Author Topic: WTF is DICK so 2 faced (Read 1014 times)

Torque · « **Reply #30 on:** March 30, 2004, 12:55:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Weak weak weak, that arguement is sooo yesterday...can't you come up with more current wacko left wing liberal stuff? I know I could find you some if you need help.

Nevermind that Iraq,unlike North Korea, which has had 50 years of relative peace with its neighbors,has gone to war twice with neighboring countries and has used chemical warfare on its own citizens.

Weak arguement?

Two out of the the three things you listed Saddam enjoyed overwhelming US protection and support, how does that furthur your arguement?

Eagler · « **Reply #31 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:00:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yes eagler, but if clarke is lieing then why isnt he going to jail? He did testify under oath.

never said he was lying, im sure he is giving his account - his 20/20 hindsight version

but HE IS SELLING HIS BOOK and whatever he states, unless he has a telephone recording of bush telling obl the coast is clear, nobody but the wound up left is listening nor do we care

for anyone to think 9/11 was preventable on 9/10/01 is fantasy

isn't everything preventable when looked back in hindsight? how about the JFK shooting, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the abortion the 15 year old had this morning? the list goes on and on....

strk · « **Reply #32 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:20:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
THEN WHY ARE THE GAS PRICES STILL RISING! LOL!

Not one drop of oil has changed that, son.

Blood for oil! LOL! Okay, resume your brainwashing.

As usual you have nothing to add

And Im not your son, cupcake

Ripsnort · « **Reply #33 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:22:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Yes eagler, but if clarke is lieing then why isnt he going to jail? He did testify under oath.

Quote

Mr. Clarke's Admission

March 30, 2004, Wall Street Journal

If President Bush had followed every last letter of Richard Clarke's recommendations starting Inauguration Day, it still would not have prevented 9/11.

How do we know this? Richard Clarke says so.

Here's how the disgruntled National Security Council veteran put it last week in an exchange with Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission and former Washington Senator:

Mr. Gorton: "Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25 of 2001 . . . including aid to the Northern Alliance which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?"

Mr. Clarke: "No."

Mr. Gorton: "It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to be perhaps a little bit faster?"

Mr. Clarke: "Well, the response would have begun before 9/11."

Mr. Gorton: "But -- yes, but we weren't going to -- there was no recommendation on your part or anyone else's part that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?"

Mr. Clarke: "That's right."

This startling exchange got almost no media attention last week. Mr. Clarke has rocketed to national fame over the past 10 days by alleging the Bush Administration was negligently inattentive to the al Qaeda threat. He took it upon himself to "apologize" on behalf of "your government" to the families of 9/11 victims, as if there had been policy options on the table -- perhaps offered by him -- that might have prevented their deaths.

But when pressed on that point under oath, Mr. Clarke was forced to concede that the impression he'd created, the very reason anyone was paying any attention to him, was false. As long as Mr. Clarke is in the apology business, can we have one for wasting a week of the Administration's precious anti-terror time?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #34 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:24:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by strk
As usual you have nothing to add

And Im not your son, cupcake

Good debate! Wow, you must be a star among your peers....

strk · « **Reply #35 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:54:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort

a wsj editorial isnt proof of anything, cupcake, it is OPINION from a rw editorial board lol

strk · « **Reply #36 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:55:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good debate! Wow, you must be a star among your peers....

is that the best you can do? lol

strk · « **Reply #37 on:** March 30, 2004, 01:56:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
THEN WHY ARE THE GAS PRICES STILL RISING! LOL!

Not one drop of oil has changed that, son.

Blood for oil! LOL! Okay, resume your brainwashing.

do a little google on "peak oil" if you really want to learn something about it

slimm50 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:21:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by strk
he worked for Bush then, who ordered him to put a positive spin on their efforts.

why don't you edit your "data dump" to illustrate what you are trying to say?

Clarke's testimony is sinking Bush* and you know it. That is why you want to spin him as a liar and change the subject.

Like I told Lazs, I am not trying to convert you Rip, I know you are going to pull the lever for the boy king even if he raped your mother and took a **** in your living room. Your eyes are closed and noone can open them but you.

btw CLarke is a 30 year fed employee under Reagen, BushI, Clinton and Bush*. He has a reputation for excelling among the sharks in DC. He is not stupid enough to lie. Im suprised you dont realize that.

We're supposed to be swayed by someone who has, as his avatar, a Howard "the Angry Man" Dean sign? Doesn't do much for your credibility strk. And when did you become a fly on the wall to know what President Bush told anyone? You got an inside scoop, or something?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #39 on:** March 30, 2004, 02:52:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by strk
do a little google on "peak oil" if you really want to learn something about it

You're the one making the accusation of blood for oil. Show me the money! (er, Oil..)

strk · « **Reply #40 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:27:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by slimm50
We're supposed to be swayed by someone who has, as his avatar, a Howard "the Angry Man" Dean sign? Doesn't do much for your credibility strk. And when did you become a fly on the wall to know what President Bush told anyone? You got an inside scoop, or something?

I dont give a flying **** what you think of Howard Dean or my credibility.

No credibility is ignoring the crimes of the Bush* admin. Look in the mirror and ask that guy what happenned to his credibility

strk · « **Reply #41 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:28:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're the one making the accusation of blood for oil. Show me the money! (er, Oil..)

Im nt going to explain everything to you cupcake. If you want to learn about peak oil look it up yourself. I can tell by your comment that you have no freakin clue

Steve · « **Reply #42 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:29:00 PM »

Crimes? what crimes?

edit: Strk you whined that someone was on the edge of attacking you personally yet you call everyone who disagrees w/ you "cupcake".

Hardly a term of endearment. Hypocricy.

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #43 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:40:23 PM »

Peak oil and PNAC have already been explained on this board and the pretty much the only comment made by the wingnuts was ... 'Bush is Hitler'!!!! Thats pretty much it. Even in the face of overwhelming reason , they look away and choose not to digest the information given.. They choose to ignore that America's policies carried out in the last 3.5 years were all written down and publised many years ago. This administration followed a blue print that was already noted for them. No one looks at the history.. Even though Afganistan was an overwhelmingly sucess, it cannot be seen that the country was nothing more than an entrance and exit for the Caspian Sea....

dude

strk · « **Reply #44 on:** March 30, 2004, 03:43:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
Crimes? what crimes?

edit: Strk you whined that someone was on the edge of attacking you personally yet you call everyone who disagrees w/ you "cupcake".

Hardly a term of endearment. Hypocricy.

I didnt hear you coming to my defense then, so isnt this post of yours hypocritical??

Are you mad because I have a pet name for Rip? Do you want one too?

oh and its hypocriSy I believe.