Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: George Whorewell on March 15, 2011, 08:36:03 PM
-
To all the spineless, cowardly, smug, brownosing morons that bitched and whined about GW's foreign policy, can we have a teachable moment based on what has transpired in Libya? After looking like a complete affirmative action flunky that is unqualified to wipe his own ass, let alone run the United States regarding Egypt and fumbling around like a drunk 16 year old attempting to sneak in before mom and dad woke up to locate a coherent and consistent position, he has further embarrassed himself as it now appears that Gaddafi's rag tag army of mercenaries is going to retake the country. What did Obama do in this case? What he always does. Empty threats, meaningless platitudes, pussy ass statements with absolutely no intention on backing them up, and in the end, even with Europe and the entire Arab world urging us to act by merely endorsing a no-fly zone, Obama sat on his hands and filmed his NCAA tournament picks for ESPN.
Can we now agree that Obama has no clue what he's doing, has no handle on the situation in the middle east, has been made to look like a complete nincompoop on the international stage with regard to foreign affairs, has weakened the United States irreparably, has made the world less safe and has exposed himself as a incompetent yellow bellied cockroach that is obsessed with his anti colonialist- anti American agenda.
I am more embarrassed to be American now than I ever was after GW was in office. The man stands for nothing, is worth less than nothing and the pieces of shit that still support him should be euthanized at the local dog pound.
-
Hahahaha! Awesome post.
Obama's approach to foreign policy:
1) Assess the situation and identify the best possible option.
2) Assess the situation and identify the worst possible option.
3) Choose worst possible option. Every. Single. Time.
4) Continue to look like a complete dickhead.
-
To all the spineless, cowardly, smug, brownosing morons that bitched and whined about GW's foreign policy, can we have a teachable moment based on what has transpired in Libya? After looking like a complete affirmative action flunky that is unqualified to wipe his own ass, let alone run the United States regarding Egypt and fumbling around like a drunk 16 year old attempting to sneak in before mom and dad woke up to locate a coherent and consistent position, he has further embarrassed himself as it now appears that Gaddafi's rag tag army of mercenaries is going to retake the country. What did Obama do in this case? What he always does. Empty threats, meaningless platitudes, pussy ass statements with absolutely no intention on backing them up, and in the end, even with Europe and the entire Arab world urging us to act by merely endorsing a no-fly zone, Obama sat on his hands and filmed his NCAA tournament picks for ESPN.
Can we now agree that Obama has no clue what he's doing, has no handle on the situation in the middle east, has been made to look like a complete nincompoop on the international stage with regard to foreign affairs, has weakened the United States irreparably, has made the world less safe and has exposed himself as a incompetent yellow bellied cockroach that is obsessed with his anti colonialist- anti American agenda.
I am more embarrassed to be American now than I ever was after GW was in office. The man stands for nothing, is worth less than nothing and the pieces of shit that still support him should be euthanized at the local dog pound.
YAWN...When will all of you DUMBASSES come to understand and accept what Politics is all about. No politician is any better or worst than the one before or after him...WHY? because they are all controlled manipulated PUPPETS whose handlers are BANKERS and other BIG BUSINESSES. Come to know and understand that and free yourselves from endless mindless blaming and commentary that means NOTHING...
POLITICS... POLY = MANY
TICS - BLOOD SUCKERS
So in short the system means MANY BLOODSUCKERS who feast off of YOUR FLESH
-
Go away, you lying c*nt. Don't you have fairy tales about the Morals of Dogma to concoct?
-
Go away, you lying c*nt. Don't you have fairy tales about the Morals of Dogma to concoct?
Hahahahahaah..about the onlything you will know about C*nt is how to spell it...
Go away and consider what I wrote and TRY and educate yourself to the reality that it is OVER FOR AMERICA...and not even one gun had to be fired to accomplish the goal of destroying it, taking all of its wealth, dumbing down of its people and soon the culling of the population.
-
John Batchelor has been on fire tonight. Great guest after guest really laying the smackdown on how horribly this admn fucked up libya.
-
You can't seem to grasp the fact that no one cares about the opinion of someone that has been caught red-handing fabricating information to prove their point. You think you would've taken the hint when the bulk of your threads get 0 responses.
Again, no one cares. You're just fun to laugh at and prod.
John Batchelor has been on fire tonight. Great guest after guest really laying the smackdown on how horribly this admn fucked up libya.
Yup. The guy talking right now talking about unconstrained dictators has made some very good points. Of course the people live in fairy tale land will ignore it.
-
I'm sure while bama is in rio partying he will be brushing up on middle east policy.
-
You can't seem to grasp the fact that no one cares about the opinion of someone that has been caught red-handing fabricating information to prove their point. You think you would've taken the hint when the bulk of your threads get 0 responses.
Again, no one cares. You're just fun to laugh at and prod.
YES BerzerFAG no one cares...that is exactly why every single thread I make you are first to make it your business to click on it. Strange behavior for someone so disinterested...LAMEASSF AG
-
GW's foreign policy was horrible. I am sick of all these neo-cons who always want to use our military for every little thing yet they have never served in the military themselves. And no, the texas air force national guard that GW served in doesn't qualify. He just did that to avoid Vietnam. Hannity, O'Reilly, GW, Rumsfeld, all the same. If you want to go to war so bad then enlist and spend a couple deployment in Afghanistan and then let me know how you feel. I agree with SAMSON anyways, all our presidents are just puppets that do the handler's bidding. All one has to do is research a little bit into the Bilderberg group.
-
No I don't miss GW, frankly I think he'd have done much the same given the listing ship OB got.
I do miss the " time" GW was in charge though.
-
No I don't miss GW, frankly I think he'd have done much the same given the listing ship OB got.
I do miss the " time" GW was in charge though.
I don't miss GW, but compared to obama, there is no doubt that GW was more of a leader and inspired more fear and respect than what we have now.
We are laughed at, disrespected, and not taken at all erious with Obama as POTUS. As hard as it is to believe, obama has cheapened and degraded the office of POTUS so badly that even many nations must secretely wish for GWB to be back, even ifthey didnt like him.
We went from bad to unthinkable in a very short period of time.
-
I thought you all were against military action in Libya?
-
GW didn't give a fuck about his enemies thinking he was a nice guy. He didn't give a fuck about what the spineless eurotrash thought about the United States. He knew how to exert pressure on other countries diplomatically and he knew that the UN is an absolute joke in every way shape and form. He believed in American exceptionalism, stood behind his beliefs and while he made bad decisions sometimes- he had the guts to make tough choices instead of sitting on his hands like a pussy.
What some people fail to realize is that no military action was required on Libya from us. The French just wanted us to say we were in support of a no fly zone-- the arab league, NATO, practically every major player in the world wanted us to give some sort of support and show of solidarity. An international coalition was willing to act if we took the lead. Instead, our spineless weasel of a President did what he does best-- nothing.
Obama's foreign policy is mindless-- absolutely mindless. When the biggest threat to our national security and the security of the planet ( Iran) was in the midst of a brutal crackdown with a sustained uprising by the population, Obama did nothing and said nothing except that he didn't want to get involved. Here we have a regime that openly sponsors terrorism, the Iraqi insurgency, the Taliban, who kills our soldiers, is ignoring the UN and pursuing nuclear weapons, has said repeatedly that it will wipe Israel off the map, supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas and makes Obama look like a jack ass on a daily basis. The people of Iran wanted a more modern, less extreme brand of leadership and are willing to die to remove the leadership in place-- and Obama doesn't want to get involved. Contrast that with Egypt-- an American ally for 30 years who despite having a repressive regime was an immeasurable ally in stabilizing the region, trading, keeping peace with Israel and sharing intelligence. The government is decidedly pro American, pro capitalist, has deep ties with America and is one of the freer countries in the region. Lets not forget that Ahmedinijhad makes Hosni Mubahrak look like Santa Claus. After practically no violence directed against the population, Obama forces Mubarhak to step down.
Now lets look at Libya. Gadaffi masterminded Pan Am flight 103—an act of terror and war against the United States; this comes on the heels of Gadaffi getting the Lockerbie bomber freed. He is the most brutally oppressive dictator in the region. He has pursued chemical weapons in the past, openly sponsored terrorism and has been a thorn in America’s side for years. He uses his own air force to drop bombs on his people during peaceful protests, and Obama hides under the table like a bitch? He issues empty statements, takes no action and refuses to support a no fly zone. Now Gadaffi is going to kill his way back into power and probably commit genocide in the process. He is holding his oil hostage (which effects Europe not us) and has vowed revenge against the west.
Can someone explain the logic behind his decision making?
-
You forgot obama's WWWTTTFFFF treatment of Honduras.
-
GW didn't give a fuck about his enemies thinking he was a nice guy. He didn't give a fuck about what the spineless eurotrash thought about the United States. He knew how to exert pressure on other countries diplomatically and he knew that the UN is an absolute joke in every way shape and form. He believed in American exceptionalism, stood behind his beliefs and while he made bad decisions sometimes- he had the guts to make tough choices instead of sitting on his hands like a pussy.
What some people fail to realize is that no military action was required on Libya from us. The French just wanted us to say we were in support of a no fly zone-- the arab league, NATO, practically every major player in the world wanted us to give some sort of support and show of solidarity. An international coalition was willing to act if we took the lead. Instead, our spineless weasel of a President did what he does best-- nothing.
Obama's foreign policy is mindless-- absolutely mindless. When the biggest threat to our national security and the security of the planet ( Iran) was in the midst of a brutal crackdown with a sustained uprising by the population, Obama did nothing and said nothing except that he didn't want to get involved. Here we have a regime that openly sponsors terrorism, the Iraqi insurgency, the Taliban, who kills our soldiers, is ignoring the UN and pursuing nuclear weapons, has said repeatedly that it will wipe Israel off the map, supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas and makes Obama look like a jack ass on a daily basis. The people of Iran wanted a more modern, less extreme brand of leadership and are willing to die to remove the leadership in place-- and Obama doesn't want to get involved. Contrast that with Egypt-- an American ally for 30 years who despite having a repressive regime was an immeasurable ally in stabilizing the region, trading, keeping peace with Israel and sharing intelligence. The government is decidedly pro American, pro capitalist, has deep ties with America and is one of the freer countries in the region. Lets not forget that Ahmedinijhad makes Hosni Mubahrak look like Santa Claus. After practically no violence directed against the population, Obama forces Mubarhak to step down.
Now lets look at Libya. Gadaffi masterminded Pan Am flight 103—an act of terror and war against the United States; this comes on the heels of Gadaffi getting the Lockerbie bomber freed. He is the most brutally oppressive dictator in the region. He has pursued chemical weapons in the past, openly sponsored terrorism and has been a thorn in America’s side for years. He uses his own air force to drop bombs on his people during peaceful protests, and Obama hides under the table like a bitch? He issues empty statements, takes no action and refuses to support a no fly zone. Now Gadaffi is going to kill his way back into power and probably commit genocide in the process. He is holding his oil hostage (which effects Europe not us) and has vowed revenge against the west.
Can someone explain the logic behind his decision making?
Another gem from Mr. Whorewell. I agree with everything you said except that I'm of the belief that the scumbag Europeans would expect us to do the legwork in establishing the No-Fly Zone while they sat there and played stupid like they usually do. That, and the Arab League can go fuck themselves. Otherwise, that was a flawless post. 8)
-
Yeah GW didnt give a fuck, that much is certain. He cared so little he committed us to war under false pretenses, one that cost thousands of american lives and trillions of dollars.
It cracks me up every time someone goes on about a president not caring what others think. That in itself is meaningless.
In this regard, GW failed in his responsibility as commander and chief by recklessly putting american soldeirs in harms way and helping embroil us in 2 long wars.
But I do miss the economic prosperity he resided over.
BTW, Common sense or integrity wins out over guts in this case.
-
First off GW didn't put us in a war with Afghanistan. The Taliban took part in the worst act of mass murder in American history and happened to be ruling Afghanistan at the time. Should GW have resigned as president and said "We surrender?" That war is a necessary war and one that needs to be finished regardless of the outcome.
Secondly, for everyones bitching about Iraq, the intelligence that was available at the time+ the way Saddam was acting+ the fact that he had used chemical weapons against his own people in the past+ his refusal to allow weapons inspectors to do their jobs+ ignoring UN sanctions and US given ultimatums all gave the impression that he had WMD's. People act like GW woke up one morning and threw a dart at a map, then decided to invade Iraq. There is a long and sorted history outlining what transpired and how it transpired. In the end, Iraq is not in bad shape, our people are leaving soon and Saddam has been long dead. Whether the invasion proves to have been beneficial to the United States is a question that history can only answer.
In Obama's case, what common sense and integrity are you talking about? He is completely lacking in both departments. How can you reconcile his schizophrenic middle eastern policy? Also, you say that a president not caring what others think is meaningless. Does that mean that you think Obama's policy of railroading our allies and kissing our enemies asses is a sound political tactic? What have we gained from the "Obama Doctrine" that we lost during the Bush era? The Arab world still hates us, but now they have no respect for us. We have alienated Israel to the point of no return. The Russians have gotten the better of us in every single conceivable way-- North Korea has been emboldened, Tehran laughs at Obama, the Chinese have been legitimized,-- Our allies want nothing to do with us... but wait... maybe there is hope. Qaddafi told Larry King that he wanted Obama to be President forever-- Clearly Obama succeeded in winning the black heart and tiny mind of Qaddafi. Maybe they can play golf together after this unfortunate incident blows over.
-
Not to mention obama treating honduras like shit to curry favor w chavez and suck up to the marxists.
-
Let's also not mention that Bush chose to pull assets out of Afghanistan to start his unnecessary war in Iraq and while we're at it let's also not mention that there were many dissenting voices regarding WMD's including the inspectors on the ground, and including dissenting voices in this country as well as our allies.
Let's also not mention that the war was supposed to take "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt six months" according to Rumsfeld and was supposed to pay for itself with oil revenue.
8 years later we've financed the entire war and occupation and helped create a Islamic theocracy allied with Iran. I guess it was a good thing if you were a defense contractor allied with the Bush/Cheney crime family but other than that our national defense is stretched thin and more fragile than when we started eight years ago.
And, why the fuck should we get involved in Libya and which country should we police next?
oh yeah - and where the fuck is Bin Laden?
-
He rightfully lead us to war in Afghanistan.
He wrongfully and irresponsibly led us to war in Iraq. There was always reasons to react to Saddam at the time, but in a euphoria of war fever he seized the day on bullshit intel that turned out to be 1000% wrong. Then he sent us in with way too few troops on what has to be the second stupidest assumption in recent history (next to his WMD debacle) thinking Iraq would just roll over and suck democracy dick in his post invasion plan.
And yeah the Iraq war has turned out just great, we couldn't use a trillion dollars right now.
As far as OB is concerned. Did you think I was comparing common sense and integrity to Barrack Obama? Common sense and integrity is something you should have from any president. Need 3333 to give you a list Obama's failings in those areas? This is about GW. Other then the Iraq thing I have fewer complaints about Bush. I am not a Obama fan. He's horrible.
-
Addicted to Bush
By PAUL KRUGMAN
For a couple of years, it was the love that dared not speak his name. In 2008, Republican candidates hardly ever mentioned the president still sitting in the White House. After the election, the G.O.P. did its best to shout down all talk about how we got into the mess we’re in, insisting that we needed to look forward, not back. And many in the news media played along, acting as if it was somehow uncouth for Democrats even to mention the Bush era and its legacy.
The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style — and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They’ve even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits.
But they have a problem: how can they embrace President Bush’s policies, given his record? After all, Mr. Bush’s two signature initiatives were tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq; both, in the eyes of the public, were abject failures. Tax cuts never yielded the promised prosperity, but along with other policies — especially the unfunded war in Iraq — they converted a budget surplus into a persistent deficit. Meanwhile, the W.M.D. we invaded Iraq to eliminate turned out not to exist, and by 2008 a majority of the public believed not just that the invasion was a mistake but that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. What’s a Republican to do?
You know the answer. There’s now a concerted effort under way to rehabilitate Mr. Bush’s image on at least three fronts: the economy, the deficit and the war.
On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.”
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.
But the Bush apologists hope that you won’t remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I’ve been hearing more and more — namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that’s what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.
On the deficit: Republicans are now claiming that the Bush administration was actually a paragon of fiscal responsibility, and that the deficit is Mr. Obama’s fault. “The last year of the Bush administration,” said Mr. McConnell recently, “the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent.”
But that 3.2 percent figure, it turns out, is for fiscal 2008 — which wasn’t the last year of the Bush administration, because it ended in September of 2008. In other words, it ended just as the failure of Lehman Brothers — on Mr. Bush’s watch — was triggering a broad financial and economic collapse. This collapse caused the deficit to soar: By the first quarter of 2009 — with only a trickle of stimulus funds flowing — federal borrowing had already reached almost 9 percent of G.D.P. To some of us, this says that the economic crisis that began under Mr. Bush is responsible for the great bulk of our current deficit. But the Republican Party is having none of it.
Finally, on the war: For most Americans, the whole debate about the war is old if painful news — but not for those obsessed with refurbishing the Bush image. Karl Rove now claims that his biggest mistake was letting Democrats get away with the “shameful” claim that the Bush administration hyped the case for invading Iraq. Let the whitewashing begin!
Again, Republicans aren’t trying to rescue George W. Bush’s reputation for sentimental reasons; they’re trying to clear the way for a return to Bush policies. And this carries a message for anyone hoping that the next time Republicans are in power, they’ll behave differently. If you believe that they’ve learned something — say, about fiscal prudence or the importance of effective regulation — you’re kidding yourself. You might as well face it: they’re addicted to Bush.
-
Bush signs order lifting sanctions on Libya
September 21, 2004
President Bush on Monday signed an executive order lifting the remaining U.S. commercial sanctions against Libya after determining the African nation has met all of the U.S. requirements for eliminating its programs on weapons of mass destruction, CNN has learned.
The order went into effect Tuesday.
In December Bush announced an agreement between the United States, Britain and Libya for Libya to give up its WMD programs in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions and better relations with the international community.
Bush had promised that Libya's actions would be responded to in "good faith" by the United States.
Since then, Libya has declared all of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs and embarked on a three-phase disarmament program in which the United States and Britain removed the majority of WMD material, about 1,032 metric tons, from the country.
"Libya has undertaken sufficient steps for us to have confidence they have fulfilled their strategic commitments" made in December, one senior official said, calling the Libyan move "historic."
The lifting of remaining sanctions, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, will pave the way for reinstating direct air service between the United States and Libya and the unfreezing of nearly $1.2 billion in Libyan assets.
The IEEPA sanctions were imposed in 1986 after Libya was blamed for the bombing of a Berlin disco that killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and wounded 229, including 79 Americans.
The lifting of the sanctions comes on the eve of a Wednesday deadline for the second of three payments to the families of victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The Libyans agreed to pay $2.7 billion, or $10 million per family, in compensation to the families of the 270 victims killed in the attack. Each of the families received the first sum of $4 million when the United Nations lifted sanctions. The families are to each receive an additional $4 million when the United States lifts the trade sanctions.
The families will receive the remaining $2 million when Libya is removed from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. That has not yet been done.
In April the Bush administration lifted most U.S. sanctions against Libya, opening the way for U.S. investments and commercial activities. The move made most commercial business, investment and trade with Libya possible. In addition, Libyan students are now eligible to study in the United States.
The United States also expanded diplomatic relations with Libya and has established a U.S. liaison office in Tripoli.
The United States in February dropped its 23-year ban on travel to Libya by U.S. citizens and permitted Americans to spend money in the country.
Officials said that in discussions with the Libyans, the United States has emphasized that Libya's WMD program would not make it a more "secure" nation. However, they argued the Western investment and economic development that would come with disarming and rejoining the international community would strengthen Libya, whose young population suffers from high unemployment.
-
To all the spineless, cowardly, smug, brownosing morons that bitched and whined about GW's foreign policy, can we have a teachable moment based on what has transpired in Libya? After looking like a complete affirmative action flunky that is unqualified to wipe his own ass, let alone run the United States regarding Egypt and fumbling around like a drunk 16 year old attempting to sneak in before mom and dad woke up to locate a coherent and consistent position, he has further embarrassed himself as it now appears that Gaddafi's rag tag army of mercenaries is going to retake the country. What did Obama do in this case? What he always does. Empty threats, meaningless platitudes, pussy ass statements with absolutely no intention on backing them up, and in the end, even with Europe and the entire Arab world urging us to act by merely endorsing a no-fly zone, Obama sat on his hands and filmed his NCAA tournament picks for ESPN.
Can we now agree that Obama has no clue what he's doing, has no handle on the situation in the middle east, has been made to look like a complete nincompoop on the international stage with regard to foreign affairs, has weakened the United States irreparably, has made the world less safe and has exposed himself as a incompetent yellow bellied cockroach that is obsessed with his anti colonialist- anti American agenda.
I am more embarrassed to be American now than I ever was after GW was in office. The man stands for nothing, is worth less than nothing and the pieces of shit that still support him should be euthanized at the local dog pound.
LOL ;D
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh221/mvandersall/fnztvo1.gif)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t119/todaysgold/InaugurationObamaOath_1.jpg)
Hahahaha! Awesome post.
Obama's approach to foreign policy:
1) Assess the situation and identify the best possible option.
2) Assess the situation and identify the worst possible option.
3) Choose worst possible option. Every. Single. Time.
4) Continue to look like a complete dickhead.
LOL
-
Benny - please tell me in one serious way Obama is better than Bush on any issue whatsoever. Pick any one you like.
-
March 12, 2011
In Search of Monsters
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
The Iraq war hawks urging intervention in Libya are confident that there’s no way Libya could ever be another Iraq.
Of course, they never thought Iraq would be Iraq, either.
All President Obama needs to do, Paul Wolfowitz asserts, is man up, arm the Libyan rebels, support setting up a no-fly zone and wait for instant democracy.
It’s a cakewalk.
Didn’t we arm the rebels in Afghanistan in the ’80s? And didn’t many become Taliban and end up turning our own weapons on us? And didn’t one mujahadeen from Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, go on to lead Al Qaeda?
So that worked out well.
Even now, with our deficit and military groaning from two wars in Muslim countries, interventionists on the left and the right insist it’s our duty to join the battle in a third Muslim country.
“It is both morally right and in America’s strategic interest to enable the Libyans to fight for themselves,” Wolfowitz wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece.
You would think that a major architect of the disastrous wars and interminable occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq would have the good manners to shut up and take up horticulture. But the neo-con naif has no shame.
After all, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates told West Point cadets last month, “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”
Gates boldly batted back the Cakewalk Brigade — which includes John McCain, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry — bluntly telling Congress last week: “Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that’s the way it starts.”
Wolfowitz, Rummy’s No. 2 in W.’s War Department, pushed to divert attention from Afghanistan and move on to Iraq; he pressed the canards that Saddam and Osama were linked and that we were in danger from Saddam’s phantom W.M.D.s; he promised that the Iraq invasion would end quickly and gleefully; he slapped back Gen. Eric Shinseki when he said securing Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops; and he claimed that rebuilding Iraq would be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues.
How wrong, deceptive and deadly can you be and still get to lecture President Obama on his moral obligations?
Wolfowitz was driven to invade Iraq and proselytize for the Libyan rebels partly because of his guilt over how the Bush I administration coldly deserted the Shiites and Kurds who were urged to rise up against Saddam at the end of the 1991 gulf war. Saddam sent out helicopters to slaughter thousands. (A NATO no-fly zone did not stop that.)
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is also monstrous, slaughtering civilians and hiring mercenaries to kill rebels.
It’s hard to know how to proceed, but in his rush, Wolfowitz never even seems to have a good understanding of the tribal thickets he wants America to wade into. In Foreign Affairs, Frederic Wehrey notes that “for four decades Libya has been largely terra incognita ... ‘like throwing darts at balloons in a dark room,’ as one senior Western diplomat put it to me.”
Leslie Gelb warns in The Daily Beast that no doubt some rebels are noble fighters, but some “could turn out to be thugs, thieves, and would-be new dictators. Surely, some will be Islamic extremists. One or more might turn into another Col. Qaddafi after gaining power. Indeed, when the good colonel led the Libyan coup in 1969, many right-thinking Westerners thought him to be a modernizing democrat.”
Reformed interventionist David Rieff, who wrote the book “At the Point of a Gun,” which criticizes “the messianic dream of remaking the world in either the image of American democracy or of the legal utopias of international human rights law,” told me that after Iraq: “America doesn’t have the credibility to make war in the Arab world. Our touch in this is actually counterproductive.”
He continued: “Qaddafi is a terrible man, but I don’t think it’s the business of the United States to overthrow him. Those who want America to support democratic movements and insurrections by force if necessary wherever there’s a chance of them succeeding are committing the United States to endless wars of altruism. And that’s folly.”
He quotes John Quincy Adams about America: “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy ... she is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
As for Wolfowitz, Rieff notes drily, “He should have stayed a mathematician.”
-
He continued: “Qaddafi is a terrible man, but I don’t think it’s the business of the United States to overthrow him. Those who want America to support democratic movements and insurrections by force if necessary wherever there’s a chance of them succeeding are committing the United States to endless wars of altruism. And that’s folly.”
________________________ ________________________ _____________
Funny - obama has different standards for Egypt, Honduras Lybia, Bahrain, etc.
HOLLA!
-
Benny - please tell me in one serious way Obama is better than Bush on any issue whatsoever. Pick any one you like.
1.
Obama Created More Jobs in One Year Than Bush Created in Eight
Yesterday morning, the Labor Department released its employment data for December, showing that the U.S. economy ended the year by adding 113,000 private sector jobs, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent — its lowest rate since July 2009. The “surprising drop — which was far better than the modest step-down economists had forecast — was the steepest one-month fall since 1998.” October and November’s jobs numbers were also revised upward by almost 80,000 each. Still, 14.5 million Americans remain unemployed, and jobs will have to be created much faster in coming months for the country to pull itself out of the economic doldrums.
Responding the jobs report, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.”
Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by Pelosi’s office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:
As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.”And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.
-
;)
-
Mar, 10, 2011
Obama's wise restraint echoes first President Bush
The Dallas Morning News
On the day the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, I remember watching President George H.W. Bush react with reserve and an absence of gloating despite the sheer size of that victory for democracy, signaling the West's triumph in the Cold War.
Bush's low-key stance drew some criticism. But combined with subsequent encouragement of both Soviet restraint and the region's democratic forces, it helped pave the way for a peaceful transition that ended nearly five decades of artificial political and military barriers within Europe.
In a sense, the democratic revolutions sweeping the Arab world bear some similarities to the ones two decades ago in Eastern Europe. They, too, reflect the impact of a global communications revolution, although they basically represent indigenous uprisings fueled by long-simmering resentment of authoritarian rule.
And President Obama, coping with the same sorts of issues the Bush faced two decades ago, is showing the same wise restraint, despite pressure for a more assertive U.S. role, especially in the bitter struggle now enmeshing Libya.
Obama's path ultimately should turn out to be the best one, especially since the Arab world's transition may prove far more complex than Eastern Europe's transformation from Soviet satellite to sometimes uneasy partners with the West.
The countries that stretch from Morocco in northwest Africa to the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirates make up one of the world's most volatile regions, partly due to continuing tensions from the Arab-Israeli dispute and partly from strains within Islam itself.
Not only does Obama's careful approach resemble that of Bush, it also mirrors those of other Cold War presidents from both parties who resisted direct U.S. involvement in the sporadic anti-Soviet uprisings that rocked Eastern Europe from World War II to the collapse of the Soviet empire.
Like them, he seeks to encourage the spread of democracy while avoiding anything that makes the U.S. an issue in the uprisings or undermines the fragile stability of a region on whose rich oil supplies Americans remain heavily dependent.
Obama showed how to balance those tensions in his evolving response to the demonstrations that caused the ouster of Egypt's longtime pro-U.S. president, Hosni Mubarak. Initially restrained because Mubarak has so often supported U.S. policies, Obama helped show him the door when it became evident change was inevitable.
In Libya, by contrast, the U.S. position has been less ambivalent and more direct, namely because the country's embattled leader, Moammar Gadhafi, is an unstable despot not particularly friendly to this country and because a speedy resolution will help ensure the continued flow of oil.
Obama is considering joining top U.S. allies in implementing some sort of an international "no-fly" zone to protect Libyan rebels. But Obama has wisely resisted pressure for a more active U.S. military role from those who seem determined to ignore the lessons from Vietnam to Iraq, in that what seems simple to start can turn complicated, costly and virtually unending.
Future events in the Arab world are likely to proceed with unforeseen twists and turns, given the vagaries of the Arab-Israeli dispute and the parallel conflicts within Islam between fundamentalist and modernist forces and between rival Sunni and Shiite factions.
So far, leaders of the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings seem to reflect the U.S. hope that democratic, pro-U.S. governments will emerge. But fundamentalist forces are major players in Yemen, and the future seems especially hazy in places like Saudi Arabia.
Still, Obama shows he understands that while these countries continue to play an important role affecting American security, the U.S. can't control events in them. Failure to heed that lesson could detract from the positive forces already at work.
-
Nah - bama is too distracted with picking bball brackets, partying, drinking, boozing, snorting coke, scarfing down kobe beef, champaigne, caviar, etc.
-
Oh brother--- more idiocy from another affirmative action flunky. ::)
You mean the first President Bush? The one who invaded Iraq in the early 90's and then promptly left without cleaning up the mess he caused, thereby allowing Saddam to remain in power?
You have your tounge so far up Obamas ass that you are too stupid to recognize the fact that if he wasn't a "brother" you would have absolutely nothing good to say about him.
The economy is much worse, our position in the world is much worse, the country is more divided, taxes are higher, jobs are fewer, confidence is at an all time low across the board in both government and the direction in which America is headed-- but its all good son! Nah mean?! Homey in da big chair gonn make dat money and watch dat NCAA dawg! Thaz gangsta!
-
Obama Now Pushing U.N. Toward Intervention In Libya
Neon Tommy, the Annenberg Digital News Service ^ | March 16, 2011 | Staff
________________________ _________________
The accelerating military blitz by forces of the Libyan dictatorship against pro-democracy insurgents has sparked a dramatic shift in Obama administration policy toward military intervention in the conflict. After dragging its feet with other members of the U.N. Security Council in imposing a no-fly zone to ground the regime's warplanes, the United States is now pushing for a U.N. authorization that would sanction the use of air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery.
Indeed, the U.S. has now joined Great Britain and France in lobbying for a Security Council vote on Thursday.
The radical shift in U.S. posture comes as Gaddafi's forces push toward a final and perhaps bloody final showdown in the so-called rebel capital of Benghazi and concern by the White House that time has come to stop the Libyan leader from drenching the eastern part of his country in a blood bath.
Until now, Washington had been reluctant to as much as impose a no-fly zone which might require bombarding of Libyan air defenses and, perhaps, its airfields. But in the last 24 hours, the administration has come full circle and now appears ready to take measures more aggressive than grounding Gaddafi's air force. The New York Times reports:
The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.
Administration officials — who have been debating a no-flight zone for weeks — concluded that such a step now would be “too little, too late” for rebels who have been pushed back to Benghazi. That suggests more aggressive measures, which some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi.
The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors.
The administration's reluctance to embroil itself in a third war in a Muslim country is deep-seated and permeates both its civilian and military branches. But it's believed that the fast-moving events on the ground are pushing President Obama into a corner he would have rather avoided. Whatever the political cost of engaging in Libya, it might be higher for the administration if it becomes a passive spectator to wholesale bloodshed as Gaddafi tries to drown the popular uprising in armor and blood.
The New York Times continues:
Among the other measures being proposed by the United States: sending foreign soldiers to Libya to advise the rebels, or financing them with some of the $32 billion belonging to the Qaddafi regime, which have been frozen by the Treasury Department. Rebels could use the money to buy weapons, officials said.
Neither of these steps, however, would come in time to stave off an assault by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces on Benghazi.
“What everybody is focused on is drawing a line, literally in the sand, around Benghazi, to prevent Qaddafi’s forces from capturing the city and staging a bloodbath,” said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch. “If Qaddafi wins, it could kill the moment in the entire Middle East.”
However the U.N. acts or not, there seems little doubt that time is now very short in Libya as Gaddafi tries to capitalize on his military momentum. On Thursday, Gaddafi vowed to "cleanse" the anti-government capital of Benghazi by the end of the work week.
The thousands of Libyans who stood up to Gaddafi when they saw similar authoritarian regimes fall in Egypt and Tunisia have unsuccessfully maintained their hold on cities that they initially captured control of. They claimed minor victories Wednesday, but the larger battle may soon be taken over by international intervention.
Overmatched in battlefield intelligence and weaponry, the rebels have been brushed back from the western edge of Libya to their strongholds in the east.
On Wednesday, hours after a Benghazi airport was bombed, Gaddafi's son Saif said Benghazi would be back in his father's control by the end of Friday.
________________________ ____________
TYPICAL FUCKING ASSHOLE OBAMA!
Wait till the action is over and then come in and pick a side and claim he tried everything. This is like Commodus from Gladiator coming in after the battle and trying to take credit.
-
"Well, I think Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States, and I just don't understand how they could have lost that election." There you have it coming from Donald Trump, not some hippie or homeless person but the billionaire who can't possibly be wrong according to you "business knows best" neo-cons. Trump later goes on to say "that just about everything coming out of this administration is a lie!" Donald Trump would get an understanding of how Bush got elected if he were to read "What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election" the report by Representative John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, it would be apparent the 2004 election was rigged for George Bush.
TRUMP "Bush worst president ever"
-
Yeah - until obama came along you duche.
Trump has been steam rolling the kenyan communist POFS ghetto trash for months now.
HOLLA!
-
George Bush is the worst president ever, says Bill Maher
-
Yeah - even Mahr is slamming obama lately.
Benny - please tell me one decent thing obama has done since in office. Even one.
-
Yeah - even Mahr is slamming obama lately.
Benny - please tell me one decent thing obama has done since in office. Even one.
made you cry like a baby every day ;D
-
Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.
The most recent poll of 238 presidential scholars (conducted in July 2010) ranks Bush as the WORST PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY. Overall he ranks 39th, which is fifth from the bottom. Official bottom five list is: A. Johnson, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce and G.W. Bush.
George W. Bush -- Worst President in Modern History
-
made you cry like a baby every day ;D
::) ::)
Please tell me one policy, one program, one initiative that has worked since Dear POFS has taken office?
-
George W Bush - American Idiot
-
Really Benny?
-
George W Bush's legacy: The global village idiot
By Tony Parsons
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jan2009/3/5/CF2F9B9A-C07E-3061-06B63E9DF4A5DE62.jpg)
Was George W Bush really as dumb as he looked?
Widely derided as the very worst President in American history, will the passing of time make us look more kindly on those blank, bewildered features?
Have we - in Dubya's own immortal phrase - misunder estimated him?
History has a way of radically altering the image of American Presidents. Lyndon Johnson, reviled in his day for the escalation of the Vietnam War, is now best remembered for pushing through Civil Rights legislation.
Ronald Reagan, despised as a simple version of Doctor Strangelove during his administration, is now grudgingly admired for his stance against Communism.
Even Nixon - scourge of the hippies, carpetbomber of South-East Asia, the dark hand behind Watergate - is viewed more sympathetically and seen as a deeply flawed, even tragic figure, rather than the murderous crook the world took him for at the time.
Will we start missing George Bush once he has gone? They will miss him in Africa, where a year ago thousands of adoring fans lined the streets to cheer him.
It is a difficult fact for Bush-haters to swallow, but during the eight years of the Dubya regime, America spent Û18billion (£12.4billion) on AIDS prevention, Û1.2billion (£850million) to prevent malaria and gave Û3.5billion (£2.4billion) to African nations that govern well, provide social services and encourage economic growth.
Of course this is small change compared to the Û850billion (£583billion) he has spent on his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a figure currently rising by Û13.6billion (£9.3billion) every month. Add in extra costs, such as payouts to the families of dead soldiers, and estimates put the total bill at three times that.
But all across Africa, even in Muslim countries, George is worshipped. In Darfur, many couples name their baby boys George Bush.
"The Bush regime has been divisive - created bitterness - but not here in Africa," Bob Geldof has written. "Here, his administration has saved millions of lives."
With projects like his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Bush administration has ensured that, for millions of Africans, from the townships of South Africa to the backstreets of Rwanda, HIV is no longer a death sentence.
If anything rescues George Bush from the dustbin of history, it will be his work in Africa.
And yet Africa is not the world.
George Bush's lifeline for millions in the Third World proves that blanket, unequivocal condemnation of his Presidency is as simple-minded as that little, pea-brained smile that played across his features when he wasn't sure what was going on. Which was most of the time.
But there is also no denying his Presidency has made millions more despise the US. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Africa will emerge from the darkness into the light and history will record that George Bush did far more practical good than Bill Clinton or Bono ever did.
But what about the misery he created in the rest of the world?
When he ducked those shoes in Iraq, his wife loyally said that George was "a natural athlete". But to most of us he always looked like a natural simpleton, a rich man's son who got to the Oval Office on his daddy's shirttails, the global village idiot.
In truth, anti-Americanism is always thriving in large parts of the planet because for most of the 20th Century, the USA was the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen. But George Bush gave the world good reasons to hate America. He has been a far more effective recruiting agent for Islamic terrorism than Osama bin Laden.
With his clumsy, murderous war in Iraq, Bush made anti-Americanism a global sport. Even those of us who love America have despaired of the country under George Bush's watch.
The best things about America - its generosity, its sense of limitless possibility, the profound belief in freedom that sent Americans to fight and die in Europe in two world wars - has been replaced by a seething paranoia and murderous belligerence.
When the planes crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, almost all of the world was on America's side. It is to George Bush's eternal shame that he squandered that goodwill. Incredibly, on a day when we watched 3,000 people murdered on live TV, George Bush somehow contrived to make the USA look like an aggressor.
Bush seemed too stupid to be President. Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with 9/11, and yet Bush and his neocon cronies wanted to make an example of someone with a beard.
Iraq, for all its murder and torture, was a largely secular state. Saddam wanted to be the god Iraqis worshipped. But Bush - and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney - turned Iraq into a seething hotbed of militant Islamic terrorism. And for that, history will never forgive him.
Perhaps the great mystery of George Bush is this: he was not only stupid, but empty.
The very worst forces of America - warmongers, religious nutters, and raving nationalists - swarmed around him and painted their fantasies on his blank canvas.
Lawrence Wilkinson, a top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell - a good man who was shamefully duped into believing the great lie that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction - said: "Dick Cheney knew that he was going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush. Personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum."
In many ways, Bush was a luckless President. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the global economic meltdown all happened on his watch. That's an awful lot of world shattering events to have sitting in your in-tray, but with a gritty, shrewd response, Bush could have seized greatness.
However, the Texan twit was never made for greatness.
9/11 produced unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The citizens of New Orleans were left to rot in the rising waters of Katrina. And the casino capitalism of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco flourished under his regime, while the response of Dubya's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, seemed slow and inadequate until he followed the lead of Gordon Brown. George Bush never missed an opportunity to do the wrong thing.
He had his followers, the "USA! USA!" chanters who acted as though the war on terror was a basketball match there to be won if they just shouted loud enough.
But even these chubby patriots have shuffled off now, worried about losing their homes, their jobs and their shirts, and his approval rating has slumped to an almost nonexistent 27 per cent.
Which makes George Bush, at the end of his two terms as President of the United States, only slightly more popular in Biloxi than he is in Baghdad.
-
:D
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/G/n/X/2/bushism-collage.jpg)
The 50 Dumbest Bush Quotes of All Time
A compendium of idiotic and maniacal utterances by President Bush, 2000-2008
50. "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." --at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
49. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." --Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001
48. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." -Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
47. "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." --Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001
46. "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
45. "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." --at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001
44. "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006
43. "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007
42. "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War
41. "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson
40. 3. "I think I was unprepared for war." –on the biggest regret of his presidency, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008
39. "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward
38. "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." --presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004
37. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." --Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
36. "Do you have blacks, too?" --to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001
35. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." --as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
34. "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." --on "Good Morning America," Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina
33. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000
32. "I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake." --on his best moment in office, interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag, May 7, 2006
31. "They misunderestimated me." --Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
30. "For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." --Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001
29. "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base." --at the 2000 Al Smith dinner
28. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." --LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
27. "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right." --Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001
26. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
25. "People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002
24. "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it...I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet...I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." --after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004
23. "You forgot Poland." --to Sen. John Kerry during the first presidential debate, after Kerry failed to mention Poland's contributions to the Iraq war coalition, Miami, Fla., Sept. 30, 2004
22. "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --in parting words to world leaders at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as those present looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
21. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." --State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false
20. "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
19. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
18. "So what?" –President Bush, responding to a an ABC News correspondent who pointed out that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded, Dec. 14, 2008
17. "Can we win? I don't think you can win it." --after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004
16. "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." --Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002
15. "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." --to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004
14. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." --speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003
13. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." --Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003
12. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" --joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004
11. "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
10. "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
9. "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured." --on the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2007
8. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
7. "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." --Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006
6. "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
5. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." --Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
4. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
3. "You work three jobs? ... Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
2. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005
1. "My answer is bring them on." --on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003
-
After your posting rampage, be prepared for a beating like you should have received but for your daddys' incarceration during your childhood.
-
:-[
Mission not so accomplished
(http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6351/54606484id2.jpg)
On May 1st, 2003, Bush was flown to the USS Lincoln where he made a speech announcing what he said signified “the end of major combat operations,” and that “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” After the giant “Mission Accomplished” sign behind him was criticized by many, the White House initially claimed that the Navy had made put it there, but it was later revealed that the White House produced it. On the same day, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a similar announcement about the end of the war in Afghanistan.
Secretary Rumsfeld said in an interview that Bush’s speech originally contained the words “mission accomplished” but he asked the Commander in Chief to remove them since they seemed too conclusive at the time. Administration officials made similar statements in what is now seen as only the beginning of the Iraq War, with Rumsfeld stating that he believed the insurgency “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Vice President Cheney also predicted that the insurgents were in their “last throes” around the same time.
Four years later, both conflicts are still ongoing and the United States has been involved in them longer than World War II. The vast majority of casualties, both civilian and military have occurred since Bush made his famous speech.
-
I see the cut and pasting wars are well under way. ::)
-
I see the cut and pasting wars are well under way. ::)
It's funny but Benny and 333 are pretty much the same type of posters. Just on different sides of the spectrum.
-
GW didn't give a fuck about his enemies thinking he was a nice guy. He didn't give a fuck about what the spineless eurotrash thought about the United States. He knew how to exert pressure on other countries diplomatically and he knew that the UN is an absolute joke in every way shape and form. He believed in American exceptionalism, stood behind his beliefs and while he made bad decisions sometimes- he had the guts to make tough choices instead of sitting on his hands like a pussy.
What some people fail to realize is that no military action was required on Libya from us. The French just wanted us to say we were in support of a no fly zone-- the arab league, NATO, practically every major player in the world wanted us to give some sort of support and show of solidarity. An international coalition was willing to act if we took the lead. Instead, our spineless weasel of a President did what he does best-- nothing.
Obama's foreign policy is mindless-- absolutely mindless. When the biggest threat to our national security and the security of the planet ( Iran) was in the midst of a brutal crackdown with a sustained uprising by the population, Obama did nothing and said nothing except that he didn't want to get involved. Here we have a regime that openly sponsors terrorism, the Iraqi insurgency, the Taliban, who kills our soldiers, is ignoring the UN and pursuing nuclear weapons, has said repeatedly that it will wipe Israel off the map, supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas and makes Obama look like a jack ass on a daily basis. The people of Iran wanted a more modern, less extreme brand of leadership and are willing to die to remove the leadership in place-- and Obama doesn't want to get involved. Contrast that with Egypt-- an American ally for 30 years who despite having a repressive regime was an immeasurable ally in stabilizing the region, trading, keeping peace with Israel and sharing intelligence. The government is decidedly pro American, pro capitalist, has deep ties with America and is one of the freer countries in the region. Lets not forget that Ahmedinijhad makes Hosni Mubahrak look like Santa Claus. After practically no violence directed against the population, Obama forces Mubarhak to step down.
Now lets look at Libya. Gadaffi masterminded Pan Am flight 103—an act of terror and war against the United States; this comes on the heels of Gadaffi getting the Lockerbie bomber freed. He is the most brutally oppressive dictator in the region. He has pursued chemical weapons in the past, openly sponsored terrorism and has been a thorn in America’s side for years. He uses his own air force to drop bombs on his people during peaceful protests, and Obama hides under the table like a bitch? He issues empty statements, takes no action and refuses to support a no fly zone. Now Gadaffi is going to kill his way back into power and probably commit genocide in the process. He is holding his oil hostage (which effects Europe not us) and has vowed revenge against the west.
Can someone explain the logic behind his decision making?
+1
-
Oh brother--- more idiocy from another affirmative action flunky. ::)
You mean the first President Bush? The one who invaded Iraq in the early 90's and then promptly left without cleaning up the mess he caused, thereby allowing Saddam to remain in power?
You have your tounge so far up Obamas ass that you are too stupid to recognize the fact that if he wasn't a "brother" you would have absolutely nothing good to say about him.
The economy is much worse, our position in the world is much worse, the country is more divided, taxes are higher, jobs are fewer, confidence is at an all time low across the board in both government and the direction in which America is headed-- but its all good son! Nah mean?! Homey in da big chair gonn make dat money and watch dat NCAA dawg! Thaz gangsta!
+2
-
It's funny but Benny and 333 are pretty much the same type of posters. Just on different sides of the spectrum.
I agree but the difference is 33333 will also full on debate with you in his owns words, Benny doesn't as much.
-
I agree but the difference is 33333 will also full on debate with you in his owns words, Benny doesn't as much.
That's because 33 typically bitch slaps Benny in 99.99% of all his threads. If you were continually getting schooled like a retarded douche, you probably wouldn't stick around either. :D
-
That's because 33 typically bitch slaps Benny in 99.99% of all his threads. If you were continually getting schooled like a retarded douche, you probably wouldn't stick around either. :D
I like everyone but him. I like Straw, blacken, 240, andre, etc. Benny is the only jerkoff I get delight in giving a beat down to.
-
(http://nathanielstern.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/connecticut-wecomes-you.jpeg)
-
Worst. President. Ever.
By Scott Horton
“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”
America’s historians, it seems, don’t think much of George W. Bush.
Now in all fairness, historians should wait a while before passing judgment on a president’s who served recently, much less one still in office. But the current incumbent is a special case. After all, 81 percent of Americans, according to a recent New York Times poll, believe he’s taken the country on the wrong track. That’s the highest number ever registered. The same poll also says 28 percent have a favorable view of his performance in office, which is also in Nixon-in-the-darkest-days-of-Watergate territory.
But, as George Mason University’s History News Network reports, the historians have a different measure. They want to stack him up against his forty-two predecessors as the nation’s chief executive. Among historians, there is no doubt into which echelon he falls–his competitors are Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce, the worst of the presidential worst. But does Bush actually come in dead last?
Yes. History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure.”
(http://www.harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/mcelvainepoll4-1-08-a.gif)
Historians Rate George W. Bush a “Failure”
This marks a dramatic deterioration for Bush. Previously he wasn’t viewed in the most positive terms, but there was a consensus that he wasn’t the “worst of the worst” either. That was in the spring of 2004. In the meantime, Bush has established himself as the torture president, the basis for his invasion of Iraq has been exposed as a fraud, the Iraq War itself has gone disastrously, the nation’s network of alliances has faded, and the economy has gone into a tailspin–not to mention the bungled handling of relief for victims of hurricane Katrina. In 2004, only 12 percent of historians were ready to place Bush dead last.
Here are some of the comments that the historians furnished:
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of areas: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”
-
He's a gimmick. :D
-
BUMP
To all the spineless, cowardly, smug, brownosing morons that bitched and whined about GW's foreign policy, can we have a teachable moment based on what has transpired in Libya? After looking like a complete affirmative action flunky that is unqualified to wipe his own ass, let alone run the United States regarding Egypt and fumbling around like a drunk 16 year old attempting to sneak in before mom and dad woke up to locate a coherent and consistent position, he has further embarrassed himself as it now appears that Gaddafi's rag tag army of mercenaries is going to retake the country. What did Obama do in this case? What he always does. Empty threats, meaningless platitudes, pussy ass statements with absolutely no intention on backing them up, and in the end, even with Europe and the entire Arab world urging us to act by merely endorsing a no-fly zone, Obama sat on his hands and filmed his NCAA tournament picks for ESPN.
Can we now agree that Obama has no clue what he's doing, has no handle on the situation in the middle east, has been made to look like a complete nincompoop on the international stage with regard to foreign affairs, has weakened the United States irreparably, has made the world less safe and has exposed himself as a incompetent yellow bellied cockroach that is obsessed with his anti colonialist- anti American agenda.
I am more embarrassed to be American now than I ever was after GW was in office. The man stands for nothing, is worth less than nothing and the pieces of shit that still support him should be euthanized at the local dog pound.
-
not at all 2 words iraq war 4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars
-
not at all 2 words iraq war 4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars
How many have we lost since O-TWINK has become POTUS and how much has he added to the debt?
-
and remind us where it started
-
and remind us where it started
9/11/2001 - that is where it started.
-
9/11/2001 - that is where it started.
and if we go by your thinking it must be bushes fault because he was pres. at the time,right
-
not at all 2 words iraq war 4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars
Not to mention the killing of something like 500,000 Iraqis.
No American should be proud of that.
-
YAWN...When will all of you DUMBASSES come to understand and accept what Politics is all about. No politician is any better or worst than the one before or after him...WHY? because they are all controlled manipulated PUPPETS whose handlers are BANKERS and other BIG BUSINESSES. Come to know and understand that and free yourselves from endless mindless blaming and commentary that means NOTHING...
POLITICS... POLY = MANY
TICS - BLOOD SUCKERS
So in short the system means MANY BLOODSUCKERS who feast off of YOUR FLESH
WoW!! QFT!!!
-
Not to mention the killing of something like 500,000 Iraqis.
No American should be proud of that.
No American should believe that propaganda.
-
No American should believe that propaganda.
Which part is propaganda?
Are you quibbling over the exact number of Iraqis who died as a consequence of the USA invading their country?
What number of dead Iraqis is low enough for you to be proud of America's actions over there?
-
love this. yet all the libs on here voted for democrats that voted yes to go to war with Iraq. Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, Kerry,........that fact is conveniently left out of this thread though.
no one wants to remember Hillary saying
"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
but all the same liberals will all vote for her while still talking shit about GWB's "bullshit war". that's why i'm convinced that no one cares about any of this shit. this country runs on gays and abortion. no one will ever convince me otherwise simply because of shit like this.
I get it if you believe its a bullshit war. but don't sit on this board and stroke every democrats cock while talking about GWB and the Republicans bullshit war in Iraq. democrats and republicans voted to do this. own it and move on.
or just be an ignorant asshole and post another article talking about how bad GWB was
-
"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
SO FUNNY HOW CONVENIENTLY NONE OF THE DIE HARD LIBERALS REMEMBER HOW OUTSPOKEN HILLARY WAS FOR HER SUPPORT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ.
-
"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002
Congressional Record, p. H7777
OH yeah and Nancy Pelosi too. check her out "applauding" the President. you libs all hate her right? and you hate Obama's entire administration too right? they did support GWB in the horrible atrocities that he committed against the Iraqi people right?
here is where all of you guys scramble and make silly excuses about how they were all tricked.........by the (in your words in about 10,000 threads) the STUPIDEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US.
so you guys wouldn't vote for the STUPIDEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE US. you'll just vote for all of the people he was able to trick into a bullshit war right?
-
"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
SO FUNNY HOW CONVENIENTLY NONE OF THE DIE HARD LIBERALS REMEMBER HOW OUTSPOKEN HILLARY WAS FOR HER SUPPORT OF THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Like a lot of us, she was wrong.
Whether she was mislead (like most of us) or was knowingly pulling the okeydoke (like I suspect Cheney and his pals were) is really the question she'll likely need to answer again and again if she wants to be president.
It's pretty natural and normal, I think, for most people to get whipped up into "war fever" when your country is attacked.
It just sucks when you make a Ron Artest-like mistake (à la Malice at the Palace) and attack the guy who DIDN'T throw the beer on you.
-
Which part is propaganda?
Are you quibbling over the exact number of Iraqis who died as a consequence of the USA invading their country?
What number of dead Iraqis is low enough for you to be proud of America's actions over there?
All of it. Not quibbling over the exact number. You just latched onto a false number that has been floating around the internet for years. But don't let the facts get in the way of internet propaganda.
-
How do you know it's false?
Did you do the body counts yourself?
Was the death of 4000 Americans, husbands, sons, daughters, wives,..... families shattered worth disposing Saddam followed by 8 years of insurgency and trillions of debt? All based on bull shit Intel?
What if the number of dead Iraqis was 12? Is a dozen acceptable to you? Was that worth 4000 of our lives?
How many Iraqis died makes no difference to the point that that war was wrong. If we really wanted to save an enslaved people, if our intentions were really true.......we would have invaded north Korea.
The dems voted for it because they are whores for votes to vote.against at the time is to risk losing their next election.
-
How do you know it's false?
Did you do the body counts yourself?
Was the death of 4000 Americans, husbands, sons, daughters, wives,..... families shattered worth disposing Saddam followed by 8 years of insurgency and trillions of debt? All based on bull shit Intel?
What if the number of dead Iraqis was 12? Is a dozen acceptable to you? Was that worth 4000 of our lives?
How many Iraqis died makes no difference to the point that that war was wrong. If we really wanted to save an enslaved people, if our intentions were really true.......we would have invaded north Korea.
The dems voted for it because they are whores for votes to vote.against at the time is to risk losing their next election.
How do I know the number is wrong? For the same reason I know we didn't kill three million people. Doesn't make any dang sense. And I read an analysis a long time ago debunking that 500,000 number. Pretty sure it has been posted on the board.
No, I didn't count any bodies.
I wasn't commenting on whether the war was right or wrong (although you already know my views on the war), just pointing out the number is BS.
And no, North Korea isn't the same. We beat that horse to death.
-
Like a lot of us, she was wrong.
Whether she was mislead (like most of us) or was knowingly pulling the okeydoke (like I suspect Cheney and his pals were) is really the question she'll likely need to answer again and again if she wants to be president.
It's pretty natural and normal, I think, for most people to get whipped up into "war fever" when your country is attacked.
It just sucks when you make a Ron Artest-like mistake (à la Malice at the Palace) and attack the guy who DIDN'T throw the beer on you.
she won't have to answer that question. no one asks. no one cares to dredge up the fact that she was just as in favor of this war as GWB was because why?
no one cares. that's why. all anyone cares about is gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal agenda. they only PRETEND to care about the war in Iraq.
if they actually did care about the war in Iraq and innocent Iraqi people dying they would be incensed at Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc and all of those people would be on the receiving end of the same venom that GWB is getting in this thread. but no one says a word.
look at your response. it says it all. you suspect Cheney and the Republicans were lying. but you're JUST NOT SURE IF HILLARY WAS MISLED OR NOT. and misled by who? Republicans? that's fucking bullshit. you've been conditioned to think like that by the liberal media.
all of the intelligence committees were bipartisan. if she had intelligence it came from committees of Republicans and Democrats.
you're letting her off easy because she's a liberal. period. you're blatantly picking and choosing facts based upon convenience. period.
these are the things that really get me pist off. I can accept the belief that this was a bullshit war and that we did it for whatever nefarious reason we did it for. i can honestly accept that.
but you don't get to pick and choose who you want to demonize based on how you vote. you should only be demonizing people based on all of the facts that we know.
-
Awesome post - dead on
she won't have to answer that question. no one asks. no one cares to dredge up the fact that she was just as in favor of this war as GWB was because why?
no one cares. that's why. all anyone cares about is gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal agenda. they only PRETEND to care about the war in Iraq.
if they actually did care about the war in Iraq and innocent Iraqi people dying they would be incensed at Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc and all of those people would be on the receiving end of the same venom that GWB is getting in this thread. but no one says a word.
look at your response. it says it all. you suspect Cheney and the Republicans were lying. but you're JUST NOT SURE IF HILLARY WAS MISLED OR NOT. and misled by who? Republicans? that's fucking bullshit. you've been conditioned to think like that by the liberal media.
all of the intelligence committees were bipartisan. if she had intelligence it came from committees of Republicans and Democrats.
you're letting her off easy because she's a liberal. period. you're blatantly picking and choosing facts based upon convenience. period.
these are the things that really get me pist off. I can accept the belief that this was a bullshit war and that we did it for whatever nefarious reason we did it for. i can honestly accept that.
but you don't get to pick and choose who you want to demonize based on how you vote. you should only be demonizing people based on all of the facts that we know.
-
All of it. Not quibbling over the exact number. You just latched onto a false number that has been floating around the internet for years. But don't let the facts get in the way of internet propaganda.
False number? That what they're telling you on Fox News?
I didn't "latch on" to any years-old number - I got that approximate number from this peer-reviewed study published in October 2013:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533 (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533)
-
she won't have to answer that question. no one asks. no one cares to dredge up the fact that she was just as in favor of this war as GWB was because why?
no one cares. that's why. all anyone cares about is gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal agenda. they only PRETEND to care about the war in Iraq.
if they actually did care about the war in Iraq and innocent Iraqi people dying they would be incensed at Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc and all of those people would be on the receiving end of the same venom that GWB is getting in this thread. but no one says a word.
look at your response. it says it all. you suspect Cheney and the Republicans were lying. but you're JUST NOT SURE IF HILLARY WAS MISLED OR NOT. and misled by who? Republicans? that's fucking bullshit. you've been conditioned to think like that by the liberal media.
all of the intelligence committees were bipartisan. if she had intelligence it came from committees of Republicans and Democrats.
you're letting her off easy because she's a liberal. period. you're blatantly picking and choosing facts based upon convenience. period.
these are the things that really get me pist off. I can accept the belief that this was a bullshit war and that we did it for whatever nefarious reason we did it for. i can honestly accept that.
but you don't get to pick and choose who you want to demonize based on how you vote. you should only be demonizing people based on all of the facts that we know.
Dude, you're off-base here. I'm no Hillary fan. She may have been lying I just don't think it's reasonable to think she's as complicit in lying America into war as Cheney and the other folks who were close to GWB (because she was not the president at the time.)
-
False number? That what they're telling you on Fox News?
I didn't "latch on" to any years-old number - I got that approximate number from this peer-reviewed study published in October 2013:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533 (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533)
I was telling someone the other day that the internet is the greatest invention of my lifetime, but that it's also dangerous, because any idiot can call themselves an "expert." This really proves my point.
Yes, they surveyed a relative handful of households and projected numbers. This isn't a reliable number. They did not measure true collateral damage caused by American troops.
But you've shown several times that you don't let the facts get in the way of whatever liberal lackey viewpoint you have.
-
I was telling someone the other day that the internet is the greatest invention of my lifetime, but that it's also dangerous, because any idiot can call themselves an "expert." This really proves my point.
Yes, they surveyed a relative handful of households and projected numbers. This isn't a reliable number. They did not measure true collateral damage caused by American troops.
But you've shown several times that you don't let the facts get in the way of whatever liberal lackey viewpoint you have.
Any idiot can claim to be an expert? LOL. It's a peer-reviewed scientific study, ya flat-earther.
Tell me, are the folks at MIT idiots in your book, too? Because here's an MIT article concerning the human cost of the shenanigans in Iraq that looks at quite a few different studies: http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/ (http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/)
Double lol at your statement that the study in question wasn't "reliable". It may have gone over your head (esp. if you've never taken a statistics course) but the study contains confidence interval info that speaks to the "reliability" of the results. (In other words, the results are presented as a range of values with statistically derived info about how likely the actual results are at a given place within that range.)
Triple lol at you complaining that I ignore "facts". What facts have you presented here? Seems to me that you've just presented your opinion that the results of a recent scientific study are years old and false and then made some vague comment that the numbers were debunked at one time (near the Niagra Falls area, no doubt) so that's what you believe.
As a older religious conservative, it does not surprise me that you are generally mistrustful and even fearful about the many subjects about which you are ignorant. I still find it a little bit sad you'd often rather cling to your beliefs instead of making an effort to learn something new while engaging neglected critical thinking skills, though.
I have to add that I am glad that, due to science, folks like you represent an ever-receding pocket of ignorance which gets smaller and smaller as time goes on. (Smaller because scientific knowledge is growing while you ignorant folks are dying off.)
-
Any idiot can claim to be an expert? LOL. It's a peer-reviewed scientific study, ya flat-earther.
Tell me, are the folks at MIT idiots in your book, too? Because here's an MIT article concerning the human cost of the shenanigans in Iraq that looks at quite a few different studies: http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/ (http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/)
Double lol at your statement that the study in question wasn't "reliable". It may have gone over your head (esp. if you've never taken a statistics course) but the study contains confidence interval info that speaks to the "reliability" of the results. (In other words, the results are presented as a range of values with statistically derived info about how likely the actual results are at a given place within that range.)
Triple lol at you complaining that I ignore "facts". What facts have you presented here? Seems to me that you've just presented your opinion that the results of a recent scientific study are years old and false and then made some vague comment that the numbers were debunked at one time (near the Niagra Falls area, no doubt) so that's what you believe.
As a older religious conservative, it does not surprise me that you are generally mistrustful and even fearful about the many subjects about which you are ignorant. I still find it a little bit sad you'd often rather cling to your beliefs instead of making an effort to learn something new while engaging neglected critical thinking skills, though.
I have to add that I am glad that, due to science, folks like you represent an ever-receding pocket of ignorance which gets smaller and smaller as time goes on. (Smaller because scientific knowledge is growing while you ignorant folks are dying off.)
I try not assign labels to people on here, but good Lord you are a simpleton. I doubt you read the link you provided. None of them support your assertion that Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis. It's sad that simpletons like you, who are also partisan lackeys, have an impact on our national politics. It is simpletons like you that give us Obama x 2. I hope you're proud of yourself.
-
I try not assign labels to people on here, but good Lord you are a simpleton. I doubt you read the link you provided. None of them support your assertion that Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis. It's sad that simpletons like you, who are also partisan lackeys, have an impact on our national politics. It is simpletons like you that give us Obama x 2. I hope you're proud of yourself.
"The link.." but "None of them"? Speaking of not reading, it looks like you didn't even read your own post. Past your bedtime or what?
I see a lot of insults but no facts from you. Why is that?
BTW, taking a step back, it's pretty pathetic that this whole song and dance is because you'd like to avoid discussing how immoral it is for the USA to be responsible for the needless deaths of a huge number of Iraqi people.
That kind of thing seems so much worse when the person doing it is as old as you are. Kind of sick, really.
-
well I think I'm possibly one of the few that called it correctly as BS from the beginning. 8)
-
False number? That what they're telling you on Fox News?
I didn't "latch on" to any years-old number - I got that approximate number from this peer-reviewed study published in October 2013:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533 (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533)
Did I read that right? They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?
-
Did I read that right? They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?
And how many were sectarian deaths among warring tribes - terrorists blowing up mosques etc? A lot!
The numbers are always bogus from these groups and never account for deaths among the thugs each other.
-
How do I know the number is wrong? For the same reason I know we didn't kill three million people. Doesn't make any dang sense. And I read an analysis a long time ago debunking that 500,000 number. Pretty sure it has been posted on the board.
No, I didn't count any bodies.
I wasn't commenting on whether the war was right or wrong (although you already know my views on the war), just pointing out the number is BS.
And no, North Korea isn't the same. We beat that horse to death.
So you are just using bias opinion rather than doing any real research. I see.
In regards from "rescuing a people from an evil dictator" north Korea a real reason, Iraq was a oil opportunity.
-
And how many were sectarian deaths among warring tribes - terrorists blowing up mosques etc? A lot!
The numbers are always bogus from these groups and never account for deaths among the thugs each other.
You'd actually have to research it to know how the study was done. Otherwise you are just assuming.
-
Did I read that right? They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?
Yes! That's right.
It's a huge spread but it makes sense --- When you're trying to assess how many folks have died in a place that's been attacked militarily for 8 to 10 years, it's difficult to know if the people missing were killed or if they just got the fuck out of there.
-
Yes! That's right.
It's a huge spread but it makes sense --- When you're trying to assess how many folks have died in a place that's been attacked militarily for 8 to 10 years, it's difficult to know if the people missing were killed or if they just got the fuck out of there.
Then how is it a very accurate study? How can anyone difinitiy say the number was 500k?
-
Dude, you're off-base here. I'm no Hillary fan. She may have been lying I just don't think it's reasonable to think she's as complicit in lying America into war as Cheney and the other folks who were close to GWB (because she was not the president at the time.)
you're guessing. and your guess errs in favor of the Democrats in office at that time. even though everything she said proves that she believed the right thing to do was invade Iraq. you believe in conspiracy theories.....as long as it doesn't shine a bad light on anyone in the Democratic machine.
that's what i'm talking about when I say convenient beliefs.
I can accept some conspiracy theories. I cant accept people blatantly putting blinders on because they've chosen up sides and refuse to look at anything objectively.
-
Then how is it a very accurate study? How can anyone difinitiy say the number was 500k?
Ah shit, I just wrote a long response to this but accidentally lost what I wrote by double-clicking in the preview pane.
Anyway, depends what you mean by an "accurate study". The study is accurate in that it's very upfront about how sure (or not) one can be about its results.
No one can definitively say what the number (of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq) is and that's why the study's authors present its results as "460,000 deaths with a 95% confidence (or uncertainty) interval of a (whopping) 48,000 - 751,000 deaths".
(It's also important, btw, to understand what the study is talking about when it says "attributable" but they pretty clearly lay that out.)
So what's the value of this study? Here's the money paragraph (for me):
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings provide the most up-to-date estimates of the death toll of the Iraq war and subsequent conflict. However, given the difficult circumstances, the estimates are associated with substantial uncertainties. The researchers extrapolated from a small representative sample of households to estimate Iraq's national death toll. In addition, respondents were asked to recall events that occurred up to ten years prior, which can lead to inaccuracies. The researchers also had to rely on outdated census data (the last complete population census in Iraq dates back to 1987) for their overall population figures. Thus, to accompany their estimate of 460,000 excess deaths from March 2003 to mid-2011, the authors used statistical methods to determine the likely range of the true estimate. Based on the statistical methods, the researchers are 95% confident that the true number of excess deaths lies between 48,000 and 751,000—a large range. More than two years past the end of the period covered in this study, the conflict in Iraq is far from over and continues to cost lives at alarming rates. As discussed in an accompanying Perspective by Salman Rawaf, violence and lawlessness continue to the present day. In addition, post-war Iraq has limited capacity to re-establish and maintain its battered public health and safety infrastructure.
So while it seems that any study for the specific purpose of determining the actual number of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq will be of only limited value, the study IS valuable when trying to find the answer to the more important question, "Did the USA's invasion of Iraq destroy the lives of a huge number of Iraqi people?"
The answer, of course, is "Hell yes!"... and no American should be proud of that.
-
you're guessing. and your guess errs in favor of the Democrats in office at that time. even though everything she said proves that she believed the right thing to do was invade Iraq. you believe in conspiracy theories.....as long as it doesn't shine a bad light on anyone in the Democratic machine.
that's what i'm talking about when I say convenient beliefs.
I can accept some conspiracy theories. I cant accept people blatantly putting blinders on because they've chosen up sides and refuse to look at anything objectively.
We're both guessing, aren't we? I'm just saying that the president and his bro's could reasonably be expected to be more likely to know the real deal than Hillary. Do you not agree with that?
-
I don't miss GW, but compared to obama, there is no doubt that GW was more of a leader and inspired more fear and respect than what we have now.
We are laughed at, disrespected, and not taken at all erious with Obama as POTUS. As hard as it is to believe, obama has cheapened and degraded the office of POTUS so badly that even many nations must secretely wish for GWB to be back, even ifthey didnt like him.
We went from bad to unthinkable in a very short period of time.
Lol
-
And how many were sectarian deaths among warring tribes - terrorists blowing up mosques etc? A lot!
The numbers are always bogus from these groups and never account for deaths among the thugs each other.
The numbers themselves aren't bogus as long as the authors of the studies clearly define what the numbers represent.
What is pretty much bogus is when other groups take the results and throw them around without bothering to explain what they really represent.
(You can sort of understand why both sides would do this, though, most readers/viewers do not have the patience to sit through an explanation of what a "confidence interval" is.)
-
Lol
How correct I was.
Obama is a universally mocked laughing stock and joke. He is nothing but a piñata and fodder for late night comics. F him.
-
How correct I was.
Obama is a universally mocked laughing stock and joke. He is nothing but a piñata and fodder for late night comics. F him.
and what are you on this board :D
-
(http://i.imgur.com/wlmVO.gif)
-
We're both guessing, aren't we? I'm just saying that the president and his bro's could reasonably be expected to be more likely to know the real deal than Hillary. Do you not agree with that?
NO. I do not agree that there was a conspiracy going on with ONLY republicans. that's what you're trying to make yourself believe. and its completely silly.
I can accept the fact that there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq for nefarious reasons but all of the intelligence that was gathered were headed up by BIPARTISAN committees. if there was a conspiracy, leaders from both sides of the aisle were involved. if you don't, believe that, you quite simply watch too many movies.
also I do find it peculiar how liberals on here are the consummate conspiracy theorists from 2000-2008. and then all of their conspiracy theories end at 2008. I wonder why.
-
"The link.." but "None of them"? Speaking of not reading, it looks like you didn't even read your own post. Past your bedtime or what?
I see a lot of insults but no facts from you. Why is that?
BTW, taking a step back, it's pretty pathetic that this whole song and dance is because you'd like to avoid discussing how immoral it is for the USA to be responsible for the needless deaths of a huge number of Iraqi people.
That kind of thing seems so much worse when the person doing it is as old as you are. Kind of sick, really.
lol. You posted two links Simpleton Simon. :)
-
Did I read that right? They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?
Yes, you read it right. And even that was based on the interview of a relative handful of people. It wasn't a body count. Completely unreliable.
-
So you are just using bias opinion rather than doing any real research. I see.
In regards from "rescuing a people from an evil dictator" north Korea a real reason, Iraq was a oil opportunity.
A biased opinion? No. Just an opinion. And no, I'm not about to do any "real research," unless you're going to pay me? :)
We didn't just rescue people from an "evil dictator." Much more involved than that. But not going rehash that discussion.
I will say if it was an "oil opportunity," that certainly was a mission fail, no?
-
NO. I do not agree that there was a conspiracy going on with ONLY republicans. that's what you're trying to make yourself believe. and its completely silly.
...
Really? Why?
I'm not much of CT guy but you don't think it's possible that a very small group of folks around GWB (but possibly not including him) knowingly gave out false and exaggerated info in order to try to convince Americans (and the rest of the world) that invading Iraq was warranted? Especially coming from folks who openly made remarks about "making our own reality"?
Sheesh, I'm not even saying that the reasons such folk wanted to go to war were bad in their minds -- They might have been misleading most thinking that the end would be righteously justified by the means...though that'd be pretty hard to justify at this point.
-
Really? Why?
I'm not much of CT guy but you don't think it's possible that a very small group of folks around GWB (but possibly not including him) knowingly gave out false and exaggerated info in order to try to convince Americans (and the rest of the world) that invading Iraq was warranted? Especially coming from folks who openly made remarks about "making our own reality"?
Sheesh, I'm not even saying that the reasons such folk wanted to go to war were bad in their minds -- They might have been misleading most thinking that the end would be righteously justified by the means...though that'd be pretty hard to justify at this point.
So the brilliant democrats who all believed Saddam had WMD were fooled by the hapless and idiotic GWB?
-
lol. You posted two links Simpleton Simon. :)
True. But then why didn't you say "The links"?
Here's what you said:
...
I doubt you read the link you provided. None of them support your assertion that Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis.
...
Still seem clear to you? lol
-
Yes, you read it right. And even that was based on the interview of a relative handful of people. It wasn't a body count. Completely unreliable.
"Relative" handful? Weak attempt at spin, imo.
"Completely" unreliable? Wrong again.
Take a statistics course, science-denier. It's not voodoo.
-
True. But then why didn't you say "The links"?
Here's what you said:
Still seem clear to you? lol
A typo, grammar Nazi. ::)
-
So the brilliant democrats who all believed Saddam had WMD were fooled by the hapless and idiotic GWB?
Yeah and his false information he knowingly pushed
-
So the brilliant democrats who all believed Saddam had WMD were fooled by the hapless and idiotic GWB?
Apparently many were.
If you could get a completely candid answer out of him, how do you think Colin Powell would answer your question?
As I sort of said earlier, when your country is attacked, most people will naturally want to counter-attack.
Especially Americans who seem to be some of the most warring (not a word?) folks ever.
-
"Relative" handful? Weak attempt at spin, imo.
"Completely" unreliable? Wrong again.
Take a statistics course, science-denier. It's not voodoo.
Yes, relative handful. They interviewed a couple thousand people and used them to project numbers affecting a country with a population of over 30 million.
A range of 48,000 and 700,000? LOL!!
-
A typo, grammar Nazi. ::)
Fair enough.
(Of course that supports my suspicion that it was getting late for ya, old man. lol)
-
Yes, relative handful. They interviewed a couple thousand people and used them to project numbers affecting a country with a population of over 30 million.
A range of 48,000 and 700,000? LOL!!
So I take it that you just don't trust polling and statistics in general?
Seriously, take a statistics course.
It's fascinating shit (though you likely won't remember how it works a couple of years later.)
-
So I take it that you just don't trust polling and statistics in general?
Seriously, take a statistics course.
It's fascinating shit (though you likely won't remember how it works a couple of years later.)
No, Simpleton Simon, I don't trust a source that tells me Americans killed between "48,000 and 700,000" people. Asinine. But a simpleton liberal hack will jump all over it. lol
-
you can bet if fox news posted one he would be repeating it like a parot
-
No, Simpleton Simon, I don't trust a source that tells me Americans killed between "48,000 and 700,000" people. Asinine. But a simpleton liberal hack will jump all over it. lol
But you will trust a 2,000 year old book that explains the origin of the universe.
Alrighty then.
-
you can bet if fox news posted one he would be repeating it like a parot
no doubt
-
But you will trust a 2,000 year old book that explains the origin of the universe.
Alrighty then.
Not to mention the killing of something like 500,000 Iraqis.
No American should be proud of that.
And in support of this, you post linkS showing a range of "48,000 and 700,000."
Still laughing. :)
-
Heck - the world misses Carter at this point. Obama has been worse than even I had imagined. One can only fathom if he has even the least bit of competence how much real damage this Marxist tyrant and thug would have done.
-
Really? Why?
I'm not much of CT guy. but you don't think it's possible that a very small group of folks around GWB (but possibly not including him) knowingly gave out false and exaggerated info in order to try to convince Americans (and the rest of the world) that invading Iraq was warranted? Especially coming from folks who openly made remarks about "making our own reality"?
Sheesh, I'm not even saying that the reasons such folk wanted to go to war were bad in their minds -- They might have been misleading most thinking that the end would be righteously justified by the means...though that'd be pretty hard to justify at this point.
because its pretty much logistically impossible for your scenario to pan out the way you say I may have. but you are right in that ANYTHING is possible. i'll concede that.
i just don't necessarily believe that YOU believe that. i think its just something you tell yourself to rationalize voting Democrat.
-
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
and apparently GWB started his plot before he took office and duped Bill Clinton into believing that Sadaam had WMD's. man he's good.
-
"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."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
Bill Clinton also said this. why? is he in on it too? i apparentlydon't know as much about the CT as you guys do. help me understand.
-
And in support of this, you post linkS showing a range of "48,000 and 700,000."
Still laughing. :)
Good for you -- Anything that lightens your mood has to be good at your age, right?
That's the way science is, though; Not only will it tell you stuff you may not necessarily want to hear but it will also will tell you what it isn't so knowable. (Better than making shit up religion-style in any case, though.)
Anyway, if the number of Iraqi deaths IS "only" 48,000 do you think that means it's OK for Americans to be proud of invading Iraq?
-
"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
why was he lying?
-
because its pretty much logistically impossible for your scenario to pan out the way you say I may have. but you are right in that ANYTHING is possible. i'll concede that.
i just don't necessarily believe that YOU believe that. i think its just something you tell yourself to rationalize voting Democrat.
You're kind of right in that I don't believe I know what happened. I DO believe that some mofo's in our gov't knew there weren't any WMD's in Iraq much earlier than most, though.
But you're also wrong because I don't need to factor in anything Iraq-related to justify voting Democrat. I just generally like their national policies better than those of Repbulicans.
(On a personal level, though, I guess I'm a Libertarian -- I just don't think it's possible to have a government that runs best for all based on Libertarian principles.)
-
Bump
"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
why was he lying?
-
CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?
HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
he got the Germans on board with his plan too
-
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
and apparently GWB started his plot before he took office and duped Bill Clinton into believing that Sadaam had WMD's. man he's good.
C'mon, Bears, you must know that GWB's administration wasn't talking about those kinds of weapons when they were building their case for invading Iraq.
Remember GWB's comment about one day possibly seeing proof "in the shape of a mushroom cloud"?
-
"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
-
C'mon, Bears, you must know that GWB's administration wasn't talking about those kinds of weapons when they were building their case for invading Iraq.
Remember GWB's comment about one day possibly seeing proof "in the shape of a mushroom cloud"?
"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
this was in 1998. John Kerry ran his entire campaign against the Iraq War.
-
"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
why was he lying?
Honestly, I don't know. He may be doing what you're doing,lol: You know, saying WMD and meaning chem & bio weapons (which is technically correct) while knowing most folks think WMD means nuclear weapons.
-
Honestly, I don't know. He may be doing what you're doing,lol: You know, saying WMD and meaning chem & bio weapons (which is technically correct) while knowing most folks think WMD means nuclear weapons.
did John Kerry make that same mistake above too?
-
CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?
HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
he got the Germans on board with his plan too
Never heard about this but I admit it's interesting.
Any updates on Hamza's claims now that you know of? (Was he lying, mistaken, completely accurate or ...?)
-
Good for you -- Anything that lightens your mood has to be good at your age, right?
That's the way science is, though; Not only will it tell you stuff you may not necessarily want to hear but it will also will tell you what it isn't so knowable. (Better than making shit up religion-style in any case, though.)
Anyway, if the number of Iraqi deaths IS "only" 48,000 do you think that means it's OK for Americans to be proud of invading Iraq?
Let's review.
1. You said Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis during the Iraq war.
2. When I said the number is propaganda, you gave me "scientific" sources saying the number is between 48,000 and 700,000. (Still laughing . . . )
3. Realizing the number is BS, which his what I said initially, you now try and make a point using "48,000," or 452,000 less than your original BS number that you pulled off the internet like the good little simpleton liberal hack you are. So you were only off by a few hundred thousand deaths? lol
Rule No. 1 when you find yourself in a hole: stop digging. lol
-
"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
I'm not sure how you think this doesn't mean some/most/all of these folks were duped. (Even if it might have been by tough-talking but retarded Saddam himself.)
Because, c'mon, were WMD's ever found in Iraq?
-
did John Kerry make that same mistake above too?
I posted these a long ago. A vast rightwing/leftwing conspiracy. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116187.0
-
Let's review.
1. You said Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis during the Iraq war.
2. When I said the number is propaganda, you gave me "scientific" sources saying the number is between 48,000 and 700,000. (Still laughing . . . )
3. Realizing the number is BS, which his what I said initially, you now try and make a point using "48,000," or 452,000 less than your original BS number that you pulled off the internet like the good little simpleton liberal hack you are. So you were only off by a few hundred thousand deaths? lol
Rule No. 1 when you find yourself in a hole: stop digging. lol
#2 is wrong.
The report says 460,000 (but includes a confidence interval that might not be something you understand so well). It also points out that folks are still suffering today as a result of the USA attacking that country militarily.
#3 is wrong, too. The confidence interval is 48,000 to 751,000. So I could have been understating the number by 251,000. Shocker that you'd choose to interpret that as 48,000, I know. lol
Now will you please answer the question about whether you think Americans should think it's OK to be proud of killing 48,000 Iraqi people?
This question should be right up your alley considering how you seem to enjoy glorifying people who kill in the name of their country (and claim to have served yourself in some capacity that you're reluctant to talk about, lol).
-
I posted these a long ago. A vast rightwing/leftwing conspiracy. :)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116187.0
Cool thread.
I like the part where the other posters brutalize you by asking who passed on the faulty intel to most of the politicians who were in favor of invading Iraq. ;D
-
#2 is wrong.
The report says 460,000 (but includes a confidence interval that might not be something you understand so well). It also points out that folks are still suffering today as a result of the USA attacking that country militarily.
#3 is wrong, too. The confidence interval is 48,000 to 751,000. So I could have been understating the number by 251,000. Shocker that you'd choose to interpret that as 48,000, I know. lol
Now will you please answer the question about whether you think Americans should think it's OK to be proud of killing 48,000 Iraqi people?
This question should be right up your alley considering how you seem to enjoy glorifying people who kill in the name of their country (and claim to have served yourself in some capacity that you're reluctant to talk about, lol).
You're still here? lol . . . .
Let me get this straight. You're asking for my opinion based on a false premise? We have not established that Americans killed "48,000 Iraqi people." Even though it's good to see you back off your original BS claim that we killed "500,000" Iraqis, your number is still BS.
But to answer a general and more reasonable question that you are apparently not swift enough to pose: no American should be "proud" of collateral damage. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Americans are not "proud" of collateral damage.
-
You're still here? lol . . . .
Let me get this straight. You're asking for my opinion based on a false premise? We have not established that Americans killed "48,000 Iraqi people." Even though it's good to see you back off your original BS claim that we killed "500,000" Iraqis, your number is still BS.
But to answer a general and more reasonable question that you are apparently not swift enough to pose: no American should be "proud" of collateral damage. I'm not and I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Americans are not "proud" of collateral damage.
Let the record reflect (said in Sharpton's voice) that I'm not "backing off my claim" of 500,000 dead.
I may even start saying "Scientific studies of which indicate Iraqi deaths of as many as 751,000 and counting...", lol.
Sincerely, props to you for saying Americans shouldn't be proud of all Iraqi folks who are now dead because of the USA's ill-fated* invasion of Iraq.
*Per what you wrote on that thread from 2007, it seems like you agree that it (the invasion) was done in a stupid way -- even if you do think the invasion itself was warranted (which you many not still think now, actually).
-
Let the record reflect (said in Sharpton's voice) that I'm not "backing off my claim" of 500,000 dead.
I may even start saying "Scientific studies of which indicate Iraqi deaths of as many as 751,000 and counting...", lol.
Sincerely, props to you for saying Americans shouldn't be proud of all Iraqi folks who are now dead because of the USA's ill-fated* invasion of Iraq.
*Per what you wrote on that thread from 2007, it seems like you agree that it (the invasion) was done in a stupid way -- even if you do think the invasion itself was warranted (which you many not still think now, actually).
I clearly gave you too much credit. Keep holding onto your BS 500,000 number. ::)
I supported the war. I didn't support the way it was conducted. General Shinseki was right. Rumsfeld was wrong. We needed way more troops and we probably should have just let the Marines go in and handle it. Would have been higher U.S. casualties, but it would have been done.
-
I clearly gave you too much credit. Keep holding onto your BS 500,000 number. ::)
I supported the war. I didn't support the way it was conducted. General Shinseki was right. Rumsfeld was wrong. We needed way more troops and we probably should have just let the Marines go in and handle it. Would have been higher U.S. casualties, but it would have been done.
Yeah, calling me Simon Simpleton was my first clue that you were giving me too much credit. ;D (Writing that made me giggle like a bitch, I'll admit.)
I don't know a whole lot about it but I agree that we clearly made big mistakes. From what I understand, dismissing all the old Iraqi gov't employees after most of the fighting was done and trying to start everything from scratch was a huge mistake, too.
-
I'm not sure how you think this doesn't mean some/most/all of these folks were duped. (Even if it might have been by tough-talking but retarded Saddam himself.)
Because, c'mon, were WMD's ever found in Iraq?
this was in 1998. while Clinton was in office. did GWB start his plan back then? obviously there was info coming in 1998 that some saw as proof of WMD's. but 3 years later it was all just a lie? Clinton warned us of the danger posed by Sadaam before he left office. was he lying too?
and no WMD's were ever found. also no evidence that GWB fabricated evidence was ever found either. why do you believe one and not the other? i know why.
-
jesus it was three years later did you ever thing that they might have gotten up dated intell in 2001 and the intell that was for thee years ago wasn't accurate :o
-
jesus it was three years later did you ever thing that they might have gotten up dated intell in 2001 and the intell that was for thee years ago wasn't accurate :o
so now you're saying he did have WMD programs but they stopped as soon as GWB took office? OK.
look man whatever gets you to sleep at night.
-
so now you're saying he did have WMD programs but they stopped as soon as GWB took office? OK.
look man whatever gets you to sleep at night.
what I think is either bush or his cronies trumped up the evidence so we would go to war
-
what I think is either bush or his cronies trumped up the evidence so we would go to war
well of course you do.
and you will believe any and all conspiracy theories that reflects poorly on a high profile conservative republican. prove me wrong.
-
well of course you do.
and you will believe any and all conspiracy theories that reflects poorly on a high profile conservative republican. prove me wrong.
you show me pictures of the wmds they found
-
you show me pictures of the wmds they found
i'll show you those when John Kerry and Bill Clinton show me the ones they found in 1998. John Kerry asked Clinton to go to war over them. you know that right? i bet you still voted for Kerry.
-
you show me pictures of the wmds they found
and wait. YOU show ME the evidence that GWB and his buddies knowingly conspired to go to war over falsified evidence. i'll be waiting. why is there a burden of proof on me and not you? oh that's right i know.
-
i'll show you those when John Kerry and Bill Clinton show me the ones they found in 1998. John Kerry asked Clinton to go to war over them. you know that right? i bet you still voted for Kerry.
they were talking about the programs not actual weapons
-
and wait. YOU show ME the evidence that GWB and his buddies knowingly conspired to go to war over falsified evidence. i'll be waiting. why is there a burden of proof on me and not you? oh that's right i know.
More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
-
A biased opinion? No. Just an opinion. And no, I'm not about to do any "real research," unless you're going to pay me? :)
We didn't just rescue people from an "evil dictator." Much more involved than that. But not going rehash that discussion.
I will say if it was an "oil opportunity," that certainly was a mission fail, no?
Its not hard look into. Or you can dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "educated opinion" which is based on.........your opinion
Depends how you quantify a mission success regarding oil.
-
Ah shit, I just wrote a long response to this but accidentally lost what I wrote by double-clicking in the preview pane.
Anyway, depends what you mean by an "accurate study". The study is accurate in that it's very upfront about how sure (or not) one can be about its results.
No one can definitively say what the number (of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq) is and that's why the study's authors present its results as "460,000 deaths with a 95% confidence (or uncertainty) interval of a (whopping) 48,000 - 751,000 deaths".
(It's also important, btw, to understand what the study is talking about when it says "attributable" but they pretty clearly lay that out.)
So what's the value of this study? Here's the money paragraph (for me):
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings provide the most up-to-date estimates of the death toll of the Iraq war and subsequent conflict. However, given the difficult circumstances, the estimates are associated with substantial uncertainties. The researchers extrapolated from a small representative sample of households to estimate Iraq's national death toll. In addition, respondents were asked to recall events that occurred up to ten years prior, which can lead to inaccuracies. The researchers also had to rely on outdated census data (the last complete population census in Iraq dates back to 1987) for their overall population figures. Thus, to accompany their estimate of 460,000 excess deaths from March 2003 to mid-2011, the authors used statistical methods to determine the likely range of the true estimate. Based on the statistical methods, the researchers are 95% confident that the true number of excess deaths lies between 48,000 and 751,000—a large range. More than two years past the end of the period covered in this study, the conflict in Iraq is far from over and continues to cost lives at alarming rates. As discussed in an accompanying Perspective by Salman Rawaf, violence and lawlessness continue to the present day. In addition, post-war Iraq has limited capacity to re-establish and maintain its battered public health and safety infrastructure.
So while it seems that any study for the specific purpose of determining the actual number of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq will be of only limited value, the study IS valuable when trying to find the answer to the more important question, "Did the USA's invasion of Iraq destroy the lives of a huge number of Iraqi people?"
The answer, of course, is "Hell yes!"... and no American should be proud of that.
That's all good RRK but to say it resulted in the death of 500K iraqis is woefully inaccurate and more spin like than anything else.
-
this was in 1998. while Clinton was in office. did GWB start his plan back then? obviously there was info coming in 1998 that some saw as proof of WMD's. but 3 years later it was all just a lie? Clinton warned us of the danger posed by Sadaam before he left office. was he lying too?
and no WMD's were ever found. also no evidence that GWB fabricated evidence was ever found either. why do you believe one and not the other? i know why.
So Saddam couldn't have been shooting off his mouth about having nuclear weapons that he didn't really have since forever?
Who knows why Clinton, Kerry or anyone else said that they thought Saddam had WMD? Since they now appear to have been wrong (since no WMD's were found), why does it really matter? I think your point must be something more than "We can't blame Bush because he thought the same as everyone else" because, the way I see it, since GWB is the one that authorized the invasion, he needed to be more sure of the actual situation than anyone on the sidelines urging war.
I don't necessarily believe that GWB and/or those closest to him "fabricated evidence" but I believe they lied about the implications of what little evidence there was that there were WMD's and purposely ignored evidence that that there weren't WMD's because they wanted to invade Iraq. And there IS evidence of the latter, supposedly.
Why do I believe one and not the other? Simple; It's because WMD's were never found. Is that really so unreasonable to you?
-
he's hibernating ;)
-
That's all good RRK but to say it resulted in the death of 500K iraqis is woefully inaccurate and more spin like than anything else.
I guess you're right since I didn't mention anything about confidence intervals.
I should have just said that a "huge number of Iraqis were killed and no American should be proud of that" because the exact number (even the approximate number) doesn't really matter as far as whether we should be proud of it or not.
-
Its not hard look into. Or you can dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "educated opinion" which is based on.........your opinion
Depends how you quantify a mission success regarding oil.
I'm only dismissing the ridiculous claim that we killed 500,000 Iraqis. I'm not going to do research to try and disprove a BS number.
Well I don't think it was about oil; you do. Seems to me it doesn't really matter how you quantify the mission if we're no longer there, never controlled or profited from their oil, etc.
-
no just in debt 2 trillion,no biggie
-
he's hibernating ;)
That's pretty funny but I actually think Bears is OK. He's likely at work, not hiding.
The kind of poor opinion he has of liberals and their biases is not much different that many liberals have of conservatives and their biases so I don't take offense at his guesses for the basis of my opinions.
BTW, I don't think Bears is necessarily a conservative, really -- more of a straight contrarian, I think. :D
-
So Saddam couldn't have been shooting off his mouth about having nuclear weapons that he didn't really have since forever?
Who knows why Clinton, Kerry or anyone else said that they thought Saddam had WMD? Since they now appear to have been wrong (since no WMD's were found), why does it really matter? I think your point must be something more than "We can't blame Bush because he thought the same as everyone else" because, the way I see it, since GWB is the one that authorized the invasion, he needed to be more sure of the actual situation than anyone on the sidelines urging war.
I don't necessarily believe that GWB and/or those closest to him "fabricated evidence" but I believe they lied about the implications of what little evidence there was that there were WMD's and purposely ignored evidence that that there weren't WMD's because they wanted to invade Iraq. And there IS evidence of the latter, supposedly.
Why do I believe one and not the other? Simple; It's because WMD's were never found. Is that really so unreasonable to you?
it absolutely reasonable.
but believing that a mistake was made and believing that he "fabricated evidence" are two completely different things.
if you choose not to believe that Sadaam Hussein never had WMD's that's your prerogative. I believe that the Clinton administration and the Bush administration both saw evidence that he was actively running a WMD program. and when 9/11 came and went, the Bush administration believed that we were exceptionally vulnerable and took action to protect us by invading Iraq.
bottom line was everyone was on board.
-
Slick Willy believed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he fabricate any of the evidence he saw?
-
Slick Willy believed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he fabricate any of the evidence he saw?
Is slick willy an intelligence analysis that did the research and analyzed it himself or was he presented hand picked evidence?
-
Slick Willy believed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he fabricate any of the evidence he saw?
according to blacken no. Clinton was trying to stop sadaam's nuclear program. but that was in 1998. in 2001, a whole 2 and a half years later Sadaam didn't want anything to do with a nuclear program. he just gave it all up and wanted to live on the straight and narrow.
and just when he turned his life around GWB came in and attacked him. poor guy.
this is what Blacken actually believes. its fuckin scary.
-
I'm only dismissing the ridiculous claim that we killed 500,000 Iraqis. I'm not going to do research to try and disprove a BS number.
Well I don't think it was about oil; you do. Seems to me it doesn't really matter how you quantify the mission if we're no longer there, never controlled or profited from their oil, etc.
So you are saying we were never awarded contracts by the Iraqi government regarding exploration, extraction, or development oil?
-
So you are saying we were never awarded contracts by the Iraqi government regarding exploration, extraction, or development oil?
all of Iraq's oil now belongs to china and Russia. if that was our plan we failed.....on purpose. we allowed the Iraqi people to auction off their own oil fields. we bid on some of them. and lost. so trying to claim that we went into this war for oil has been proven to be utterly stupid.
-
all of Iraq's oil now belongs to china and Russia. if that was our plan we failed.....on purpose. we allowed the Iraqi people to auction off their own oil fields. we bid on some of them. and lost.
The question is did we ever profit form their oil. My question is did we ever profit from exploration extraction or development?
Are China and Russia exclusive in all these areas? what percentage currently?
-
The question is did we ever profit form their oil. My question is did we ever profit from exploration extraction or development?
Are China and Russia exclusive in all these areas? what percentage currently?
I have no fucking idea. do you?
all I know is I thought we were going to take their fucking oil. that's what I was told by all the libs on here for years. and then we didn't.
we should have taken their fucking oil. we wasted enough god damn fucking money over there I was actually pist off when I heard we lost the auction of the oil fields.
-
lol perhaps i am completely wrong :)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/)
-
So you are saying we were never awarded contracts by the Iraqi government regarding exploration, extraction, or development oil?
If by "we" you mean the U.S. government, I'm unaware of that happening.
-
I have no fucking idea. do you?
all I know is I thought we were going to take their fucking oil. that's what I was told by all the libs on here for years. and then we didn't.
we should have taken their fucking oil. we wasted enough god damn fucking money over there I was actually pist off when I heard we lost the auction of the oil fields.
I did a bunch of research in this a few years back. At the time, western companies such as shell and bp had a lot going on. Even with the auction in 2009, which was only about 10% of the fields. Can't find some of the stuff i had seen from back then now.
-
If by "we" you mean the U.S. government, I'm unaware of that happening.
I am unaware of the US government being a oil company also. i was never talking about our government profiting from their oil. and i think you knew that. :)
-
lol perhaps i am completely wrong :)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/)
you can make that argument for ANY war. wars cost money. someones expense is always someone elses revenue. you like to point this out as though its slam dunk evidence but it doesn't mean anything.
i'm not saying that it couldn't be a motive. i'm just saying that pointing out that someone makes money off of a war isn't evidence of collusion.
-
I am unaware of the US government being a oil company also. i was never talking about our government profiting from their oil. and i think you knew that. :)
No I didn't know what you meant. The whole "war for oil" angle never made sense, unless it was the government controlling and profiting from Iraq's oil.
If you're saying we went to war so private U.S. companies could control or profit from Iraq's oil, then that failed too.
"War for oil" is a talking point, but when you actually think it through, it really falls apart.
-
you can make that argument for ANY war. wars cost money. someones expense is always someone elses revenue. you like to point this out as though its slam dunk evidence but it doesn't mean anything.
i'm not saying that it couldn't be a motive. i'm just saying that pointing out that someone makes money off of a war isn't evidence of collusion.
I agree bears.
I was just laughing about it when i found the article.
Here's some other things I found regarding OIL.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Alan Greenspan
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,"-Gen. John Abizaid former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
-
No I didn't know what you meant. The whole "war for oil" angle never made sense, unless it was the government controlling and profiting from Iraq's oil.
If you're saying we went to war so private U.S. companies could control or profit from Iraq's oil, then that failed too.
"War for oil" is a talking point, but when you actually think it through, it really falls apart.
not for these three guys:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Alan Greenspan
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,"-Gen. John Abizaid former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
I do agree with you in that it wasn't solely for oil.
-
not for these three guys:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Alan Greenspan
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,"-Gen. John Abizaid former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
I do agree with you in that it wasn't solely for oil.
What is the context of those quotes? I doubt they were suggesting we went to war so either the U.S. government or private U.S. companies could profit from Iraq's oil.
My guess is they were stating the obvious that the fact Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia control so much of the world's oil, that "oil" was part of the analysis. I agree with that.
The whole profit angle is what doesn't make sense to me.
-
What is the context of those quotes? I doubt they were suggesting we went to war so either the U.S. government or private U.S. companies could profit from Iraq's oil.
My guess is they were stating the obvious that the fact Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia control so much of the world's oil, that "oil" was part of the analysis. I agree with that.
The whole profit angle is what doesn't make sense to me.
Sounds like we are saying the same thing then. I agree they didn't go to war totally for oil and our government isn't also an oil company.
But these believe it was a big par of it.
Our companies went in their and profited from their oil in many ways. It looks like as time when on, we let go of some of it, prolly becuase ti wasn't as profitable.
Here are some other quotes:
Husayn al-Shahristani, Iraq Oil Minister, 23 May 2006:
"There is need to pass an oil and gas law to guarantee the right conditions for international companies to help develop the Iraqi oil sector... We will start contacts with the largest oil companies in the world who want to come in".
Ahmad Chalabi, former Chair of Energy Council (responsible for high-level oil policy in Ja'afari government), November 2005:
"In order to make major quantum increases in oil, we need to have production-sharing agreements"
Shamkhi Faraj, Director General of marketing and economics, Ministry of Oil, April 2006:
"The investment law could take some time and we are not prepared to wait for that long... I think (negotiations) can happen very fast. I am confident that we can do our own legislation within the contract itself to assure the investors that if any new regulation comes through it will not affect them. What we have on offer are the oilfields in the south, the big ones that will add some 3 million barrels per day to our production and that's what the big companies are looking for."
-
Sounds like we are saying the same thing then. I agree they didn't go to war totally for oil and our government isn't also an oil company.
But these believe it was a big par of it.
Our companies went in their and profited from their oil in many ways. It looks like as time when on, we let go of some of it, prolly becuase ti wasn't as profitable.
Here are some other quotes:
Husayn al-Shahristani, Iraq Oil Minister, 23 May 2006:
"There is need to pass an oil and gas law to guarantee the right conditions for international companies to help develop the Iraqi oil sector... We will start contacts with the largest oil companies in the world who want to come in".
Ahmad Chalabi, former Chair of Energy Council (responsible for high-level oil policy in Ja'afari government), November 2005:
"In order to make major quantum increases in oil, we need to have production-sharing agreements"
Shamkhi Faraj, Director General of marketing and economics, Ministry of Oil, April 2006:
"The investment law could take some time and we are not prepared to wait for that long... I think (negotiations) can happen very fast. I am confident that we can do our own legislation within the contract itself to assure the investors that if any new regulation comes through it will not affect them. What we have on offer are the oilfields in the south, the big ones that will add some 3 million barrels per day to our production and that's what the big companies are looking for."
Yeah I think we pretty much agree.
Regarding PSAs, I haven't looked at this issue since I argued about this with Decker years ago, but I recall the PSAs involved foreign oil companies going in and competing for contracts.
-
here's what I know........nothing really.
i'm just guessing.
-
according to blacken no. Clinton was trying to stop sadaam's nuclear program. but that was in 1998. in 2001, a whole 2 and a half years later Sadaam didn't want anything to do with a nuclear program. he just gave it all up and wanted to live on the straight and narrow.
and just when he turned his life around GWB came in and attacked him. poor guy.
this is what Blacken actually believes. its fuckin scary.
I see your telling some stories now,lets get back to the facts,some thing bears seems to be omitting.first did they or did they not find wmd's the answer is no so if he didn't have them in 2001 he most likely didn't have them in 98,so maybe just maybe the intel was wrong,not like it's never happened before.
bears from page 6
and wait. YOU show ME the evidence that GWB and his buddies knowingly conspired to go to war over falsified evidence. i'll be waiting. why is there a burden of proof on me and not you? oh that's right i know.
More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
-
Is slick willy an intelligence analysis that did the research and analyzed it himself or was he presented hand picked evidence?
Was Bush an intelligence analysis that did the research and analyzed it himself or was he presented hand picked evidence?
So why all the Bush hate?
You fell into that one.
-
I see your telling some stories now,lets get back to the facts,some thing bears seems to be omitting.first did they or did they not find wmd's the answer is no so if he didn't have them in 2001 he most likely didn't have them in 98,so maybe just maybe the intel was wrong,not like it's never happened before.
bears from page 6
and wait. YOU show ME the evidence that GWB and his buddies knowingly conspired to go to war over falsified evidence. i'll be waiting. why is there a burden of proof on me and not you? oh that's right i know.
More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
why do you keep posting the same fucking copy and paste???
here's something you don't understand. these accusations were NEVER proven. that's all they were. accusations.
but you're not concerned with having all of the facts. all you have to see is that he was ACCUSED and you copy and paste it. because you troll the internet for ammunition not information.
try again.
no one has ever been able to prove what you're accusing him of. You're just like every other asshole who saw Fahrenheit 911 and believed every single fucking word of it because why? well because you wanted to believe every fucking word. now stop it. you're embarrassing yourself.
-
why do you keep posting the same fucking copy and paste???
here's something you don't understand. these accusations were NEVER proven. that's all they were. accusations.
but you're not concerned with having all of the facts. all you have to see is that he was ACCUSED and you copy and paste it. because you troll the internet for ammunition not information.
try again.
no one has ever been able to prove what you're accusing him of. You're just like every other asshole who saw Fahrenheit 911 and believed every single fucking word of it because why? well because you wanted to believe every fucking word. now stop it. you're embarrassing yourself.
comparing fahrenhewit 911 to a Senate Intelligence Committee lol talk about grasping at straws .seems your the one that doesn't like facts or should I say the facts that don't fit your agenda.still waiting for the pictures of the wmd's :D
-
here's some more facts for you
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
◾"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
◾"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
◾"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
-Joe Miller
-
comparing fahrenhewit 911 to a Senate Intelligence Committee lol talk about grasping at straws .seems your the one that doesn't like facts or should I say the facts that don't fit your agenda.still waiting for the pictures of the wmd's :D
not comparing them. just bringing light to the fact that you probably believed every word. which you did. you still probably do.
and i'm still waiting for GWB to be charged with anything. if they could prove ANY of it. he would have been.
-
here's some more facts for you
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
◾"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
◾"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
◾"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
-Joe Miller
-
here's some more facts for you
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
◾"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
◾"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
◾"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
-Joe Miller
"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
In a minority report authored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, Christopher Bond and Richard Burr, the Republicans accuse committee Democrats of committing a key error of governmental logic. "Intelligence informs policy. It does not dictate policy," they wrote. "Intelligence professionals are responsible for their failures in intelligence collection, analysis, counter-intelligence and covert action. Policymakers must also bear the burden of their mistakes, an entirely different order of mistakes. It is a pity this report fails to illuminate this distinction."
from your own article that you posted.
-
no pictures because there wasn't any,or is this report wrong too because it doesn't fit your agenda :D :D
[here's some more facts for you
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
◾"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
◾"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
◾"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
-Joe Miller
-
maybe you can list some repubs that disagree with it lol
-
maybe you can list some repubs that disagree with it lol
LOL! I know blacken someday I hope to see things as objectively as you do. ::)
-
LOL! I know blacken someday I hope to see things as objectively as you do. ::)
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
-
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
how about the House Intelligence Committee, namely Nancy Pelosi????
I ASSUME THAT YOU NOW BELIEVE SHE IS A LIAR AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED???
-
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
or Harry Reid?
I am assuming you now think he is a liar and not to be trusted as well
-
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.
We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.
Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Heu6cOcHyc
http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
he's lying here right blacken? I thought the nuclear program was ended in 1991?
-
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
"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
another lie. nuclear program ended in 1991. but Clinton said there was "clear evidence". maybe Clinton was working with Bush. that's going to be my new conspiracy theory. he is very close friends with George Bush Sr.
-
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
and there you go I gave you 3 democrats.
-
and keep in mind Pelosi and Clinton made those statements before GWB was even in office so I will assume you will be as hard on them as you are on GWB about this? because according to what YOU said, they ARE lying.
-
US State Department
November 4, 1998
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
JUST ANOTHER LIE BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. OH WAIT THIS WAS IN 1998.
-
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
LIES!!!!!
-
lol this group did their work in 2003 and your posting stuff from the late 1990's,thanks for proving my point that the intell was faulty.now back to the 2003 report do you agree that their were no wmds in iraq
-
and keep in mind Pelosi and Clinton made those statements before GWB was even in office so I will assume you will be as hard on them as you are on GWB about this. because according to what YOU said, they ARE lying.
C'mon, it's not reasonable to be just as hard on Pelosi, Clinton or anyone other than the president at the time for it's GWB that gave the final word on the invasion. Had Pelosi, Clinton, or whomever been in a position to make that call, I'd hope they'd have done a better job than Bush at getting confirmation about intelligence (that turned out to be inaccurate) before using it to sell the citizenry on going to war. Too many innocent people died as a result of either incompetence or straight up lying. (Perhaps as many as 751,000 one prominent study says, lol.)
-
lol this group did their work in 2003 and your posting stuff from the late 1990's,thanks for proving my point that the intell was faulty.now back to the 2003 report do you agree that their were no wmds in iraq
you need to start reading your own posts. didn't you JUST say that Sadaam's nuclear program was ended in 1991?
I have thoroughly owned you enough for today I think. now you're just trying to salvage some dignity by trying to change what your claims were.
-
C'mon, it's not reasonable to be just as hard on Pelosi, Clinton or anyone other than the president at the time for it's GWB that gave the final word on the invasion. Had Pelosi, Clinton, or whomever been in a position to make that call, I'd hope they'd have done a better job than Bush at getting confirmation about intelligence (that turned out to be inaccurate) before using it to sell the citizenry on going to war. Too many innocent people died as a result of either incompetence or straight up lying. (Perhaps as many as 751,000 one prominent study says, lol.)
did you read his post?
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count Grin
he very plainly told us that Sadaam's nuclear program was ended in 1991. he told me to prove that it wasn't. then he told me not to use republicans to prove it. I gave him quotes from 3 of the most high profile democrats plainly stating that Sadaam had a nuclear program after 1991. they all said this before Bush was in office. so they were obviously not misled by him. I purposely chose quotes from before Bush came into office because I knew the first thing blacken would say would be "they were misled by Bush".
now you guys are straight up making no sense and muddling the issue on purpose.
-
lol that's what I said, those senators were getting their intell in the late 90's,this team were on the ground from 2001 and on ,again the itell was faulty you own nothing :D :D :D :D I starting to think your not toooooo bright
-
lol this group did their work in 2003 and your posting stuff from the late 1990's,thanks for proving my point that the intell was faulty.now back to the 2003 report do you agree that their were no wmds in iraq
do you agree that everyone though that there was? the issue is not if there were WMDS. the issue is if GWB intentionally lied about it. and you haven't proven that. why didn't they charge him with anything?
-
lol that's what I said, those senators were getting their intell in the late 90's,this team were on the ground from 2001 and on ,again the itell was faulty you own nothing :D :D :D :D I starting to think your not toooooo bright
blacken stop it. now you're just embarrassing yourself. its getting hard to watch. seriously. just because you say LOL doesn't mean everyone can't tell you've been thoroughly destroyed.
-
you were saying in the beginning to prove there were no wmd's and I did so admit you were wrong
-
I think your justy to stupid to understand,or you don't want to admit you were wrong,maybe both lol
-
lol that's what I said, those senators were getting their intell in the late 90's,this team were on the ground from 2001 and on ,again the itell was faulty you own nothing :D :D :D :D I starting to think your not toooooo bright
basically if I show you proof of people believing there were WMD's after 2001 you'll just say that they relied on faulty information. if I show you proof before 2001 you'll say its old information.
blacken you may fool some liberal cheerleaders on here with your back and forth. but not me. you've been thoroughly owned and you're just trying to save face. seriously, it is hard to watch.
-
basically if I show you proof of people believing there were WMD's after 2001 you'll just say that they relied on faulty information. if I show you proof before 2001 you'll say its old information.
blacken you may fool some liberal cheerleaders on here with your back and forth. but not me. you've been thoroughly owned and you're just trying to save face. seriously, it is hard to watch.
whats hard to watch is a guy that can't admit he was wrong,your a sad little man :D
-
Was Bush an intelligence analysis that did the research and analyzed it himself or was he presented hand picked evidence?
So why all the Bush hate?
You fell into that one.
You were using Clinton approval as a supporting point. I simply said what i said to put it in perspective.
I'd say the same about Bush. He's not an intelligence analysis. Whether he ordered cherry picked intel or not is a subject of speculation.
However, my stance on the Iraq war has always been same. Whether they had WMD's or not, it wasn't necessary for us to preemptively invade them.
My hate for Bush pretty much centers on 2 things:
1. The Iraq war
2. Initially bailing out the banks
I will say though..... how he handled the aftermath of 9/11 was exemplary.
-
whats hard to watch is a guy that can't admit he was wrong,your a sad little man :D
did Sadaam's nuclear program end in 1991? answer that question.
-
did Sadaam's nuclear program end in 1991? answer that question.
yeah didn't think you would.
-
so I'm guessing you agree with the report that there were no wmd in Iraq on or after 2001 and that Saddam ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.if not post a link that proves this investigation wrong.three repub senators doesn't count ;D
do you not remember posting this???
because I proceeded to show you 3 high profile democrats who said that his nuclear program was active throughout the 90's.
you're relying on me not remembering what you posted
-
do you not remember posting this???
because I proceeded to show you 3 high profile democrats who said that his nuclear program was active throughout the 90's.
you're relying on me not remembering what you posted
again they were going by the intell they had at the time,that doesn't mean the nuclear program was active
-
again they were going by the intell they had at the time,that doesn't mean the nuclear program was active
Wait - I thought it was a CT?
-
Wait - I thought it was a CT?
hey this doesn't have to do with obama
-
again they were going by the intell they had at the time,that doesn't mean the nuclear program was active
oh Christ. your idiocy is exhausting.
-
they're not going to go by reports from 2000's they have to go by what they have at the time :o
-
Wait - I thought it was a CT?
only when a republican is involved. welcome to blackens world.
-
I'm right all the time even when I'm not wecome to bears world
-
I'm right all the time even when I'm not wecome to bears world
No - you and your leftist cabal of cultists and nit wits live in a delusion on Iraq.
-
they're not going to go by reports from 2000's they have to go by what they have at the time :o
again. any evidence that anyone shows you after 2001 you say is faulty. any evidence before is outdated.
no matter what is presented you fall back on these two arguments. you're not fooling anyone.
-
I'm right all the time even when I'm not wecome to bears world
no one is buying your bullshit dude. that's why no libs are posting here anymore. you've dug yourself a deep enough hole. put down the shovel.
-
again. any evidence that anyone shows you after 2001 you say is faulty. any evidence before is outdated.
no matter what is presented you fall back on these two arguments. you're not fooling anyone.
No - you and your leftist cabal of cultists and nit wits live in a delusion on Iraq.
you don't understand the topic or you don't want to amitt your wrong,those are the only two things it can be
-
you don't understand the topic or you don't want to amitt your wrong,those are the only two things it can be
I've explained myself quite well and showed you the posts I was responding to. you're obviously trying to muddle the subject because you know you've been proven wrong.
-
again. any evidence that anyone shows you after 2001 you say is faulty. any evidence before is outdated.
no matter what is presented you fall back on these two arguments. you're not fooling anyone.
when did I say it was outdated,i said the intell for the 90's was wrong,i can't see why you have a hard time understanding that :D
-
here's some more facts for you
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq’s WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it’s likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends’ beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
◾"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."◾"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
◾"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.
-Joe Miller
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
-
when did I say it was outdated,i said the intell for the 90's was wrong,i can't see why you have a hard time understanding that :D
and when democrats get intel wrong, well they had bad intel
and when republicans get intel wrong, they fabricated it.
we get it dude. republicans are bad, democrats are good.
now go away
-
"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998
now we know when Clinton said that it was in 98,and at the time he went by the intel he had.really not that hard to understand ;D
-
No - you and your leftist cabal of cultists and nit wits live in a delusion on Iraq.
armchair quarterbacking. that's all they can do.
-
now we know when Clinton said that it was in 98,and at the time he went by the intel he had.really not that hard to understand ;D
except that you explicitly stated that there was no nuclear program after 1991. Clinton obviously disagrees with you. and just because they didn't find any doesn't mean they weren't there.
as you can see at the time when you were absolutely sure that there was no nuclear program in Iraq, Bill Clinton though there was. so none of us know what was there and what wasn't. Sadaam wouldn't let UN inspectors inside to look. you don't think he was hiding something?
-
now we know when Clinton said that it was in 98,and at the time he went by the intel he had.really not that hard to understand ;D
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002
-
except that you explicitly stated that there was no nuclear program after 1991. Clinton obviously disagrees with you. and just because they didn't find any doesn't mean they weren't there.
as you can see at the time when you were absolutely sure that there was no nuclear program in Iraq, Bill Clinton though there was. so none of us know what was there and what wasn't. Sadaam wouldn't let UN inspectors inside to look. you don't think he was hiding something?
lol holy shit,i said that, I'm going by a report that was in 2003 clinton didn't have access to that report in 1998 unless he had a time machine
-
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Congress
October 10, 2002
and by this report from2003 we know he was wrong,look you want to justify the war,to me it was a waste of 4000 American lives and 2 trillion dollars
-
and by this report from2003 we know he was wrong,look you want to justify the war,to me it was a waste of 4000 American lives and 2 trillion dollars
Being wrong and a CT are not the same thing jackass.
-
and by this report from2003 we know he was wrong,look you want to justify the war,to me it was a waste of 4000 American lives and 2 trillion dollars
who said I wanted to justify the war? you did. I don't think it was a good idea to go to war in Iraq. but what the fuck do I know? all i'm saying is that you're ridiculous for saying that he fabricated evidence to go to war. there is ZERO proof other than accusations from democrats. i do think its funny that you told me that evidence from Republicans won't be acceptable to you and all you do is post shit that Democrats said. the funny thing is most of my evidence that made you look like an idiot was from democrats too. LOL! you're just saying that because you're a bought and sold asset. no other reason. I don't play armchair quarterback to a president when it comes to national security.
have you seen me make one comment on Obama and Russia? No. wanna know why? because he knows much more than I do, much more than you do, about exactly what's going on over there and how it may affect the US. he's privy to much more information than we are.
and i'm not going to troll around on the internet like you pretending I know better than him and his advisors about what's in our best interest to keep us safe. i'll leave that kind of shit to asshats like yourself who have no concept of themselves.
-
now we know when Clinton said that it was in 98,and at the time he went by the intel he had.really not that hard to understand ;D
and if I post something from 2003? what will you say? "well that's faulty intelligence from the Bush administration."
your religious faith in liberalism is palpable.
please don't knock the religious on here like you do. because if anyone has blind faith in a mystery man in the sky its you.
-
again most of the dems you posted was shit they said in the 90's,but I believe we went o war in 2001.you like to say the panel was all dems that said bush trumped evidence and than give me three repubs that say it isn't so.lol you really are dumber then dumb.but I kind of knew that then all you did was talk in circles.like I said your just someone that can't admit he's wrong,sad little man :D
-
oh just another liar ;D
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 10, 2006
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.
"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."
"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.
Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.
ad_icon
It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.
Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.
White House officials did not respond to a request to comment for this article. They have vehemently denied accusations that the administration manipulated intelligence to generate public support for the war.
"Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a White House briefing in November. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."
Republicans and Democrats in Congress continue to argue over whether, or how, to investigate accusations the administration manipulated prewar intelligence.
Yesterday, the Senate Republican Policy Committee issued a statement to counter what it described as "the continuing Iraq pre-war intelligence myths," including charges that Bush " 'misused' intelligence to justify the war." Writing that it was perfectly reasonable for the president to rely on the intelligence he was given, the paper concluded, "it is actually the critics who are misleading the American people."
In his article, Pillar said he believes that the "politicization" of intelligence on Iraq occurred "subtly" and in many forms, but almost never resulted from a policymaker directly asking an analyst to reshape his or her results. "Such attempts are rare," he writes, "and when they do occur . . . are almost always unsuccessful."
Instead, he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.
The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."
The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.
They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."
Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."
"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."
ad_icon
Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.
Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."
In an interview, Pillar said the prewar assessments "were not crystal-balling, but in them we were laying out the challenges that would face us depending on decisions that were made."
Pillar wrote that the first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was "not until a year into the war."
That assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerrilla war or civil war. It was leaked to the media in September in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bush, who had told voters that the mission in Iraq was going well, described the assessment to reporters as "just guessing."
Shortly thereafter, Pillar was identified in a column by Robert D. Novak as having prepared the assessment and having given a speech critical of Bush's Iraq policy at a private dinner in California. The column fed the White House's view that the CIA was in effect working against the Bush administration, and that Pillar was part of that. A columnist in the Washington Times in October 2004 called him "a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism."
Leaked information "encouraged some administration supporters to charge intelligence officers (including me) with trying to sabotage the president's policies," Pillar wrote. One effect of that, he said, was to limit challenges to consensus views on matters such as the Iraqi weapons program.
When asked why he did not quit given his concerns, Pillar said in the interview that he was doing "other worthwhile work in the nation's interest" and never thought of resigning over the issue.
Pillar suggests that the CIA and other intelligence agencies, now under Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, remain within the executive branch but "be given greater independence."
The model he cites is the Federal Reserve, overseen by governors who serve fixed terms. That, he said, would reduce "both the politicization of the intelligence community's own work and the public misuse of intelligence by policymakers."
-
again most of the dems you posted was shit they said in the 90's,but I believe we went o war in 2001.you like to say the panel was all dems that said bush trumped evidence and than give me three repubs that say it isn't so.lol you really are dumber then dumb.but I kind of knew that then all you did was talk in circles.like I said your just someone that can't admit he's wrong,sad little man :D
did you not say that Sadaam's nuclear program was ended in 1991?
did I not show you that Clinton, Pelosi, reid, and other democrats did not believe this?
were they lying?
sad little man?
says the guy who worships a political party. LOL!!!!!!!!!
-
the funniest part of this whole thing is that since you have nothing to defend Obama on you simply bring back some Michael Moore type accusations that no one even bothers with anymore. that's how desperate you are. pathetic. truly pathetic.
-
your so caught up in the repud party you can't see beyond your nose,but hey you are part of the party of stupid so I guess we have to cut you a break lol
-
your so caught up in the repud party you can't see beyond your nose,but hey you are part of the party of stupid so I guess we have to cut you a break lol
"tv teaches me that democrats are good and republicans are bad"
and im a republican now? LOL!!!
-
I don't think so, your whats known as fox news informed,i'm sure you'll deny it but your post speak for themselves ;)
-
I don't think so, your whats known as fox news informed,i'm sure you'll deny it but your post speak for themselves ;)
Unbelievable how cultish you are.
-
I don't think so, your whats known as fox news informed,i'm sure you'll deny it but your post speak for themselves ;)
id be willing to bet that just about anyone who calls you out on your obvious bullshit is called "fox news informed" by you.
FYI. everyone who read this thread knows how full of shit you are. that's why all the libs abandoned you 4 pages ago. LOL!!!!!!!
-
id be willing to bet that just about anyone who calls you out on your obvious bullshit is called "fox news informed" by you.
FYI. everyone who read this thread knows how full of shit you are. that's why all the libs abandoned you 4 pages ago. LOL!!!!!!!
they know it's wasted time to argue with you the guy who can't admit he's wrong.what the hell I had nothing better to do.i guess the fox news thing is a yes ;D
-
they know it's wasted time to argue with you the guy who can't admit he's wrong.what the hell I had nothing better to do.i guess the fox news thing is a yes ;D
you just keep telling yourself that. ;D
-
I do,than I think probably another small guy with short guy syndrome;D
-
I do,than I think probably another small guy with short guy syndrome;D
hey whatever it takes.
-
Unbelievable how cultish you are.
I understand the cultish part. he's a dime a dozen. lemmings are everywhere. what I don't get is his intense argumentation while lacking all semblance of logic. he posts something. you refute it. then he's retorts with something on a completely different topic. he doesn't even remember what his arguments are or what he posts. and even if you highlight the exact argument that you're making, showing him his assertion and your rebuttal with bolded words, he doesn't understand. I'm 100% sure he has severe ADHD. or just of very low IQ.
-
I understand the cultish part. he's a dime a dozen. lemmings are everywhere. what I don't get is his intense argumentation while lacking all semblance of logic. he posts something. you refute it. then he's retorts with something on a completely different topic. he doesn't even remember what his arguments are or what he posts. and even if you highlight the exact argument that you're making, showing him his assertion and your rebuttal with bolded words, he doesn't understand. I'm 100% sure he has severe ADHD. or just of very low IQ.
Lol hit a nerve with the short thing,i knew it ,you half pints are all the same have to compensate for the short height.its kind of funny how that is
-
did you read his post?
...
now you guys are straight up making no sense and muddling the issue on purpose.
No, I only skimmed it. Sorry.
I'm not muddying the waters on purpose.
And, honestly, if it's OK for you guys to get caught up in discussing who knew what when, which you can't possibly have much real info or insight into - blind guys touching an elephant comes to mind, then it should be OK for me to pick out and criticize your statement about how since a lot of other people thought Saddam was a real threat they should somehow be criticized just as much as GWB, who actually "pulled the trigger", so to speak.
Ah well, though I think y'all are having a dumb discussion it's likely no dumber than the shit I write about so I'll just see my way out here, lol.
-
do you agree that everyone though that there was? the issue is not if there were WMDS. the issue is if GWB intentionally lied about it. and you haven't proven that. why didn't they charge him with anything?
Why didn't they charge him? I hate to sound like a CT guy but I think it's because that class of folks look after their own.
Sorta like how many police officers guilty of heinous shit suffer almost not at all compared to regular guys doing the same thing.
This isn't South America; National leaders in the USA who fuck up greatly are just told to get lost, at most, it seems. Unless they're guilty of something as serious as systematically executing their own citizens for no good reason, I'm not sure I'd want it any other way, actually.
-
and when democrats get intel wrong, well they had bad intel
and when republicans get intel wrong, they fabricated it.
we get it dude. republicans are bad, democrats are good.
now go away
Not fair. We're not talking about any old Republicans here.
We're talking about GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.
The latter 3, if you watch them speak, seem very capable of lying about big shit for their own reasons.
-
Not fair. We're not talking about any old Republicans here.
We're talking about GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.
The latter 3, if you watch them speak, seem very capable of lying about big shit for their own reasons.
LMFAO
-
I don't miss GW, but compared to obama, there is no doubt that GW was more of a leader and inspired more fear and respect than what we have now.
We are laughed at, disrespected, and not taken at all erious with Obama as POTUS. As hard as it is to believe, obama has cheapened and degraded the office of POTUS so badly that even many nations must secretely wish for GWB to be back, even ifthey didnt like him.
We went from bad to unthinkable in a very short period of time.
Ok 333386 it's time for you to develop a little objectivity now. Everything you just accused Obama of actually was committed between 2000 to 2008, by Bush. I know you hate Obama, but truth be told, he's actually restored a little dignity to the office, ...even with his Mom jeans and all. While "the office" has some dignity, those behind it do not. All Obama has done is performed the role given him. It is his political minders whose desperation has pulled back the curtain to reveal the spider web of deception spun from Wall Street & the Beltway. The only thing less dignified than a GWB Presidency, would be a Palin Presidency, ...and thankfully, as dumb as American voters can be, ...they ain't dumb enough to ever let that happen.
-
Why didn't they charge him? I hate to sound like a CT guy but I think it's because that class of folks look after their own.
Sorta like how many police officers guilty of heinous shit suffer almost not at all compared to regular guys doing the same thing.
This isn't South America; National leaders in the USA who fuck up greatly are just told to get lost, at most, it seems. Unless they're guilty of something as serious as systematically executing their own citizens for no good reason, I'm not sure I'd want it any other way, actually.
I agree with that actually. fucker.
look I honestly don't believe they fabricated evidence to go to war with Iraq. I think that there was an overwhelming fear of Sadaam and what he was actually capable of doing to the US from the early 80's all the way up to 2001.
I believe that we were afraid that we were vulnerable and made a rash decision to solve the problem of Sadaam before it started. because if he did have WMD's that was the time where we were particularly vulnerable to a strike by him. everyone was on board. everyone agreed. in my honest opinion, all the accusations and the official reports accusing the Bush administration were all political posturing after the fact.
so now everyone gets to play armchair quarterback and say that they would have done it completely different.
well what the fuck would you or I have done? in hindsight, we should have done nothing. we shouldn't have gone to war with anybody. There was no "Al Qaida Land" to invade.
but work with me here. can you imagine the conspiracy theories if GWB had done nothing? gone to war with no one? they would skewer him. I think you would agree with that assessment.
anywhere we invaded, anything we did you could come up with some scenario where we did it for nefarious reasons and the whole war was a fabrication. so liberal critics have it so easy when it comes to armchair quarterbacking this whole situation. They can pretty much go anywhere they want with the story without having to prove a god damn thing. Michael Moore did. everyone believed that shit. the funny thing is today you couldn't find anyone who will admit that they believed Moore's accusations. no one. but you and I all know that half the country thought that shit was fact. all he did was play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon the Terrorist/Politician edition.
that's my problem with people like blacken. all you have to do in this day and age to destroy a politician is accuse him of something horrible....often. once you say something enough times the masses just start believing it. so blacken posts a bunch of links where democratic congressman accuse GWB of anything and everything. and it takes more than someone's worst enemies making accusations at them to get me on board. and it should take more than that for anyone.
I don't participate in the fantastic conspiracy theories where everyone is either a super hero or a villain. I say what I think. I don't think Obamacare is good for our health care system or our economy. I think the wealthy pay enough in taxes already. we're not going to tax ourselves into prosperity. when it comes to national security, I think its in every presidents best interest to keep us safe. i'm going to defer to his decision. that's why you wont hear shit from me with regards to Russia. I hate when people pretend like they understand everything when we know we're not privy to even half of the information we need to even have an opinion. that's pretty much my entire belief in politics currently.
im rambling. i'll stop.
-
I agree with that actually. fucker.
look I honestly don't believe they fabricated evidence to go to war with Iraq. I think that there was an overwhelming fear of Sadaam and what he was actually capable of doing to the US from the early 80's all the way up to 2001.
I believe that we were afraid that we were vulnerable and made a rash decision to solve the problem of Sadaam before it started. because if he did have WMD's that was the time where we were particularly vulnerable to a strike by him. everyone was on board. everyone agreed. in my honest opinion, all the accusations and the official reports accusing the Bush administration were all political posturing after the fact.
so now everyone gets to play armchair quarterback and say that they would have done it completely different.
well what the fuck would you or I have done? in hindsight, we should have done nothing. we shouldn't have gone to war with anybody. There was no "Al Qaida Land" to invade.
but work with me here. can you imagine the conspiracy theories if GWB had done nothing? gone to war with no one? they would skewer him. I think you would agree with that assessment.
anywhere we invaded, anything we did you could come up with some scenario where we did it for nefarious reasons and the whole war was a fabrication. so liberal critics have it so easy when it comes to armchair quarterbacking this whole situation. They can pretty much go anywhere they want with the story without having to prove a god damn thing. Michael Moore did. everyone believed that shit. the funny thing is today you couldn't find anyone who will admit that they believed Moore's accusations. no one. but you and I all know that half the country thought that shit was fact. all he did was play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon the Terrorist/Politician edition.
that's my problem with people like blacken. all you have to do in this day and age to destroy a politician is accuse him of something horrible....often. once you say something enough times the masses just start believing it. so blacken posts a bunch of links where democratic congressman accuse GWB of anything and everything. and it takes more than someone's worst enemies making accusations at them to get me on board. and it should take more than that for anyone.
I don't participate in the fantastic conspiracy theories where everyone is either a super hero or a villain. I say what I think. I don't think Obamacare is good for our health care system or our economy. I think the wealthy pay enough in taxes already. we're not going to tax ourselves into prosperity. when it comes to national security, I think its in every presidents best interest to keep us safe. i'm going to defer to his decision. that's why you wont hear shit from me with regards to Russia. I hate when people pretend like they understand everything when we know we're not privy to even half of the information we need to even have an opinion. that's pretty much my entire belief in politics currently.
im rambling. i'll stop.
Anybody who doubts why we went into Iraq, needs to read Rise and Fall of The Third Reich. The world made a mistake once by letting a country that was thought to be bankrupt, without an army, or any real leadership, have a free hand. We saw what happened. Not comparing the two, but you see that a foreign country, when unchecked, and without knowing what secret agreements they have in place, is capable of doing. IT was no different with Saddam, and he had the fourth largest army in the world.
-
LMFAO
LOL all you want, SC. I am being honest. I realize that, how these guys seem when they speak, is hardly meaningful when looked at by itself but combined with what IS known about them, it's worth talking about. (If you ask me, anyway.)
-
I agree with that actually. fucker.
look I honestly don't believe they fabricated evidence to go to war with Iraq. I think that there was an overwhelming fear of Sadaam and what he was actually capable of doing to the US from the early 80's all the way up to 2001.
I believe that we were afraid that we were vulnerable and made a rash decision to solve the problem of Sadaam before it started. because if he did have WMD's that was the time where we were particularly vulnerable to a strike by him. everyone was on board. everyone agreed. in my honest opinion, all the accusations and the official reports accusing the Bush administration were all political posturing after the fact.
so now everyone gets to play armchair quarterback and say that they would have done it completely different.
well what the fuck would you or I have done? in hindsight, we should have done nothing. we shouldn't have gone to war with anybody. There was no "Al Qaida Land" to invade.
but work with me here. can you imagine the conspiracy theories if GWB had done nothing? gone to war with no one? they would skewer him. I think you would agree with that assessment.
anywhere we invaded, anything we did you could come up with some scenario where we did it for nefarious reasons and the whole war was a fabrication. so liberal critics have it so easy when it comes to armchair quarterbacking this whole situation. They can pretty much go anywhere they want with the story without having to prove a god damn thing. Michael Moore did. everyone believed that shit. the funny thing is today you couldn't find anyone who will admit that they believed Moore's accusations. no one. but you and I all know that half the country thought that shit was fact. all he did was play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon the Terrorist/Politician edition.
that's my problem with people like blacken. all you have to do in this day and age to destroy a politician is accuse him of something horrible....often. once you say something enough times the masses just start believing it. so blacken posts a bunch of links where democratic congressman accuse GWB of anything and everything. and it takes more than someone's worst enemies making accusations at them to get me on board. and it should take more than that for anyone.
I don't participate in the fantastic conspiracy theories where everyone is either a super hero or a villain. I say what I think. I don't think Obamacare is good for our health care system or our economy. I think the wealthy pay enough in taxes already. we're not going to tax ourselves into prosperity. when it comes to national security, I think its in every presidents best interest to keep us safe. i'm going to defer to his decision. that's why you wont hear shit from me with regards to Russia. I hate when people pretend like they understand everything when we know we're not privy to even half of the information we need to even have an opinion. that's pretty much my entire belief in politics currently.
im rambling. i'll stop.
Totally reasonable, I think.
Here's what I suspect:
I think they (gov't folks of all political stripes who are responsible for foreign policy) really did think Saddam was a potential nuclear threat at one time. I think all the reasons that some use to explain the motivation for the Bush admin to lie us into war were originally only looked at (by Bush admin) as side benefits. But, I think, prep for the war was pretty far along when some folks in the Bush admin started to realize that there were likely no nuclear WMD but then, instead of pulling back, it was decided, "fuck it, let's do it anyway - all those side reasons are still valid and Saddam is a legitimately bad guy so if we have to stretch the truth some to get folks to sign on, so be it." Also, given the mood of the country in general, it wasn't really so hard to get folks to sign on, relatively speaking. Let's face it, after 9/11 you just knew some middle-eastern country was in grave danger of being bitch-slapped before too long.
-
Totally reasonable, I think.
Here's what I suspect:
I think they (gov't folks of all political stripes who are responsible for foreign policy) really did think Saddam was a potential nuclear threat at one time. I think all the reasons that some use to explain the motivation for the Bush admin to lie us into war were originally only looked at (by Bush admin) as side benefits. But, I think, prep for the war was pretty far along when some folks in the Bush admin started to realize that there were likely no nuclear WMD but then, instead of pulling back, it was decided, "fuck it, let's do it anyway - all those side reasons are still valid and Saddam is a legitimately bad guy so if we have to stretch the truth some to get folks to sign on, so be it." Also, given the mood of the country in general, it wasn't really so hard to get folks to sign on, relatively speaking. Let's face it, after 9/11 you just knew some middle-eastern country was in grave danger of being bitch-slapped before too long.
yup you're about where i am on this. the less exciting version is usually the true one. I can't stand fanatical conspiracy theorists where EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING is a tale of cloak and dagger akin to a hollywood movie script.