Lies and damn lies

[DC Tom]

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?

 

Also reduces the need for stationing troops on the Saudi peninsula - one of al Qaeda's common complaints.

[Dexter]

I've never taken a hard stand on the Iraq war, because despite being far more informed than your average activist - COUGH COUGH!!! 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?

 

 

 

Indeed, the level of idiocy you display outs you fully.

 

Iran, in 2001, was not a US concern at all either. Iran had done nothing of concern to the US since the hostages, which were all about US support for the Shah, a Shia version of Saddam. Notice, too, that unlike Sunni radicals, the Shia radicals in Iran gave us back our hostages with their heads attached.

 

Iran, on 911, was actually the enemy of our enemy, Al Qaeda. Iran was arming and funding THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE (TNA) in Afghanistan, which was at war on 9/10, 9/11, and 9/12 with Taliban and their special terror force Al Qaeda. Iran had twice elected about as moderate a leader as their electorate is capable of electing, Rafsanjani, an Ahmadinejad oppponent (Raf's daughter was arrested by Ahmadinejad).

 

The US position on Iran post 911 should have been to conspire with Iran to off those behind 911, and to do everything possible to make sure no harm comes to Raf, because the other side of the political spectrum in Iran is Ahmad, and we, the US, would prefer Raf to Ahmad.

 

That clashed with W's desire to suck up and sell out in any way possible to get that cash and media coverage. The flip off of Rafsanjani's Iran with "axis of evil" remains one of the worst and dumbest acts of treason in US history. It completely destroyed our credibility in the region, as it proved to every sane and intelligent life form that W did not want to off Al Qaeda, but rather Iran, those trying to off Al Qaeda, because all W cared about was Israel, and Israel did not want Iran's ally TNA to take Afghan, so sell out our troops and national interest W did...

[3rdnlng]

Indeed, the level of idiocy you display outs you fully.

 

Iran, in 2001, was not a US concern at all either. Iran had done nothing of concern to the US since the hostages, which were all about US support for the Shah, a Shia version of Saddam. Notice, too, that unlike Sunni radicals, the Shia radicals in Iran gave us back our hostages with their heads attached.

 

Iran, on 911, was actually the enemy of our enemy, Al Qaeda. Iran was arming and funding THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE (TNA) in Afghanistan, which was at war on 9/10, 9/11, and 9/12 with Taliban and their special terror force Al Qaeda. Iran had twice elected about as moderate a leader as their electorate is capable of electing, Rafsanjani, an Ahmadinejad oppponent (Raf's daughter was arrested by Ahmadinejad).

 

The US position on Iran post 911 should have been to conspire with Iran to off those behind 911, and to do everything possible to make sure no harm comes to Raf, because the other side of the political spectrum in Iran is Ahmad, and we, the US, would prefer Raf to Ahmad.

 

That clashed with W's desire to suck up and sell out in any way possible to get that cash and media coverage. The flip off of Rafsanjani's Iran with "axis of evil" remains one of the worst and dumbest acts of treason in US history. It completely destroyed our credibility in the region, as it proved to every sane and intelligent life form that W did not want to off Al Qaeda, but rather Iran, those trying to off Al Qaeda, because all W cared about was Israel, and Israel did not want Iran's ally TNA to take Afghan, so sell out our troops and national interest W did...

 

 

Are you really Al Gore or John Kerry?

[Dexter]

Are you really Al Gore or John Kerry?

 

 

Indeed, to read my posts and conclude that takes the level of idiocy and delusion required to call W a "conservative."

 

 

Our threat, the US' threat, was Al Qaeda, not those trying to off Al Qaeda.

 

That is where US national interest clashed with Israeli interests. Israel hates Iran. Hence, the "US media" hates Iran. Hence, treasonous sub human birdbrains think the US should go after Iran... and never whined as those behind 911 were made "not a priority" and those at war with them were called "evil" by the treasonous Decider...

[....lybob]

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.

,

If anyone knows about Curveball - you know that either people were lying liars, or intelligence agents should be paid much less than teachers.

[3rdnlng]

Indeed, to read my posts and conclude that takes the level of idiocy and delusion required to call W a "conservative."

 

 

Our threat, the US' threat, was Al Qaeda, not those trying to off Al Qaeda.

 

That is where US national interest clashed with Israeli interests. Israel hates Iran. Hence, the "US media" hates Iran. Hence, treasonous sub human birdbrains think the US should go after Iran... and never whined as those behind 911 were made "not a priority" and those at war with them were called "evil" by the treasonous Decider...

 

I certainly didn't mean because of your philosophy but because of your unbridled hatred of "W".

Edited March 23, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[Dexter]

W harmed our country, the United States.

 

By outporking, outsocializing, and outspending Jimmy Catta with a Dem Congress, W took a superpower with a surplus and a strong economy and returned a depression and a trillion dollar deficit, violating every principle of fiscal conservatism in the process.

 

W made those behind 911 "not a priority," sent way too few after them, flipped off those at war with them, and then lied to sell out our troops in Iraq, which gave the not a priority their greatest ever recruiting class. Hence, Osama and Al Qaeda are still alive, and Taliban is still very strong in Afghan and Pakistan.

 

 

Everyone who cares about the United States hates W.

 

Everyone who doesn't care at all about the US, or hates the US, still heaps praise on him, and tries to excuse the lies and treason he performed in office in the process of wrecking the US beyond recognition.

[Rob's House]

Indeed, the level of idiocy you display outs you fully.

 

Iran, in 2001, was not a US concern at all either. Iran had done nothing of concern to the US since the hostages, which were all about US support for the Shah, a Shia version of Saddam. Notice, too, that unlike Sunni radicals, the Shia radicals in Iran gave us back our hostages with their heads attached.

 

Iran, on 911, was actually the enemy of our enemy, Al Qaeda. Iran was arming and funding THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE (TNA) in Afghanistan, which was at war on 9/10, 9/11, and 9/12 with Taliban and their special terror force Al Qaeda. Iran had twice elected about as moderate a leader as their electorate is capable of electing, Rafsanjani, an Ahmadinejad oppponent (Raf's daughter was arrested by Ahmadinejad).

 

The US position on Iran post 911 should have been to conspire with Iran to off those behind 911, and to do everything possible to make sure no harm comes to Raf, because the other side of the political spectrum in Iran is Ahmad, and we, the US, would prefer Raf to Ahmad.

 

That clashed with W's desire to suck up and sell out in any way possible to get that cash and media coverage. The flip off of Rafsanjani's Iran with "axis of evil" remains one of the worst and dumbest acts of treason in US history. It completely destroyed our credibility in the region, as it proved to every sane and intelligent life form that W did not want to off Al Qaeda, but rather Iran, those trying to off Al Qaeda, because all W cared about was Israel, and Israel did not want Iran's ally TNA to take Afghan, so sell out our troops and national interest W did...

How foolish of me to think there might be concerns of middle eastern terrorism outside the realm of Al Qaeda. I have to concede, there is nothing quite so idiotic as admitting one's own uncertainty. You, on the other hand, despite coming off as having the mental stability of one who defecates in the bed and rolls around in it, have the where with all to rant and rave with the utmost certainty that everything you believe is absolute truth, which is the height of brilliance. And I want to thank you for showing me the error of my ways, and helping me to realize I should subscribe to a myopic world view in which everything can be pigeon-holed into categorical absolutes to make me feel secure about the unknown.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Rob's House

[Dexter]

"How foolish of me to think there might be concerns of middle eastern terrorism outside the realm of Al Qaeda."

 

 

LOL!!

 

Because "you" did not think it, you PARROTED it. You got non-stop FIXED "the terrorists, islamofascists, radical jihadis," and when asked why we invaded Iraq, your answer was "radical Islam," because you failed to notice Saddam was not islamic, because YOU DON'T THINK, RATHER YOU PARROT EVERY ZIONIST LIE FIXED SERVES UP...

 

This is the United States. If you are obsessed with "terror" in another country, then move there and sign up to fight it THERE.

 

WE do not exist to fight another country's "terror" in a UN violating occupied territory.

 

 

 

What W did, and what your birdbrain cheers, was the total sellout of US troops and US national interest. In the endless quest to do something other than to fess that you are a SUB HUMAN with NO UNDERSTANDING of the Middle East other than PARROTING FIXED AND PASTOR, and that every lie you parroted about Iraq is "ho-hum, don't bother me..." you try to equivocate and speculate, and you out yourself more and more...

 

 

maybe that "expert" W had a plan to get Iran... because Iran under Rafsanjani was our real enemy... never mind they were trying to off Osama and AQ on 910...

 

 

At some point, you have an obligation to ask WHY all the prior parroting about Iraq ended up proven 100% false, and to "ponder" the possibility that it was something other than just an "honest mistake" by a "good man" because my BIRDBRAIN has PARROTED "good man W" over and over, because my pastor and FIXED call him that, so that is "my opinion" of a man I never met... who told me "I'm a WAR PRESIDENT!!!"

[GelMibson]

"How foolish of me to think there might be concerns of middle eastern terrorism outside the realm of Al Qaeda."

 

 

LOL!!

 

Because "you" did not think it, you PARROTED it. You got non-stop FIXED "the terrorists, islamofascists, radical jihadis," and when asked why we invaded Iraq, your answer was "radical Islam," because you failed to notice Saddam was not islamic, because YOU DON'T THINK, RATHER YOU PARROT EVERY ZIONIST LIE FIXED SERVES UP...

 

This is the United States. If you are obsessed with "terror" in another country, then move there and sign up to fight it THERE.

 

WE do not exist to fight another country's "terror" in a UN violating occupied territory.

 

 

 

What W did, and what your birdbrain cheers, was the total sellout of US troops and US national interest. In the endless quest to do something other than to fess that you are a SUB HUMAN with NO UNDERSTANDING of the Middle East other than PARROTING FIXED AND PASTOR, and that every lie you parroted about Iraq is "ho-hum, don't bother me..." you try to equivocate and speculate, and you out yourself more and more...

 

 

maybe that "expert" W had a plan to get Iran... because Iran under Rafsanjani was our real enemy... never mind they were trying to off Osama and AQ on 910...

 

 

At some point, you have an obligation to ask WHY all the prior parroting about Iraq ended up proven 100% false, and to "ponder" the possibility that it was something other than just an "honest mistake" by a "good man" because my BIRDBRAIN has PARROTED "good man W" over and over, because my pastor and FIXED call him that, so that is "my opinion" of a man I never met... who told me "I'm a WAR PRESIDENT!!!"

 

Those PARROTS and bird brain fake conservative don't understand the evils of Zionism like we do.

 

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t92649/

[LeviF]

Those PARROTS and bird brain fake conservative don't understand the evils of Zionism like we do.

 

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t92649/

A link to Stormfront, a brilliant capstone to a solid week of trolling, from "GelMibson." Awesome

[GelMibson]

A link to Stormfront, a brilliant capstone to a solid week of trolling, from "GelMibson." Awesome

 

You are brain dead and are guilty of TREASON. Any true PATRIOT would know that what I am saying is the TRUTH! You are a liberal disguised as a conservative but won't fight TERRORISM here in the US. Why don't you move to Israel and fight for the ZIONISTS?

[Dexter]

Indeed, we've seen a blizzard of cards, and now one of the card tossers is pretending to be Mel and a Storm front.

 

If you don't support intentional lies to manipulate the US to use the US military to wipe out Israel's enemies for no US national interest, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't parrot every lie from the "US media" supporting the FRAUD of Global (non) Warming, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't hate General Shelton for not cooperating with the Zionist Lobby by sacrificing a US U2 pilot to start a war with (threat) Saddam, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't think flipping off those at war with Al Qaeda on 910 911 and 912 was a great idea, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't support Israel's chosen "right" be the one and only one country on the planet outside its UN defined border, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

 

 

Any others???

 

I don't think Colin Ferguson could toss more cards than the Chosen...

 

Oh, of course...

 

if you don't support MUBARAK over the democratic uprising in Egypt, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

if you objected to making Osama Bin Laden "not a priority," then you are a member of Storm front.

 

if you don't think W was conservative, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

if you were unimpressed when W told the world "I'm a War President!!!" then you are a member of Storm front.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Dexter

[3rdnlng]

Indeed, we've seen a blizzard of cards, and now one of the card tossers is pretending to be Mel and a Storm front.

 

If you don't support intentional lies to manipulate the US to use the US military to wipe out Israel's enemies for no US national interest, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't parrot every lie from the "US media" supporting the FRAUD of Global (non) Warming, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't hate General Shelton for not cooperating with the Zionist Lobby by sacrificing a US U2 pilot to start a war with (threat) Saddam, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't think flipping off those at war with Al Qaeda on 910 911 and 912 was a great idea, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

If you don't support Israel's chosen "right" be the one and only one country on the planet outside its UN defined border, then you are a member of Storm front.

 

 

 

Any others???

 

I don't think Colin Ferguson could toss more cards than the Chosen...

 

 

Very Jeff Foxworthy of you. Not the content, but the delivery. You are the true Zion Tamer.

[beausox]

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...

1. When was the above known? 2. If "discovered after invasion" what is to be done? How does one extricate an Army? If the only salable excuse is WMD in Iraq then how does one explain Libya? 3. If oil is not a justifiable reason even though it is material sine qua non of industrial/post industrial well being.

 

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.

How is the Act abused? It is law, democratically arrived at, and if it is unconstitutional the Prez has more power and less need to seek Congress which still has authority to defund but rarely uses such.

[Alaska Darin]

The UN said Saddam didn't have WMD. That should have been the end of the discussion.

 

We had/have no business in Iraq, but the U.N.?

[DC Tom]

How is the Act abused? It is law, democratically arrived at, and if it is unconstitutional the Prez has more power and less need to seek Congress which still has authority to defund but rarely uses such.

 

It only allows the President to commit military forces to war in the event of a direct attack or "imminent threat", and it only allows 60 days without congressional approval.

 

Most of the time the first point is completely ignored (Grenada, Panama, Libya in the '80s...possibly Beruit, I don't recall). A couple of times, the second has been ignored too.

[Rob's House]

For someone so vehement about us minding our own business on the international scene, Dexter sure seems to advocate us playing the part of willing stooge/muscle for the U.N.

[beausox]

It only allows the President to commit military forces to war in the event of a direct attack or "imminent threat", and it only allows 60 days without congressional approval.

 

Most of the time the first point is completely ignored (Grenada, Panama, Libya in the '80s...possibly Beruit, I don't recall). A couple of times, the second has been ignored too.

Direct attack is clear...but imminent threat is open to interpretation...Grenada had a plausible side to it such that Americans were in danger. This was a convenient but nonetheless valid excuse given the Mid East is under seige.

I quite agree that it is ignored and the War Powers Act is not only unconstitutional but also bad law poorly written

[GelMibson]

For someone so vehement about us minding our own business on the international scene, Dexter sure seems to advocate us playing the part of willing stooge/muscle for the U.N.

 

Yes, but you forget that someone has to stand up to the ZIONISTS. If the US lets them have their way and continues to give them foreign aid then they will soon be our masters (if they already aren't). Dexter is just saying what most everybody is thinking.