Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on May 13, 2015, 05:47:23 AM
-
Jeb Bush Backpedals Again
Source: New York Times
Jeb Bush on Tuesday sought to arrest a chorus of criticism from Democrats and some conservatives after he told an interviewer that, knowing what history has since shown about intelligence failures, he still would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Calling in to Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Mr. Bush said he had misunderstood a question that one of Mr. Hannity’s Fox News colleagues, Megyn Kelly, had asked him in an interview shown on Sunday and Monday nights.
“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess,” Mr. Bush said. “I was talking about, given what people knew then.”
The attempt at mopping-up was quick, but it did not bring the controversy to an immediate end: When Mr. Hannity asked about the 2003 Iraq invasion again, in yes-or-no fashion, Mr. Bush said he did not know what the answer would have been, saying, “That’s a hypothetical.” Then, he seemed to go out of his way to absolve his brother, former President George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion: “Mistakes were made, as they always are in life,” Mr. Bush said
-
It's gonna be a long time before any member of that dynasty has a chance at any high office.
-
my theory on jeb... he was a brilliant man.
But he's been out of office for almost a decade. And he readily admits that for the 1st half of his life, he was an avid pot smoker.
Seeing the way he's gone from brilliant at age 54, to quite a step slower at age 62... Well, I think he retired from office and starting blazing daily once again. Why the heck not? Rich people get it medically without a problem, so if he wants it, he would have it. He likes it, he harms nobody buy himself, so maybe he chose to indulge.
He's just not the decisive, confident and overall brilliant man that he was when he was Governor. Maybe it's age too. But the 2000 version of Jeb would be destroying the field. Not anymore.
-
Jeb Bush Backpedals Again
Source: New York Times
Jeb Bush on Tuesday sought to arrest a chorus of criticism from Democrats and some conservatives after he told an interviewer that, knowing what history has since shown about intelligence failures, he still would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Calling in to Sean Hannity’s syndicated radio show, Mr. Bush said he had misunderstood a question that one of Mr. Hannity’s Fox News colleagues, Megyn Kelly, had asked him in an interview shown on Sunday and Monday nights.
“I interpreted the question wrong, I guess,” Mr. Bush said. “I was talking about, given what people knew then.”
The attempt at mopping-up was quick, but it did not bring the controversy to an immediate end: When Mr. Hannity asked about the 2003 Iraq invasion again, in yes-or-no fashion, Mr. Bush said he did not know what the answer would have been, saying, “That’s a hypothetical.” Then, he seemed to go out of his way to absolve his brother, former President George W. Bush, who ordered the invasion: “Mistakes were made, as they always are in life,” Mr. Bush said
how exactly did he misunderstand this question?
-
my theory on jeb... he was a brilliant man.
But he's been out of office for almost a decade. And he readily admits that for the 1st half of his life, he was an avid pot smoker.
Seeing the way he's gone from brilliant at age 54, to quite a step slower at age 62... Well, I think he retired from office and starting blazing daily once again. Why the heck not? Rich people get it medically without a problem, so if he wants it, he would have it. He likes it, he harms nobody buy himself, so maybe he chose to indulge.
He's just not the decisive, confident and overall brilliant man that he was when he was Governor. Maybe it's age too. But the 2000 version of Jeb would be destroying the field. Not anymore.
Jeb is gonna win the presidency. The current president is a choomer. I see a pattern.
-
how exactly did he misunderstand this question?
i miss the idiot kneepadders on getbig that would chime in to explain away Jeb's position here.
ah, the good old days when people would defend anything. The new level of common sense shown here is nice. Of course, once jeb is the candidate (i sure hope not), they'll defend this statement on his part.
Pretty cut and dry Q... funny that when hannity asked for a Yes or NO, he couldn't/wouldn't answer it.
-
It's gonna be a long time before any member of that dynasty has a chance at any high office.
If the big money gets behind him he's probably going to win, unfortunately.
-
how exactly did he misunderstand this question?
It's called giving the wrong answer... having it blow up in your face... and then trying to rescue yourself from oblivion. Even GOP opponents and pundits think he screwed up royally. "misunderstood the question"? Yeah. Right. Bah!
On Iraq question, Jeb Bush stumbles and the GOP hopefuls pounce
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-iraq-question-jeb-bush-stumbles-and-his-gop-rivals-pounce/2015/05/13/05dccac4-f97c-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html
-
how exactly did he misunderstand this question?
Maybe he mis-spoke too
-
Maybe he mis-spoke too
I think he just did the usual politician thing and answered the question he preferred to have heard instead.
The interviewer should have called him on it at the time rather than giving him a pass
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/13/hillary-clinton-has-answered-13-questions-in-31-days/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/13/hillary-clinton-has-answered-13-questions-in-31-days/
when my local congressman Curt Clawson (R) started with a lead in his race polls - and refused to debate the dem in order to preserve that lead - my local FOX news morning show laughed and called it a great idea.
when hilary refuses to screw up her lead - while shitty and unsportsmanlike, and something I do not like - is that any different?
-
when my local congressman Curt Clawson (R) started with a lead in his race polls - and refused to debate the dem in order to preserve that lead - my local FOX news morning show laughed and called it a great idea.
when hilary refuses to screw up her lead - while shitty and unsportsmanlike, and something I do not like - is that any different?
I have no idea who curt clawson is. Neither does 99.9% of America. I'm sorry, what was your point again?
-
I have no idea who curt clawson is. Neither does 99.9% of America. I'm sorry, what was your point again?
he's one of the top bright repubs in congress, a true conservative that has called out boehnner for his bullshit.
he was the first one to call out Boehnner for the secret deal with obama/reid on the budget to undermine the new Repub senate - and he was right.
Maybe the freakin problem with the GOP is that you're bragging you and 99.9% of the USA has no idea who clawson is, when he's one of the bright minds that is the future of the conservative movement. You're actually gloating to be unaware of one of the only repubs that gives a shit about stopping the obama/boehnner bullshit.
That's my point. Again.
-
If the big money gets behind him he's probably going to win, unfortunately.
Hillary has it locked up. The electoral votes favor a liberal piece of trash.
Jeb's a scumbag, just like his father & brother W.
-
The interviewer should have called him on it at the time rather than giving him a pass
If it's Hannity in question, you can expect any fellow Republican to get a pass.
I hate to say it, but I think Hillary will be our next - and possibly last - President.
-
Hillary has it locked up. The electoral votes favor a liberal piece of trash.
Jeb's a scumbag, just like his father & brother W.
I'm talking about the GOP nomination, not the general.
-
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003
Yeah. we should elect her.
-
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
-
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
again, jeb saying "me and hilary BOTH made the same mistake" is terrible.
Mainly because Hilary admits she got it wrong, and wouldn't vote for it, if given the chance again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/
Jeb? Well, he would. BIG difference, when it's time to invade Iran or Syria.
-
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
again, hilary admits it was her fckup to support that war, and that she wouldn't do it again, if given that chance.
Jeb only reinforces this... some people learn from mistakes they supported - and some do not.
-
again, hilary admits it was her fckup to support that war, and that she wouldn't do it again, if given that chance.
Jeb only reinforces this... some people learn from mistakes they supported - and some do not.
OK. but weren't we all saying that the war was for oil? That Bush and the evil Republicans fabricated evidence to support it for nefarious reasons?
She had followed this closely for 10 years she said. She had carefully reviewed all the evidence. Most of those years under Bill's presidency. Was that evidence fabricated? Doesn't this mean she was behind the fabrications? I just don't get how Bush can be accused of fabricating a war and she can only be accused of an error in judgment.
As a person who doesn't care about politics I just want to know some of the truth. Please help me understand this.
As far as i can tell the arguments posed by hard left liberals about the Iraq war conveniently leave out these details simply because it doesn't suit their argument that Republicans love war and Democrats don't. You cannot expect a rational mind to not be utterly confused by the arguments set forth by Bush opponents. The facts simply do not add up. But no one cares. Point to evidence that supports your theory, disregard everything else. Because social issues trump facts.
RIDICULOUS.
-
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Nooooooo. Not those pesky facts again.
-
OK. but weren't we all saying that the war was for oil? That Bush and the evil Republicans fabricated evidence to support it for nefarious reasons?
She had followed this closely for 10 years she said. She had carefully reviewed all the evidence. Most of those years under Bill's presidency. Was that evidence fabricated? Doesn't this mean she was behind the fabrications? I just don't get how Bush can be accused of fabricating a war and she can only be accused of an error in judgment.
As a person who doesn't care about politics I just want to know some of the truth. Please help me understand this.
As far as i can tell the arguments posed by hard left liberals about the Iraq war conveniently leave out these details simply because it doesn't suit their argument that Republicans love war and Democrats don't. You cannot expect a rational mind to not be utterly confused by the arguments set forth by Bush opponents. The facts simply do not add up. But no one cares. Point to evidence that supports your theory, disregard everything else. Because social issues trump facts.
RIDICULOUS.
again, you want to make this "but hilary said..."
hilary admits the war was a mistake, and Jeb does not.
that is what matters here. When the next big war comes against syria or Iran, hilary is more likely to say NO. Jeb, on the other hand, will charge right in.
-
Nooooooo. Not those pesky facts again.
I'm not opposed to believing in a conspiracy theory. I'm quite certain there are things every day that go on behind closed doors in Washington that the public doesn't know about. What I cannot tolerate is the conspiracy theorists who cherry pick who they want to make look bad based on their politics with a complete and utter disregard for any facts that toe their political line. It insults our intelligence. And no one cares.
-
again, you want to make this "but hilary said..."
hilary admits the war was a mistake, and Jeb does not.
that is what matters here. When the next big war comes against syria or Iran, hilary is more likely to say NO. Jeb, on the other hand, will charge right in.
but it wasn't a mistake. it was a fabricated war for the purpose of gaining a strong hold on Iraq's oil no matter what the cost in human lives. And Hillary voted for it......and cast her vote with conviction. And she knew all the details. She had been monitoring it closely for over 10 years. her words.
I'm sorry but liberals just can't have it both ways. either it was a mistake by Bush, Hillary and countless others........or it was a fabricated war for oil by Bush, Hillary and countless others.
-
but it wasn't a mistake. it was a fabricated war for the purpose of gaining a strong hold on Iraq's oil no matter what the cost in human lives. And Hillary voted for it......and cast her vote with conviction. And she knew all the details. She had been monitoring it closely for over 10 years. her words.
I'm sorry but liberals just can't have it both ways. either it was a mistake by Bush, Hillary and countless others........or it was a fabricated war for oil by Bush, Hillary and countless others.
only problem with your theory is that it wasn't the Hillary Clinton administration or the Dems that fabricated the "evidence" to instigate the war
-
only problem with your theory is that it wasn't the Hillary Clinton administration or the Dems that fabricated the "evidence" to instigate the war
if you're saying that it was a fabricated war for oil how could you say that? Was she brainwashed by Bush and the Republicans? She had been following this issue for over 10 years when she said that. 7-8 years before Bush was even in office. So if there was a fabrication of evidence of course it was fabricated by her.
What you're saying any rational person without an agenda could not possibly believe. it just simply doesn't make sense. as most conspiracy theories don't when looked at with even the slightest bit of objectivity.
-
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
if what you said was true this would simply have to be a lie.
-
Hillary voted in favor of invading Iraq.
I think the real "conspiracy", lies in the fact that the phony intelligence pointed toward Saddam having anything to do with 9/11.
-
but it wasn't a mistake. it was a fabricated war for the purpose of gaining a strong hold on Iraq's oil no matter what the cost in human lives. And Hillary voted for it......and cast her vote with conviction. And she knew all the details. She had been monitoring it closely for over 10 years. her words.
I'm sorry but liberals just can't have it both ways. either it was a mistake by Bush, Hillary and countless others........or it was a fabricated war for oil by Bush, Hillary and countless others.
You are making the case that Bush, Cheney and Powell created a major lie, and sold it to the democrats.
They were stupid enough to have faith in a republican? That is what you're saying? They were dumb enough to believe a repub who said the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud?
You are painting Hilary as a gullible victim who has since learned not to believe faulty republcan lies. ???
-
You are making the case that Bush, Cheney and Powell created a major lie, and sold it to the democrats.
They were stupid enough to have faith in a republican? That is what you're saying? They were dumb enough to believe a repub who said the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud?
You are painting Hilary as a gullible victim who has since learned not to believe faulty republcan lies. ???
Hillary, with her experience, should not be so gullible.
-
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
this quote is from Sept 2002?
And yes, they DID receive the UN inspections they wanted, months AFTER this quote was made, in feb 2003?
either way, you make a great point. Repubs made up this war lie, and dems were dumb enouogh to believe it.
It's 2015 now, and Jeb still wants to beleive that Iraq lie. others, like hilary, do not.
She doesn't get my vote, I cannot stand her, but for the argument on this thread, jeb looks pretty bad.
-
Hillary, with her experience, should not be so gullible.
in 2003, the only people doubting the "official" story on WMD and iraq were conspiracy theorists, remember? :)
-
You are making the case that Bush, Cheney and Powell created a major lie, and sold it to the democrats.
They were stupid enough to have faith in a republican? That is what you're saying? They were dumb enough to believe a repub who said the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud?
You are painting Hilary as a gullible victim who has since learned not to believe faulty republcan lies. ???
she had been closely monitoring this situation for over 10 years.....SHE SAID. so during her husband's presidency. The Clinton administration was saying the same shit all during the 90's. The theory that Democrats were "tricked" by the Bush administration just doesn't hold water based on ..................facts.
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
-
she had been closely monitoring this situation for over 10 years.....SHE SAID. so during her husband's presidency. The Clinton administration was saying the same shit all during the 90's. The theory that Democrats were "tricked" by the Bush administration just doesn't hold water based on ..................facts.
"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."
Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998
again, the pre-Feb 2002 quotes were all nullified by the UN inspections.
The whole "even though we didn't find WMD with UN inspections, we should STILL invade" was the nice Bush/Cheney invention that dems fell for.
-
again, the pre-Feb 2002 quotes were all nullified by the UN inspections.
The whole "even though we didn't find WMD with UN inspections, we should STILL invade" was the nice Bush/Cheney invention that dems fell for.
OK but the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Clinton in 1998. And it specifically stated,
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
because Clinton at that time....before Bush was even in office.......believed Sadaam had WMD's as well.
And it was my understanding that the 2003 UN inspection was greatly limited by Sadaam's regime not cooperating and that's when we wanted to attack. I'm not certain of this but I thought that's how I remembered it.
-
if you're saying that it was a fabricated war for oil how could you say that? Was she brainwashed by Bush and the Republicans? She had been following this issue for over 10 years when she said that. 7-8 years before Bush was even in office. So if there was a fabrication of evidence of course it was fabricated by her.
What you're saying any rational person without an agenda could not possibly believe. it just simply doesn't make sense. as most conspiracy theories don't when looked at with even the slightest bit of objectivity.
fabricated war ...yes
I don't know the reason but we don't seem to have gotten much oil
If I had to guess a reason it would be to loot the Treasury of TRILLIONS to enrich various business interests (and shit maybe even drive up the price of oil)
regarding how Hillary and the Dems got duped (along with the rest of the country) it's pretty well documented
there was also that thing that happened on 9-11-2001 that clouded a lot of peoples common sense
-
OK but the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Clinton in 1998. And it specifically stated,
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
because Clinton at that time....before Bush was even in office.......believed Sadaam had WMD's as well.
And it was my understanding that the 2003 UN inspection was greatly limited by Sadaam's regime not cooperating and that's when we wanted to attack. I'm not certain of this but I thought that's how I remembered it.
turns out they were both wrong but Clinton didn't fabricate the "evidence" when he couldn't find any
-
turns out they were both wrong but Clinton didn't fabricate the "evidence" when he couldn't find any
there's no solid proof that the Bush administration did either. That's just something liberals say to displace blame. Again, it's just way too convenient Everyone (Republicans Democrats) thought the same thing about Sadaam from 1992 to 2003. And you're right China and Russia ended up winning the rights to all the Iraqi oil anyway so it didn't work out.
-
there's no solid proof that the Bush administration did either. That's just something liberals say to displace blame. Again, it's just way too convenient Everyone (Republicans Democrats) thought the same thing about Sadaam from 1992 to 2003. And you're right China and Russia ended up winning the rights to all the Iraqi oil anyway so it didn't work out.
clinton didn't invade iraq over fabricated evidence - Bush did.
and we all remember Donald Rumsfeld and the famous "any evidence iraq was involved with 9/11, real or otherwise" ???
-
clinton didn't invade iraq over fabricated evidence - Bush did.
and we all remember Donald Rumsfeld and the famous "any evidence iraq was involved with 9/11, real or otherwise" ???
You can believe that fine. But if you do you also have to accept the fact that Clinton helped fabricate that evidence for the Bush administration. She was in on this as well. she says it herself on numerous occasions. Like I said before I can accept conspiracy theories. I cannot accept the absolute disregard for FACTS. You want it both ways and I simply won't let you have it both ways. because it lacks all logic and disregards 100's of FACTS. but you've been told this lie over and over and over again until it became truth to you.
your theory simply doesn't hold water. and I tend to think you know. you seem to get all stoic when slapped with facts and logic and fall back on "clinton didn't invade iraq over fabricated evidence - Bush did." because that's simply what you feel like you're supposed to believe because its been drilled into your head over and over again on tv and snarky documentaries.
i'm not going to change your mind. I know. which is scary considering the facts I laid out but to each his own.
-
You can believe that fine. But if you do you also have to accept the fact that Clinton helped fabricate that evidence for the Bush administration. She was in on this as well. she says it herself on numerous occasions. Like I said before I can accept conspiracy theories. I cannot accept the absolute disregard for FACTS. You want it both ways and I simply won't let you have it both ways. because it lacks all logic and disregards 100's of FACTS. but you've been told this lie over and over and over again until it became truth to you.
your theory simply doesn't hold water. and I tend to think you know. you seem to get all stoic when slapped with facts and logic and fall back on "clinton didn't invade iraq over fabricated evidence - Bush did." because that's simply what you feel like you're supposed to believe because its been drilled into your head over and over again on tv and snarky documentaries.
i'm not going to change your mind. I know. which is scary considering the facts I laid out but to each his own.
please provide some quotes
I'm sure her Republican opponents (who no doubt read this board) will appreciate it too
-
please provide some quotes
I'm sure her Republican opponents (who no doubt read this board) will appreciate it too
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
how can you just dismiss the fact that she said all of this? she very plainly says that she had been following the actions of Sadaam for over a decade, 7-8 years before Bush was even in office. She says her vote was based upon her over decade long research in to Sadaam and the opinions of people (Republican and Democrat) who she trusted and that she "cast her vote with conviction".
If she said all this, how can you believe that if there was a conspiracy that she was not in on it? She had been working on capturing Sadaam well before Bush was in the picture.
Why would Bill Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which clearly stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime if this was all a fabrication?
What the fuck happened between 1998 and 2002 to make this go from absolute truth to a complete fabrication?
Again, the fact that you accuse Bush of fabricating a war yet only accuse Hillary of an "error" is beyond ridiculous and is an argument I would expect to hear from a snot nosed freshman in college somewhere being inundated with liberal ideology by the TA she has a crush on.
-
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
1998 - clear evidence of a WMD program
2003 - WMD program is a complete fabrication
very simple question .. IS THIS WHAT YOU BELIEVE?
-
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
how can you just dismiss the fact that she said all of this? she very plainly says that she had been following the actions of Sadaam for over a decade, 7-8 years before Bush was even in office. She says her vote was based upon her over decade long research in to Sadaam and the opinions of people (Republican and Democrat) who she trusted and that she "cast her vote with conviction".
If she said all this, how can you believe that if there was a conspiracy that she was not in on it? She had been working on capturing Sadaam well before Bush was in the picture.
Why would Bill Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which clearly stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime if this was all a fabrication?
What the fuck happened between 1998 and 2002 to make this go from absolute truth to a complete fabrication?
Again, the fact that you accuse Bush of fabricating a war yet only accuse Hillary of an "error" is beyond ridiculous and is an argument I would expect to hear from a snot nosed freshman in college somewhere being inundated with liberal ideology by the TA she has a crush on.
these are your quotes of Hilary helping to "fabricate evidence for the Bush administration "?
please state "the evidence" and then the specific quote where she helped "fabricate it" and also please provide links (can't stress than last one enough - always provide links)
-
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
1998 - clear evidence of a WMD program
2003 - WMD program is a complete fabrication
very simple question .. IS THIS WHAT YOU BELIEVE?
please provide links and try using the quote function so I can tell which part of the text is the actual quote that you're wanting me to see
-
I'm not opposed to believing in a conspiracy theory. I'm quite certain there are things every day that go on behind closed doors in Washington that the public doesn't know about. What I cannot tolerate is the conspiracy theorists who cherry pick who they want to make look bad based on their politics with a complete and utter disregard for any facts that toe their political line. It insults our intelligence. And no one cares.
Completely agree.
-
I'm not opposed to believing in a conspiracy theory.
the iraq war being a bunch of lies... i believe that's still actually a conspiracy theory.
same with obama lying thru his freakin teeth about how bin laden died - again, if you disagree with obama's fairy tale version, you're a conspiracy theorist.
-
these are your quotes of Hilary helping to "fabricate evidence for the Bush administration "?
please state "the evidence" and then the specific quote where she helped "fabricate it" and also please provide links (can't stress than last one enough - always provide links)
i can't. and neither can you provide any proof of your allegations.
please provide proof that the Bush administration fabricated evidence. Also please provide PROOF that ZERO democrats were aware of it.
I do find it funny how conspiracy theorists like you demand all this proof yet are never willing to offer any of your own. Like you're absolved from being required to have proof. because you know....its a cover up.
your theory just makes zero sense. I've said again and again that I can go with the theory that there was evidence fabricated to go to war. I don't have religious faith in George fucking Bush. I'm not loyal to politicians like you guys. I don't know them at all. They're just dudes on TV to me. For all i know George Bush is fucking a newborn baby as we speak. But I simply cannot accept that ONLY the Republicans were involved and that ALL of the Democrats like Hillary were just victims of bad information. Especially since Hillary had been involved in monitoring Sadaam for 8 years before Bush even got into office and had said on numerous occasions as did Bill that Sadaam had and was willing to use WMD's.
I just don't get how you can let yourself believe that after 2000 all of that became a lie but before 2000 it was just the facts. Like Sadaam all of a sudden saw the fucking light on New years day 2000. I tend to think it has something to do with believing what's convenient for you to believe.
-
i can't. and neither can you provide any proof of your allegations.
please provide proof that the Bush administration fabricated evidence. Also please provide PROOF that ZERO democrats were aware of it.
I do find it funny how conspiracy theorists like you demand all this proof yet are never willing to offer any of your own. Like you're absolved from being required to have proof. because you know....its a cover up.
your theory just makes zero sense. I've said again and again that I can go with the theory that there was evidence fabricated to go to war. I don't have religious faith in George fucking Bush. I'm not loyal to politicians like you guys. I don't know them at all. They're just dudes on TV to me. For all i know George Bush is fucking a newborn baby as we speak. But I simply cannot accept that ONLY the Republicans were involved and that ALL of the Democrats like Hillary were just victims of bad information. Especially since Hillary had been involved in monitoring Sadaam for 8 years before Bush even got into office and had said on numerous occasions as did Bill that Sadaam had and was willing to use WMD's.
I just don't get how you can let yourself believe that after 2000 all of that became a lie but before 2000 it was just the facts. Like Sadaam all of a sudden saw the fucking light on New years day 2000. I tend to think it has something to do with believing what's convenient for you to believe.
are you joking?
Dick Cheney, Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubing, Valerie Plame, and the list goes on
all documented
here's a nice summation. Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq:
note the use of a link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
If Hilary and the Dems were in the loop of these lies then please provide that info
-
I'm a little weirded out that some people still believe iraq wasn't sold on lies.
They go to bed believing it, still.
-
are you joking?
Dick Cheney, Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubing, Valerie Plame, and the list goes on
all documented
here's a nice summation. Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq:
note the use of a link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
If Hilary and the Dems were in the loop of these lies then please provide that info
are YOU joking? a nice summation????????? this link is not PROOF that anything was fabricated by the Bush administration. all this is is a bunch of conspiracy theorist talking points. it is not PROOF of anything. It's "Michael Moore journalism". nothing more.
and my proof that Hillary and the Democrats had to be part of the fabrication? Democrats were on all of the committees to make the decision to go to war. Hillary had been following Sadaam for longer than GWB had at the time. She was on the committees. It was as much her decision as anyone else's on those committees. In fact she was one of the most outspoken advocates.
The Bush administration said nothing different about Sadaam than the Clinton administration did. They all said the same exact things regarding Sadaam and his willingness and ability to get WMD's and use them.
And you're not reading my posts. or you're simply ignoring them. I have said over and over again that I can agree with the opinion that it was a fabricated war. but your opinion that ZERO democrats had ANYTHING to do with it is simply ridiculous. It's like you're on their payroll. Everyone was for it. The fact that Democrats try to distance themselves from it is simply them trying to prey upon the ignorance of the voters to get votes.
You can't sit here and lambast a Republican politician on his history of voting on bills and then when I show you Hillary voting yes on the Patriot Act and the vote to use the American armed forces against Iraq say "Well she was tricked by the Republicans". It's just stupid. I simply refuse to let you have it both ways.
Now if you were steadfast on your belief that anyone voting YES on the use of US forces on Iraq is an idiot and a conspirator I would respect that opinion. It at least makes some sense. Any other opinion is just conspiracy theory garbage with ZERO evidence.
-
I'm a little weirded out that some people still believe iraq wasn't sold on lies.
They go to bed believing it, still.
And Donald Rumsfeld is the best Defense Secretary the country has ever had (according to Dick Cheney). Bah!
-
"Dear Mr. President:
The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq.
This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.
Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."
Sincerely,
Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)
Letter to President Bush
December 5, 2001
so when you read this do you just assume that the Democrats were being tricked and the Republicans that signed this letter are lying? How do you know this> Or are you just cherry picking the info that is in your favor and dismissing everything else because you're a soldier for the Democratic party?
-
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.
The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.
The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.
This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.
We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Addressing the US Senate
September 12, 2002
did the Republicans hold a gun to his head and make him say this? He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Was he tricked too? Your conspiracy theory blaming ONLY Republicans is just laughable at best, crazy like "Mel Gibson Conspiracy Theory" crazy at worst.
-
US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
-
Pretending these fucks have competing interests is what's tragic. That's what's killing us.
-
Pretending these fucks have competing interests is what's tragic. That's what's killing us.
real world facts don't play well when you're trying to paint a political picture of good guy vs bad guy. the theories have to get more and more ridiculous when facts start getting in the way. the conspiracies more and more vast as the facts start piling up and then you look and years later when most people actually gave up on it because its so ridiculous there are always a select few that just won't let it go because of pride. For example, try and find people who actually believe in the facts Michael Moore laid out in Fahrenheit 9/11. They don't exist. When that movie came out I couldn't find anyone who didn't believe it. Now you can't even make any of those people admit that they did in fact believe that horseshit documentary.
the fact is most voters simply don't know who voted in favor of the Iraq war or who was on the Senate Intelligence Committees in 2001-2003. They would rather Michael Moore make up a story ignoring all of those facts than to actually try and make sense of it by themselves.
-
real world facts don't play well when you're trying to paint a political picture of good guy vs bad guy. the theories have to get more and more ridiculous when facts start getting in the way. the conspiracies more and more vast as the facts start piling up and then you look and years later when most people actually gave up on it because its so ridiculous there are always a select few that just won't let it go because of pride. For example, try and find people who actually believe in the facts Michael Moore laid out in Fahrenheit 9/11. They don't exist. When that movie came out I couldn't find anyone who didn't believe it. Now you can't even make any of those people admit that they did in fact believe that horseshit documentary.
the fact is most voters simply don't know who voted in favor of the Iraq war or who was on the Senate Intelligence Committees in 2001-2003. They would rather Michael Moore make up a story ignoring all of those facts than to actually try and make sense of it by themselves.
I may have seen parts of F-911, don't know. No worthwhile memory of it. Definitely don't remember much of anything Moore has made (maybe the fucked-up sideline with the rabbit woman in Roger-and-Me or whatever it was called).
What sorts of things did he say in 911?
-
I may have seen parts of F-911, don't know. No worthwhile memory of it. Definitely don't remember much of anything Moore has made (maybe the fucked-up sideline with the rabbit woman in Roger-and-Me or whatever it was called).
What sorts of things did he say in 911?
he basically says that George Bush met with the Taliban to plan 9/11 and paid Osama Bin Laden to get terrorists to fly the planes into the Twin Towers so that he could start a war so he could build an oil pipeline, blah blah blah. The movie was fucking ridiculous. and I would say that 7/10 of the people I talked to believed it and thought that there was a lot of truth to it. Now you can't find one of those people to admit that they believed it. I mean I distinctly remember arguments and conversations where they were telling me that they thought it was true and they think I forgot.
But that's how conspiracy theorists are. They spread misinformation and when the facts come out they deny they ever said it or believed it.
-
he basically says that George Bush met with the Taliban to plan 9/11 and paid Osama Bin Laden to get terrorists to fly the planes into the Twin Towers so that he could start a war so he could build an oil pipeline, blah blah blah. The movie was fucking ridiculous. and I would say that 7/10 of the people I talked to believed it and thought that there was a lot of truth to it. Now you can't find one of those people to admit that they believed it. I mean I distinctly remember arguments and conversations where they were telling me that they thought it was true and they think I forgot.
But that's how conspiracy theorists are. They spread misinformation and when the facts come out they deny they ever said it or believed it.
Did he say a specific meeting took place?
-
Moore, the fat slob, is actually not a 911 truther.
He bought Halliburton stock before the invasion too.
Inaccurate on your portrayl of what he basically says.
-
Moore, the fat slob, is actually not a 911 truther.
He bought Halliburton stock before the invasion too.
Inaccurate on your portrayl of what he basically says.
His work isn't good. Won't waste time with it. (and everything he does is at least twice the duration it should be,, so it makes it all the worse) No.
-
Did he say a specific meeting took place?
yup. he sure did.
-
yup. he sure did.
Directly involving GW, you say? Where was it said to have taken place?
-
are YOU joking? a nice summation????????? this link is not PROOF that anything was fabricated by the Bush administration. all this is is a bunch of conspiracy theorist talking points. it is not PROOF of anything. It's "Michael Moore journalism". nothing more.
and my proof that Hillary and the Democrats had to be part of the fabrication? Democrats were on all of the committees to make the decision to go to war. Hillary had been following Sadaam for longer than GWB had at the time. She was on the committees. It was as much her decision as anyone else's on those committees. In fact she was one of the most outspoken advocates.
The Bush administration said nothing different about Sadaam than the Clinton administration did. They all said the same exact things regarding Sadaam and his willingness and ability to get WMD's and use them.
And you're not reading my posts. or you're simply ignoring them. I have said over and over again that I can agree with the opinion that it was a fabricated war. but your opinion that ZERO democrats had ANYTHING to do with it is simply ridiculous. It's like you're on their payroll. Everyone was for it. The fact that Democrats try to distance themselves from it is simply them trying to prey upon the ignorance of the voters to get votes.
You can't sit here and lambast a Republican politician on his history of voting on bills and then when I show you Hillary voting yes on the Patriot Act and the vote to use the American armed forces against Iraq say "Well she was tricked by the Republicans". It's just stupid. I simply refuse to let you have it both ways.
Now if you were steadfast on your belief that anyone voting YES on the use of US forces on Iraq is an idiot and a conspirator I would respect that opinion. It at least makes some sense. Any other opinion is just conspiracy theory garbage with ZERO evidence.
feel free to point out one thing on that timeline that is not true
btw - you declared on page 2 of this thread that I "have to accept the fact that Clinton helped fabricate that evidence for the Bush administration." so you clearly have no issue with the concept that the Bush Administration fabricated the grounds to go to war but you'd just like to make Hilary part of it too.
So go ahead and tell me how Hilary was involved in the phony yellow cake and aluminum tubes nonsense ?
Or you can just give it up because I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make here
We all know many many Dems signed on to the war as did the general public
We also know who banged the drums for war, phonied up the justification, etc..
-
yup. he sure did.
Have you watched that movie? I watched it. he cried for 2 hours the war in Iraq, but he never blamed Bush inside job for 9/11. He whined about war in iraq for haliburton profit, but admitted he also bought haliburton stock. He's a fat greasy hypocrite.
but blaming bush for 9/11? No.
Do you have a link to that? Moore would like an actual investigation into 9/11, but truther? Nope. Accusing Bush of 9/11? nope. Sorry, that part isn't true.
-
Have you watched that movie? I watched it. he cried for 2 hours the war in Iraq, but he never blamed Bush inside job for 9/11. He whined about war in iraq for haliburton profit, but admitted he also bought haliburton stock. He's a fat greasy hypocrite.
but blaming bush for 9/11? No.
Do you have a link to that? Moore would like an actual investigation into 9/11, but truther? Nope. Accusing Bush of 9/11? nope. Sorry, that part isn't true.
I don't think so. Moore is a sneak, so he's about clouding issues rather than clearing them. That's why his work is so jumbled and completely without flow. He does that intentionally, no question in my mind at this point.
Like Ken Burns, his work can't be trusted. Those are guys that big-media interest will have you to pay attention to, because they want to have first shot at making you think a certain way about a subject. That's what it's all about.
-
I don't think so. Moore is a sneak, so he's about clouding issues rather than clearing them. That's why his work is so jumbled and completely without flow. He does that intentionally, no question in my mind at this point.
Like Ken Burns, his work can't be trusted. Those are guys that big-media interest will have you to pay attention to, because they want to have first shot at making you think a certain way about a subject. That's what it's all about.
i remember him being the hated voice of the left when the American Sniper movie came out.
All these repubs were seeing the movie (even though it starred obamacare activist Bradley) and even buying tickets if they weren't going.
and yes, Moore owned stock in the studio that put out the movie.
he's a sneaky one, he has a way to troll both sides into eating right out of his hand.
-
i remember him being the hated voice of the left when the American Sniper movie came out.
All these repubs were seeing the movie (even though it starred obamacare activist Bradley) and even buying tickets if they weren't going.
and yes, Moore owned stock in the studio that put out the movie.
he's a sneaky one, he has a way to troll both sides into eating right out of his hand.
Yeah, he poses as a representative of some "side", so others will feel they can safely draw certain conclusions based on his work. Then he makes a hundred-hour "documentary" centered around 15 minutes of skits, so everyone gets spun around and turned dizzy trying to watch it.
I don't necessarily know what his game is, but I can't appreciate it.
-
Have you watched that movie? I watched it. he cried for 2 hours the war in Iraq, but he never blamed Bush inside job for 9/11. He whined about war in iraq for haliburton profit, but admitted he also bought haliburton stock. He's a fat greasy hypocrite.
but blaming bush for 9/11? No.
Do you have a link to that? Moore would like an actual investigation into 9/11, but truther? Nope. Accusing Bush of 9/11? nope. Sorry, that part isn't true.
sorry but I saw it too. and yes that was exactly what he was implying. he just made sure that he technically did not directly accuse GWB or the Bush family of planning 9/11 but everything he said in that documentary implied that was the case.
but you're right he never technically directly accused them. he just put a bunch of random factoids (most of which were just plain false) together that painted that picture and let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions. And he knew exactly what the conclusions a normal person would make after seeing that piece of garbage.
and to put it into perspective, I really liked "Bowling for Columbine". I thought that, with the exception of his ambush of an elderly and slow Charlton Heston, was a great documentary that made some very poignant points about guns in America. More importantly the difference between guns in America and other countries.
-
feel free to point out one thing on that timeline that is not true
btw - you declared on page 2 of this thread that I "have to accept the fact that Clinton helped fabricate that evidence for the Bush administration." so you clearly have no issue with the concept that the Bush Administration fabricated the grounds to go to war but you'd just like to make Hilary part of it too.
So go ahead and tell me how Hilary was involved in the phony yellow cake and aluminum tubes nonsense ?
Or you can just give it up because I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make here
We all know many many Dems signed on to the war as did the general public
We also know who banged the drums for war, phonied up the justification, etc..
like i said before I don't have a dog in this fight. you do. If there was a conspiracy, the fact that you want to only accuse "Republicans" of it makes no sense. I need a set of FACTS that lead to a conclusion. And no the link you sent me was a list of factoids, some taken in context and some taken out of context. I'm sure brighter minds than i would make mincemeat out of that timeline. Of all the things Hillary, Lieberman, Reid, Edwards, Gore, etc., said and signed leading up to the War in Iraq, you cannot sit there and tell me that they were just simply tricked by the Republicans and made those statements and signed those bills because they were some sort of victim. It's just ridiculous and doesn't make sense to anyone other than snot nosed college kids who love conspiracy theories and watch too many movies.
-
also you've all precluded yourselves from ever mentioning a presidential candidate's record on bills that they signed in order to form an opinion on said candidate. because you've all made it abundantly clear that you just don't simply care how anyone voted on anything. if they are a democrat you don't care what they signed or what they said about the bill because you will forgive all as long as they follow your religious (yes I say religious) devotion their party over that of the country they serve.
all the democrats that signed the patriot ACT and the right to use armed forces against Iraq - ABSOLVED. they were tricked into voting that way.
then next election rolls around and you'll all dissect every single bill the Republican candidate signed and its implications because you want to make sure everyone's informed about how this candidate voted right?
ridiculous.
so when next election rolls around and I start to see all of the analysis of the different bills and who voted on what. I don't want to hear it.
-
also you've all precluded yourselves from ever mentioning a presidential candidate's record on bills that they signed in order to form an opinion on said candidate. because you've all made it abundantly clear that you just don't simply care how anyone voted on anything. if they are a democrat you don't care what they signed or what they said about the bill because you will forgive all as long as they follow your religious (yes I say religious) devotion their party over that of the country they serve.
all the democrats that signed the patriot ACT and the right to use armed forces against Iraq - ABSOLVED. they were tricked into voting that way.
then next election rolls around and you'll all dissect every single bill the Republican candidate signed and its implications because you want to make sure everyone's informed about how this candidate voted right?
ridiculous.
so when next election rolls around and I start to see all of the analysis of the different bills and who voted on what. I don't want to hear it.
Good luck with that whole rational thought process you're using.
And why the heck is this a story? The media is all over this stuff lately.
-
You enjoy the thought of "gun-control", bears?
-
...and what about that meeting?
-
...and what about that meeting?
did you watch the documentary? watch it. and then come back and tell me what you think he was implying.
oh and he also was very adamant whenever he was asked about verifying his facts that his documentary was "just a movie meant for entertainment." Thereby avoiding the burden of ever having to defend any of his bullshit.
it was a sleazy underhanded documentary. PERIOD.
-
You enjoy the thought of "gun-control", bears?
honestly, I don't have a good answer to the gun control issue. I just don't know how to solve the problems we have with guns in this country.
The way I see it, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. I know its a total copout but it's all I got. it's a really tough issue.
-
sorry but I saw it too. and yes that was exactly what he was implying. he just made sure that he technically did not directly accuse GWB or the Bush family of planning 9/11 but everything he said in that documentary implied that was the case.
but you're right he never technically directly accused them. he just put a bunch of random factoids (most of which were just plain false) together that painted that picture and let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions. And he knew exactly what the conclusions a normal person would make after seeing that piece of garbage.
and to put it into perspective, I really liked "Bowling for Columbine". I thought that, with the exception of his ambush of an elderly and slow Charlton Heston, was a great documentary that made some very poignant points about guns in America. More importantly the difference between guns in America and other countries.
Is this your way of saying that a specific meeting wasn't mentioned, bears?
???
At the very least, can you describe the connection Moore tried to make between Bush and the other?
-
did you watch the documentary? watch it. and then come back and tell me what you think he was implying.
oh and he also was very adamant whenever he was asked about verifying his facts that his documentary was "just a movie meant for entertainment." Thereby avoiding the burden of ever having to defend any of his bullshit.
it was a sleazy underhanded documentary. PERIOD.
No, I would rather slam my dick in a car door than watch it, because I know he can't be trusted. I'm interested in what specific thing or things caused you to come to the conclusions that you did. That's why I ask.
-
Is this your way of saying that a specific meeting wasn't mentioned, bears?
???
At the very least, can you describe the connection Moore tried to make between Bush and the other?
I'm cutting and pasting from a synopsis of the lies Michael Moore told in his documentary and the rebuttals.
•Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).
•Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
•Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)
•Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.
•While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That
-
No, I would rather slam my dick in a car door than watch it, because I know he can't be trusted. I'm interested in what specific thing or things caused you to come to the conclusions that you did. That's why I ask.
•Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
•But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.
•To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”
he wanted the viewer's imagination to run wild with these factoids. and they did. Fahrenheit 9-11 gave birth to thousands of truthers. because of misinformation like this. he knew the conclusions his liberal fan base would make. and he spoon fed it to them.
-
So as for the meeting to "plan 911", was it said the meeting about Unocal concerns (oil) was just a cover for that? Still trying to figure out the "meeting" part you mentioned.
-
The only thing clear about F-911 is how unclear it is.
If anything, I'd say he set out to dull peoples' senses and cause them to be uninterested and unconerned about the subject. That's his way.
-
...so no need to answer, bears. It's pretty plain you didn't really watch it (even if you were looking at a screen when it was on). You had to find a copy/paste to reply. That's my point.
-
BTW, there's a technique used by certain schmucks, in which true and false things are mixed into some overall statement. It's one way to "play" a maximum number of people, as a person will tend toward confirming existing ideas instead of challenging them. You're giving people what they want, if they'll just turn off their pesky brains.
That deceptive superficiality is what big-media is all about, coincidentally or not, so you can see why a guy like Moore is so well-supported by them. (After all, he isn't known for making memorable documentaries, obviously. So exactly WHAT is he doing?)
-
You're giving people what they want, if they'll just turn off their pesky brains
And in the case of MM, you won't remember a thing. He should be a surgeon or something.
-
So as for the meeting to "plan 911", was it said the meeting about Unocal concerns (oil) was just a cover for that? Still trying to figure out the "meeting" part you mentioned.
there was no meeting.
-
there was no meeting.
Just one giant clusterfuck of a movie, exactly as it was meant to be. If you want to go with it, he'll give you the ammo. If you want to go against it, he'll give you the ammo.
He's a flake, making movies for flakes.
-
Hadn't quite made the connection before, between Moore's style and the media. I knew there was something there, but it took this thread to see it in a certain way. Really have to love getbig, ;D
-
...so no need to answer, bears. It's pretty plain you didn't really watch it (even if you were looking at a screen when it was on). You had to find a copy/paste to reply. That's my point.
dude go a little easy on me I saw it like 10 fucking years ago. you tell me what conclusions you think he wanted the viewer to draw and i'll shut up. what was he trying to say?
-
BTW, there's a technique used by certain schmucks, in which true and false things are mixed into some overall statement. It's one way to "play" a maximum number of people, as a person will tend toward confirming existing ideas instead of challenging them. You're giving people what they want, if they'll just turn off their pesky brains.
That deceptive superficiality is what big-media is all about, coincidentally or not, so you can see why a guy like Moore is so well-supported by them. (After all, he isn't known for making memorable documentaries, obviously. So exactly WHAT is he doing?)
you're pretty much saying exactly what i'm saying. But i'm saying based upon the movie i saw, he wanted the viewer to take his facts and to believe that there was some collusion going on between Bush and the Taliban because of big oil interests, specifically a proposed pipeline. And it was all bullshit.
and no he made a few very good documentaries. he is a talented dude. but then he earned his stripes with the liberal left and figured out that he could pretty much make them believe anything he wanted. so he sold out to pandering for the left, and made a shit ton of $$ doing it.
-
dude go a little easy on me I saw it like 10 fucking years ago. you tell me what conclusions you think he wanted the viewer to draw and i'll shut up. what was he trying to say?
and Michael Moore films his documentaries in a way that whatever someone writes here I can refute it by saying, "well he didn't exactly say that. he just said X,Y, and Z."
-
dude go a little easy on me I saw it like 10 fucking years ago. you tell me what conclusions you think he wanted the viewer to draw and i'll shut up. what was he trying to say?
He wants to reinforce whatever conclusion the person already took before he/she ever set eyes on the movie. If the person believes Americans were involved, he'll give the person something to support it. If the person believes that no Americans would dare and it's tinfoil-city to say otherwise, he'll give you something to support that, too. If the person is undecided and reserves opinion, he will do everything possible to cloud the issue further.
And if the person manages to make it through the movie without going brain-dead, he/she will probably never want to hear another word about the subject. That's probably the conclusion he'd most want people to have.
-
you're pretty much saying exactly what i'm saying. But i'm saying based upon the movie i saw, he wanted the viewer to take his facts and to believe that there was some collusion going on between Bush and the Taliban because of big oil interests, specifically a proposed pipeline. And it was all bullshit.
and no he made a few very good documentaries. he is a talented dude. but then he earned his stripes with the liberal left and figured out that he could pretty much make them believe anything he wanted. so he sold out to pandering for the left, and made a shit ton of $$ doing it.
So when it comes to the people who'd find out there's false information in it: what conclusions do you suppose he might've expected from them?
-
...because he certainly couldn't have planned that it wouldn't be fact-checked by many people, right?
-
...because he certainly couldn't have planned that it wouldn't be fact-checked by many people, right?
"But it's just a movie made for entertainment purposes. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was just stating some facts."
-
"But it's just a movie made for entertainment purposes. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was just stating some facts."
So he permits information that will cause him to have to make that statement.
Why do you suppose he would do that?
-
Did a bit of reading on this, and the F911 idea seems to be that the problem was an "incompetent" administration led by an incompetent person. That's the representation. Here's something common from a movie review, seen in several reviews:
Perhaps the most damaging footage shows Bush on September 11, sitting in a Florida classroom for a full seven minutes after he had been told that the second tower had been struck, and that it was clear the horrific events in New York were a terrorist attack, not a tragic accident. Moore lets this moment go on and on: The president of the United States, stone-faced in front of dozens of schoolchildren, doing absolutely nothing, as our nation comes under attack.
-
BTW, the footage for that was taken from the teacher's personal copy (from what I understand), so it was something that hadn't been seen by the public before.
-
So he permits information that will cause him to have to make that statement.
Why do you suppose he would do that?
so that he can cash in on the hysteria but not actually be held responsible for it in any way.
-
Did a bit of reading on this, and the F911 idea seems to be that the problem was an "incompetent" administration led by an incompetent person. That's the representation. Here's something common from a movie review, and is mentioned in several other reviews:
just watch 30:30 to 34:30. 4 minutes. and you tell me what he's getting at.
it sounds really bad. like awful. except when someone fact checked all of this and found that it was absolute horse manure.
-
just watch 30:30 to 34:30. 4 minutes. and you tell me what he's getting at.
it sounds really bad. like awful. except when someone fact checked all of this and found that it was absolute horse manure.
I don't know. Saudis have lots of money?
It looks like he's deliberately wasting time, to me. He's making more worthless minutes to increase the length of the movie.
-
I don't know. Saudis have lots of money?
It looks like he's deliberately wasting time, to me. He's making more worthless minutes to increase the length of the movie.
seriously? you don't think he's implying something there? really?
do you think that was the highest grossing documentary of all time because Michael Moore implied that Saudis have lots of $$? now you're just deflecting. stop it.
-
seriously? you don't think he's implying something there? really?
do you think that was the highest grossing documentary of all time because Michael Moore implied that Saudis have lots of $$? now you're just deflecting. stop it.
He doesn't put much effort into convincing anyone of anything, that I can see. If you're saying he'd have someone believe Bush was in on the planning of 911, because a bunch of sleazy Arabs were hanging around kissing people and shaking hands, then why not.
Needless to say, that leaves quite a lot of room for anyone who wants to point to its obvious ridiculousness, too. And meanwhile, he hasn't said anything that wasn't already known by the average person.
So, nope. He hasn't fooled me. How about you?
-
He doesn't put much effort into convincing anyone of anything, that I can see. If you're saying he'd have someone believe Bush was in on the planning of 911, because a bunch of sleazy Arabs were hanging around kissing people and shaking hands, then why not.
Needless to say, that leaves quite a lot of room for anyone who wants to point to its obvious ridiculousness, too. And meanwhile, he hasn't said anything that wasn't already known by the average person.
So, nope. He hasn't fooled me. How about you?
OK
-
OK
He plays people like a fiddle, bears. I can only hope you didn't draw any conclusions whatsoever from Moore, about 911 or any other serious subject. He's a flake and a waste of time
-
He plays people like a fiddle, bears. I can only hope you didn't draw any conclusions whatsoever from Moore, about 911 or any other serious subject. He's a flake and a waste of time
I don't. he made a shit ton of $$ by doing the documentary but he effectively ended his career too. after all the lies and half truths came out he still has a cult following but no intelligent person really takes him seriously anymore.
really the ONLY thing that I want everyone who reads this thread to take away from it is that I simply do not want to hear anyone commenting on a Senator's (Democrat or Republican)record of voting on bills when the next election rolls around. because apparently no one actually cares how anyone votes on anything. you can always just say that they were tricked into voting that way by "the bad guys". you know...because of the conspiracy.....and offer ZERO evidence. but make the other side provide irrefutable evidence that they were NOT tricked into it. the outright absence of logic is disturbing to say the least.
-
He plays people like a fiddle, bears. I can only hope you didn't draw any conclusions whatsoever from Moore, about 911 or any other serious subject. He's a flake and a waste of time
also I find it funny how Straw posts a link to a bunch of irrefutable evidence that leading up to the war in Iraq so many people were well aware that Sadaam had no WMD's. he has quotes all over the place. for instance Colin powell saying he "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."—
Ok. well then answer this.
THEN WHY IN SAM FUCKING HELL DID HILLARY, BIDEN, KERRY, LIEBERMAN, EDWARDS, ALL VOTE IN FUCKING FAVOR OF FUCKING ATTACKING FUCKING IRAQ!!
did they miss the meeting? they were obviously aware that Colin Powell said this. or was this another secret?
such bullshit. i'm seriously getting too old for this shit.
-
Gen. Franks briefs Bush on Iraq war plans. [Date the public knew: 3/5/03]
ok what does this even mean? how is this evidence?
the more I read this thing the more I lose faith in humanity.
there is zero proof in it that the Republicans kept anything from Hillary, Reid, Biden, etc. unless you can point it out to me.
it says DATE THE PUBLIC KNEW. not date the Democratic senators knew. they were privy to the same shit the Republicans were. this link has failed on so many levels
-
I don't. he made a shit ton of $$ by doing the documentary but he effectively ended his career too. after all the lies and half truths came out he still has a cult following but no intelligent person really takes him seriously anymore.
From what I'd read the other day (which ended up costing far more effort than what Moore is worth), it was Columbine that drew a lot of heat to him for misrepresenting things. Supposedly, he took it much easier with this one.
So with a Moore movie, besides having to endure 1000-hours of misery, you have to assume you're being lied to, too. What a joy.
really the ONLY thing that I want everyone who reads this thread to take away from it is that I simply do not want to hear anyone commenting on a Senator's (Democrat or Republican)record of voting on bills when the next election rolls around. because apparently no one actually cares how anyone votes on anything. you can always just say that they were tricked into voting that way by "the bad guys". you know...because of the conspiracy.....and offer ZERO evidence. but make the other side provide irrefutable evidence that they were NOT tricked into it. the outright absence of logic is disturbing to say the least.
We citizens are the ones being tricked. Those politicians you mentioned know exactly what they're doing.
-
From what I'd read the other day (which ended up costing far more effort than what Moore is worth), it was Columbine that drew a lot of heat to him for misrepresenting things. Supposedly, he took it much easier with this one.
So with a Moore movie, besides having to endure 1000-hours of misery, you have to assume you're being lied to, too. What a joy.
We citizens are the ones being tricked. Those politicians you mentioned know exactly what they're doing.
from what I remember the only thing that was bad I that one was him ambushing Charleton Heston when Heston was like 1,000 years old. he was slow and couldn't keep up with the argument. Moore looked like kind of an asshole. I don't remember much else being that bad about that one. I actually really liked it. I don't have a strong opinion either way on gun control though. I live in a suburb that is literally one block from the city of Chicago and I work in Chicago. we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. and everyone is shooting the fuck out of everything. so gun legislation has never meant that much to me.
-
From what I'd read the other day (which ended up costing far more effort than what Moore is worth), it was Columbine that drew a lot of heat to him for misrepresenting things. Supposedly, he took it much easier with this one.
So with a Moore movie, besides having to endure 1000-hours of misery, you have to assume you're being lied to, too. What a joy.
We citizens are the ones being tricked. Those politicians you mentioned know exactly what they're doing.
and that's my whole point. ALL of those politicians need to be held responsible or none at all. I think it's infantile to claim that only one party is responsible when they all sign a damn bill to go to war.
and if there were secrets being held from the Democrats by the Republicans then why the fuck do we want a bunch of clueless Democrats in there anyway. They're obviously very easy to dupe right? I mean shit GWB tricked them. and he's an idiot right?
again. it makes ZERO sense to me.
-
and that's my whole point. ALL of those politicians need to be held responsible or none at all. I think it's infantile to claim that only one party is responsible when they all sign a damn bill to go to war.
and if there were secrets being held from the Democrats by the Republicans then why the fuck do we want a bunch of clueless Democrats in there anyway. They're obviously very easy to dupe right? I mean shit GWB tricked them. and he's an idiot right?
again. it makes ZERO sense to me.
Makes zero sense to me, too. But that's mob mentality, for you.
-
from what I remember the only thing that was bad I that one was him ambushing Charleton Heston when Heston was like 1,000 years old. he was slow and couldn't keep up with the argument. Moore looked like kind of an asshole. I don't remember much else being that bad about that one. I actually really liked it. I don't have a strong opinion either way on gun control though. I live in a suburb that is literally one block from the city of Chicago and I work in Chicago. we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. and everyone is shooting the fuck out of everything. so gun legislation has never meant that much to me.
No, look it up. I found it repeatedly mentioned that he butchered the truth in Columbine, and the backlash from that caused him to temper this one.
Could it be your fexibility with the idea of gun-control that allowed the misrepresentations to go unnoticed by you?
-
No, look it up. I found it repeatedly mentioned that he butchered the truth in Columbine, and the backlash from that caused him to temper this one.
Could it be your fexibility with the idea of gun-control that allowed the misrepresentations to go unnoticed by you?
I don't know. maybe. what did he screw up with Columbine? i'm sure it was something with info about the kids.
-
You've caused me to look much more closely at Moore than I would've otherwise had reason to. And sad to say, his work is much worse than I thought (hadn't even realized that could be possible, truthfully).
I don't know. maybe. what did he screw up with Columbine? i'm sure it was something with info about the kids.
No, I think it's more than a maybe. Because as shit as 911 is, it is actually held as an example of Moore correcting his movie-making practices from Columbine. A real laugh, I know, since both movies are worthless.
If you look for examples of dishonesty in Columbine, particularly, though, you'll quickly find so many that it becomes ridiculous. He pulled SO much bullshit in the movie, that it is 100% unacceptable. As a matter of fact, it's insulting for him to expect anyone to watch it, considering he made it up as he went along. And while 911 may have been a step up from that, it doesn't say much.
So...since you watched Columbine and are probably interested in particulars, I'd suggest you spend a little time looking at the aftermath. You might learn something about yourself and why you fell for it. If you're concerned about having to sort through lies over lies, a good starting point might be David Hardy out of Arizona (hardylaw.net). He is careful with what he says (unlike practically every other person on the planet these days, it seems). Unfortunately, he just scratches the surface against the huge amount of information available - but there are only so many hours in a lifetime, I guess.
-
That's hardylaw.net (fixed)