was recalling those Iraqi TU-16 "Badger" bombers. 4. He's confusing his foxes and his badgers -- Operation Desert Fox was the name for a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998. OR, there's always option (5): Bush is an unabashed idiot who either makes stuff up or can't remember what he's told.
Re: Re: Question to Bush: What IS Operation: Desert Badger? That's the best kind of addled confusion.
This is as weak as using spelling smack on an internet message board against a guy with dyslexia. I mean, if some of you were so smart, you wouldn't have to start two threads on the same topic and talk about this in still other threads. Calling Bush stupid, even in new and fun ways, is like calling Clinton a horny guy.
Re: Badgers? It sure is odd that he would mention Sept. 11 in regards to Iraq since he's already said there's no proof of a connection, huh?
I really think that Bush is selling the fact that the USA is open to attack, proven by 9/11, not so much that Iraq was involved. Think of it like this. You had plans to buy a new car. Your old car wasn't that old, but you knew you wanted a new one. Then, your had an accident. Good thing you had plans for a new car, right? I mean, it's not like the new car caused the accident, but as things worked out, you got it. This may not be the best example, but I hope you get my point. Besides, the real question is, and this is where I think we all agree, if Iraq was a real threat. Yea, the USA could be attacked, but could Iraq do the attacking? I doubted it. More to the point of the topic here. Desert Badger could have been a plan or name for Saddam that we don't know about. Bush had some sort of flashback or simply made a mistake. I wouldn't totally dismiss past drug use as a possible cause either. Seriously. God, I pray I can find a candidate to vote for instead of this guy.
No need for prayers, in this circumstance. You vote for ANY CANDIDATE running against Bush in November.
That would imply that Iraq was capable of attacking us, for which absolutely no evidence has been given. Yeah, but attacking Iraq was like needing a new car and buying a Tivo instead.
I already agreed with you there. I am not totally sure I see your Tivo example because if you buy a tivo, you would miss all the tv commercials for new cars! I don't see a direct connection between Iraq and AQ, but that is not as divorced of logic as between a car and an electronic device. I mean, we had plans for a new car and we used an excuse for a new car. The excuse, as in the false intel and justification of war with Iraq, is the real issue for me. What Bush says about 9/11 and attacking Iraq is not the real problem. Just like say a Watergate type scandal, the coverup is the issue, not the crime itself. At least for me. As far as voting for Bush, I am open. Not really open at Bush as an option, but open to these Dem candidates. This is where I am looking. By the time Ohio gets to their primary, this may be a moot point. Besides, I am a registered Republican who has never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. So, I'll have no chance to vote in a primary.
Oh Replace Tivo with motorcycle if that helps. I was trying to draw an analogy between something that was needed and something that was wanted but not necessary. And everybody wants Tivo. And my point is we had need of a new car (getting al-Qaeda) but used a fake excuse to buy a Tivo (or motorcyle) Probably not but it still baffles me. The only reason to do it is nakedly political. OK, it no longer baffles me. I would have been much less angry with Clinton if he hadn't lied about a **************. The lie was worse. So I guess at some level I agree with you. I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're definitely not voting for Bush? Or you're definitely not in the corner of any of the current Dem opponents? Or both?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Garcia, but right now you're backing Gen. Eric Democrat, yes? The one who does better against George W. Bush than any of the actual candidates right now.
Not like this thread was going anywhere... Let's go down this path. A vote is secret, but I am not ashamed of who finally gets/got my vote. In the very least, for all the money spent, my vote is worth as much as anyone. No candidate ever fits perfectly into all my needs. My needs change and so do candidates, what they say and what they do. My parents came to the USA and stayed illegaly for decades. Bush's return to the immigration issue is interesting to me. That is one issue. The context of this thread was Iraq war related, so Bush doesn't get my vote there. But, a candidate that rejected any war, period, doesn't get my vote by default. I can consider a person that voted for the war based on false information given by Bush because I myself fall there. I also consider that we need to finish the job now that we are there. The Democratic pool is interesting and I want to allow the national debate force them to focus. I mean, even if I lived in Iowa, I could just about get a ono-on-one with any candidate, they would tell me what they think I wanted to hear. In the end, I usually vote for the person I "like" most. Couldn't really define it for you. I know for certain, I don't really like Bush, but do think the economy, the war and my personal issues could turn for the better. If not, that would secure the "anyone but Bush" vote. Did I tell you that my brother is running for US Congress from Ohio's 15th District as a Democrat? He wants to replace Deb Price (R). I am on his campaign committee. *plug* Iggy Garcia is his name. *plug* I ran for mayor of Columbus, Ohio when I was 19 years old. I didn't get on the ballot, but I learned a few things about life and politics. It is easy from here, online. Out there is a mean and cold world. Garcia is not a Midwest type of name like Brown. That name alone could get you elected in Ohio. What does that tell you about politics? Any good books on running a small, local campaign? Let me just add this... The one candidate that would get my vote, today, no questions asked is... ...Hillary Clinton. No lie. No smiles added because this is really how I feel. But, I am not asking her to run. If she does ever run, I'll support her and vote for her.
Gee, how come none of the usual neocon Bush-fellaters have responded to this thread yet? Anyway, maybe Operation Badger is our planned invasion of Madison, Wisconsin. I hear there are, like, liberals there and stuff...