Jim in Anchorage Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 You did it again you ass%$^&! Maybe you're not really bright but you have now officially been reported. Use"N-word" or something else but that is SUPER offensive. I hope you're kidding. The N-word country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 No. You have indisputable .knowledge of your phones existenc. My word choice- indisputable- was based upon the mistaken assumption that even those who professed WMD existed in Iraq have largely recanted. You know...you'd think if they were smart enough to lie about it, they'd also be smart enough to PLANT some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Can someone tell me which ones are the lies and which ones are the damn lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 It is absolute treason to keep lying and claim that the treason of lying was not lying. 115 of our Gulf War allies knew right away that every peep that Saddam and Osama were anything but mortal enemies was 100% pure BS. The Niger yellowcake thing was a George Tenet FOGERY. Not only that, but it made NO SENSE from a science perspective, because Saddam already had tons of yellowcake he could not ENRICH because he did not have a CENTRIFUGE. Tenet later tried to lie and say Saddam was trying to get parts for a centrifuge ==== standard aluminum tubing... The "Saddam is training AQ in chem" was a deliberate lie 'boarded out of a non-AQ Getmo who was later murdered by Tenet's CIA and the tapes of the "interrogations" were destroyed, because they were about manufacturing a lie to sell the Iraq Treason and NOTHING ELSE. Everyone trying to say that the lies used to justify the Iraq Treason were somehow not intentionally fabricated lies is both a liar and a traitor. Unless you're black, you need to revise this ASAP. He'd better be gay too for spewing this homophobic venom. He should know the archangels of the Left haunt these parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 No. You have indisputable .knowledge of your phones existenc. My word choice- indisputable- was based upon the mistaken assumption that even those who professed WMD existed in Iraq have largely recanted. What is "indisputably true" is that not only were each and every Saddam-Osama link and WMD claim intentional falsehoods, but what is also true is WHY there was a "need" for the FALSEHOODS, just like the FALSEHOOD of the estimate used to socialize senior drugs. This is the INDISPUTABLE TRUTH... http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/karl-rove-admits-mistake-in-advising-bush-on-iraq-invasion-respo/ ""Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D., I doubt it," Rove writes. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat." That is something Karl Rove would likely have preferred to have never admitted. That is an ADMISSION that the US Senate was not buying any of the W crowd's bull about Saddam, and would not vote for a war resolution. That is the genesis of the Niger forgery, the waterboarding lie about Saddam, AQ, and chem, the "dirty bomb" BS, and all the rest. Simple truth... WH knows Senate won't pass war bill without WMD. WH invents WMD hoax later in 2004, with the urgent need to buy off the senior vote... WH knows Senate won't socialize senior drugs if actual cost estimate becomes public WH threatens actuary to "shut up or else" and lies to the US Congress to SOCIALIZE SENIOR DRUGS THAT is the PATTERN... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 What is "indisputably true" is that not only were each and every Saddam-Osama link and WMD claim intentional falsehoods, but what is also true is WHY there was a "need" for the FALSEHOODS, just like the FALSEHOOD of the estimate used to socialize senior drugs. This is the INDISPUTABLE TRUTH... http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/karl-rove-admits-mistake-in-advising-bush-on-iraq-invasion-respo/ ""Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D., I doubt it," Rove writes. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat." That is something Karl Rove would likely have preferred to have never admitted. That is an ADMISSION that the US Senate was not buying any of the W crowd's bull about Saddam, and would not vote for a war resolution. That is the genesis of the Niger forgery, the waterboarding lie about Saddam, AQ, and chem, the "dirty bomb" BS, and all the rest. Simple truth... WH knows Senate won't pass war bill without WMD. WH invents WMD hoax later in 2004, with the urgent need to buy off the senior vote... WH knows Senate won't socialize senior drugs if actual cost estimate becomes public WH threatens actuary to "shut up or else" and lies to the US Congress to SOCIALIZE SENIOR DRUGS THAT is the PATTERN... See you start to tie it all together with the Saddam stuff but then you get all upset about waiting in line for Viagra again. Geez just mail order it and plan ahead a little. No pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The pattern continues... who would have motive to lie to start a war between the US and Iraq??? Perhaps those most in favor of a US invasion of Iraq in 1992??? Perhaps those most supportive of Bill Clinton in 1992, because they must have been "conservatives..." just like W was "conservative..." ... http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39582425/ns/today-books/ "Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger’s table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day. During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection. At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?” The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can ...” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face. “You can?” was the excited reply. “Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.” “No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.” " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Why did this turn in to a debate about Bush's War vs. Obama's War? They were both wrong. Bush went in, albeit with good sources, believing WMD's were present in Iraq but never found to have ever been there. Obama went in without clearing it through Congress because he is believing that a 3rd world country posed a threat to this country Even Clinton before both of them had blunders in Somolia...1st Bush in Iraq v1.0...Reagan and the whole Cold War thing was freaking scary from what I have read. Two wrongs does not make either right and just because "Bush lied to us" or "Obama didn't follow the Constitution" does not make it just to offset the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) "Bush went in, albeit with good sources, believing WMD's were present " In the desperate attempts to continue to push that obvious lie, one thing is clear. Nobody still defending W has any concern about the United States at all. All such people care about is using the US military to wipe out all of Israel's enemies who had nothing to do with 911, while those behind 911 were "not a priority." They don't care about truth. They don't care about what W did to the deployment in Afghan by flipping off Northern Alliance. And they don't care how many Americans die, or how much money the US loses. They just want Israel to re-conquer the Promised Land, and absolutely positively nothing else matters to them at all... The one and only one thing W understood about invading Iraq was that it would give his 04 campaign the money and favorable media coverage that was 100% for Bill Clinton in 1992. W didn't even bother to find out that there were Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, according to multiple people from inside the WH. W didn't care about minor details like that. W would be a "liberator" and the media and money would make him a "better President" than daddy Bush because W would get re-elected... as long as the ISrael Lobby was behind him, which is why W really did nothing but sell out to the Israel lobby for eight years, capping it off with a $7 trillion hand out for Choose 'em Ben Bernanke to give to his pals around the globe... W promised during the 2000 campaign and before, to the likes of RUPERT MURDOCH, that no matter what, if W wins in 2000, the US invades Iraq. That is why FIXED was so for W and against McCain and others in 2000. But lie the W supporters will. That's pretty much all they ever do, lie and sell out America, and watch our "news media" lie to cover for that... every time they say Iraq was about OIL not ISRAEL... Edited March 23, 2011 by Dexter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 "Bush went in, albeit with good sources, believing WMD's were present " In the desperate attempts to continue to push that obvious lie, one thing is clear. Nobody still defending W has any concern about the United States at all. All such people care about is using the US military to wipe out all of Israel's enemies who had nothing to do with 911, while those behind 911 were "not a priority." They don't care about truth. They don't care about what W did to the deployment in Afghan by flipping off Northern Alliance. And they don't care how many Americans die, or how much money the US loses. They just want Israel to re-conquer the Promised Land, and absolutely positively nothing else matters to them at all... The one and only one thing W understood about invading Iraq was that it would give his 04 campaign the money and favorable media coverage that was 100% for Bill Clinton in 1992. W didn't even bother to find out that there were Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, according to multiple people from inside the WH. W didn't care about minor details like that. W would be a "liberator" and the media and money would make him a "better President" than daddy Bush because W would get re-elected... as long as the ISrael Lobby was behind him, which is why W really did nothing but sell out to the Israel lobby for eight years, capping it off with a $7 trillion hand out for Choose 'em Ben Bernanke to give to his pals around the globe... W promised during the 2000 campaign and before, to the likes of RUPERT MURDOCH, that no matter what, if W wins in 2000, the US invades Iraq. That is why FIXED was so for W and against McCain and others in 2000. But lie the W supporters will. That's pretty much all they ever do, lie and sell out America, and watch our "news media" lie to cover for that... every time they say Iraq was about OIL not ISRAEL... Sounds like you're just now understanding politics... Obama is doing what other presidents have done so many times and will likely use this to find success in 2012. I really can see this guy winning again...Yes we can...even though no on will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Trying to equivocate by saying, oh well, W was awful, but Obama is worse... doesn't cut it. Obama's worst crime so far from my view is using our money to bribe Senators to vote for his health care in a manner never seen before to that scale. But that isn't flipping off Northern Alliance with our troops in Afghan, intentionally lying to sell out more troops in Iraq, all for the goal of getting yourself re-elected, and precisely nothing other than that... Until you come clean on W, you aren't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Why did this turn in to a debate about Bush's War vs. Obama's War? They were both wrong. Bush went in, albeit with good sources, believing WMD's were present in Iraq but never found to have ever been there. Obama went in without clearing it through Congress because he is believing that a 3rd world country posed a threat to this country Even Clinton before both of them had blunders in Somolia...1st Bush in Iraq v1.0...Reagan and the whole Cold War thing was freaking scary from what I have read. Two wrongs does not make either right and just because "Bush lied to us" or "Obama didn't follow the Constitution" does not make it just to offset the other. Where'd "Obama didn't follow the Constitution" come from? What dolts are saying that? Obama has authorization to commit the armed forces to a conflict without Congressional approval under the War Powers act. While the act itself may be unconstitutional, and is routinely abused, Obama's well within the bounds of established law and precedent for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Where'd "Obama didn't follow the Constitution" come from? What dolts are saying that? Obama has authorization to commit the armed forces to a conflict without Congressional approval under the War Powers act. While the act itself may be unconstitutional, and is routinely abused, Obama's well within the bounds of established law and precedent for once. I beleive that people trying to use Obama's words from his campaign trail against him. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/candidate-obama-vs-president-obama-a-message-on-the-use-of-military-force/ 2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?) The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 It is indisputably true that WMD's were not present in Iraq when Iraq was invaded. It is also true that such disparate stakeholders, from Israeli to Russian to Islamic interests, believed and/or purported to believe that WMD's were present. In short a scenario Oliver Stone would find worthy of film-epic. When they knew that what they thought to be true was in fact not true is when a lie begins. , "Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I beleive that people trying to use Obama's words from his campaign trail against him. http://www.outsideth...military-force/ .........and then Biden said this... Yes I know Biden's a nutcase, but still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 "Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts." One of the things our "US media" does is BLUR US and UN, and this is a classic example. Saddam, post Gulf War, was a UN "problem," not a US problem. Our "US media" kept suggesting otherwise. The UN said Saddam didn't have WMD. That should have been the end of the discussion. Not that the UN is omniscient, but rather that it wasn't the US' problem AT ALL. If the UN has a problem with Saddam, it can ask the US for help. The UN wasn't asking, because Saddam wasn't a problem. He was a toothless non-problem, just as he was in 1998 when the Zionist Lobby tried to bully General Shelton to fly a U2 "low enough and slow enough for (THREAT) Saddam to hit it..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Trying to equivocate by saying, oh well, W was awful, but Obama is worse... doesn't cut it. Obama's worst crime so far from my view is using our money to bribe Senators to vote for his health care in a manner never seen before to that scale. But that isn't flipping off Northern Alliance with our troops in Afghan, intentionally lying to sell out more troops in Iraq, all for the goal of getting yourself re-elected, and precisely nothing other than that... Until you come clean on W, you aren't... Both are wrong. Saying one is more wrong is not possible or fair because history will tell us more. No politician is ever perfect. Where'd "Obama didn't follow the Constitution" come from? What dolts are saying that? Dennis Kucinich was maybe the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 No. You have indisputable .knowledge of your phones existenc. My word choice- indisputable- was based upon the mistaken assumption that even those who professed WMD existed in Iraq have largely recanted. Don't I also have indisputable knowledge that Iraq did in fact have and use chemical weapons at some point prior to the war? Also, how can it be 'indisputable' if the pre-war WMD sources have only 'largely' recanted? And who's to say all those sources have been polled on the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Don't I also have indisputable knowledge that Iraq did in fact have and use chemical weapons at some point prior to the war? Also, how can it be 'indisputable' if the pre-war WMD sources have only 'largely' recanted? And who's to say all those sources have been polled on the question? The UN Gulf War put the UN in charge of Saddam. That Saddam used sarin and possessed yellowcake in 1992 was common knowledge. That is not to be used to deliberately "fog" the debate of the the issue. The issue starts with why the US would care about Saddam and WMD in 2001, when Saddam's UN containment had indeed contained Saddam since Gulf War ended. The UN reported that Saddam's yellowcake was still were it was in 1992, that Saddam still did not have a brand new billion dollar centrifuge to enrich that yellowcake, and hence that yellowcake was not a "threat" to anyone not playing sandbox with it. Sarin gas is not a good weapon, which is why AQ never uses it. Sarin requires air superiority and pinning your opponent in some sort of valley, since the gas is "heavy" and "sinks." If you don't have air superiority, you dare not use sarin like Saddam in artillery shells less one of your convoys gets hit... and the Sarin goes off in your back yard. EVERY PEEP about Saddam and Osama being anything but bitter lifestyle opposites who wanted each other dead and WMD was 100% pure manufactured treason designed for W to tell us all "I'm a War President" in 2004... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I've never taken a hard stand on the Iraq war, because despite being far more informed than your average activist, I'm aware that I don't know enough to make but so educated an assessment, but a few possibilities outside the fear of WMDs or to further purely Israeli interests have occurred to me. Is it not possible that we saw Iran as the real enemy, we'd already taken Afghanistan, and by taking out Saddam we'd have a presence on the east and west of Iran to squeeze them if necessary? And to introduce a semi-free state in the region in hopes of encouraging a revolt by the people in neighboring countries, including Iran, to achieve the same freedom they would theoretically see going on in Iraq? On the humanitarian front, Saddam was a brutal dictator killing off Iraqis at his convenience, so from a utilitarian standpoint the net loss of Iraqi life may be lessened in the long run. I'm not arguing that it was or wasn't the right move, because even with the aid of Captain Hindsight, it's impossible to know how things would have unfolded had we taken a different course of (or no) action; but is that not a possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts