Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nakhui on January 11, 2004, 07:34:54 AM
-
The liberals have even brainwashed a former Bush white house aide into expos... eh telling lies about Bush and the Iraqi war....
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html
How could this be?
What Bush lied?
It's the liberals they are making this all up!
Even though there are emails and a paper trail to suport this aides accusations.... they are still lies...
Even though US Military Intelligence Analysts are reporting to the Congressional Intelligence Select committee that they had no evidence and were pressured to speculate there were by White House officials.... they are still lies...
Even though the autocad drawings of the chemlabs Powel presented to the UN were fabricated by White House aides... and passed off as US Intelligence... they are still lies...
Lies by the liberals to bring down a great president.
We all know Bush was right....
Iraq has WMD... they are just well hidden.
And what about Karl Rove... breaking the law by exposing a CIA agent?.... oh wait that's not common knowledge yet...
THESE ARE ALL LIBERAL LIES!!!
Damn those LIBERALS!
They must HATE AMEERIKA!
-
Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."
A few weeks ago Gephardt said very similar things about Bush in an artical in the the Washtingon Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46323-2003Dec31.html
"He's not dumb," he said, "but he is not informed and he's not experienced and he hasn't surrounded himself with the right people to give him the information and the experience that he doesn't have. And he worries me."
Gephardt offered a disparaging portrait of the president, based on meetings at the White House since Sept. 11, 2001. "He doesn't carry on a discussion about what we're trying to do with a particular issue with any kind of minimal understanding," he said. Bush operates with a "cowboy kind of a belief" that there are issues that are black and white, Gephardt said. "There's just no deep understanding of the complexity of this thing."
Liberals... what do they know any way!
Just liars and Ameeerika haters!
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"
Are you somehow of the opinion that the statement is wrong in any way?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Are you somehow of the opinion that the statement is wrong in any way?
Did I say that? I don't think so... read the articles...
This guy is coming out and saying the Iraqi war was planned before 9/11 and he has a paper trail to prove it...
So this guy is either a BIG FAT LIAR... Right.... or he has evidence to back up his statements....
And if he does, what does that say about Bush and his Administration?
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
And if he does, what does that say about Bush and his Administration?
Nothing. Every US administration has had plans to invade pretty much every nation on the globe. It is all part of the contingency planning the US military has.
Im pretty sure the old SIOPs still exist in some form too. How about that...BUSH HAS PLANS TO LAUNCH NUCLEAR MISSILES ON RUSSIA.
Relax, stop trolling, enjoy life... you are in good hands.
-
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
The president advocating Iraqi regime change on February 18, 1998.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Relax, stop trolling, enjoy life... you are in good hands.
This isn't a troll... just reporting what's in the news dude...
Agreed every country has plans for particular situations....
However.... that's not what this guy is saying...
He's saying not only were there plans but Bush sought for excuses to execute this plan prior to 9/11...
It's like have a gun in the house for self defense...
And then inviting your neighbor over for a BBQ and shooting him and saying to the police you were just defending your self because your caught your neighbor in your back yard eating the steaks you just BBQ'ed and you though he was going to stab you with a steak knife.
LOL
-
Stop it, Holden. The shades account user's argument falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, you don't want to do that. Let "Nakhui" continue on...
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
It's like have a gun in the house for self defense...
And then inviting your neighbor over for a BBQ and shooting him and saying to the police you were just defending your self because your caught your neighbor in your back yard eating the steaks you just BBQ'ed and you though he was going to stab you with a steak knife.
LOL
I'd say back to the analogy-drawing board.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Stop it, Holden. The shades account user's argument falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, you don't want to do that. Let "Nakhui" continue on...
What exactly is my arguement?
Am I a former Bush White House aide exposing what the White House was planning?
It's interesting how blind many of the people on this board are...
They choose to only see the facts and discuss the arguements which support their beliefs on this matter.
When the Washintong Post exposed Nixon... as a result of "Deep Throats' Revelations....
How many Republicans couldn't believe the truth about the Water Gate cover up?
When Oliver North was exposed... how many couldn't believe the truth that people high in the government would break the law by selling weapons to terrorists?
This is not an Area 51 UFO alien theory...
And the exposure of the CIA agent.. .was that a fabucation?
Someone in the white house intentionally broke the law...
This is not the liberals fabricating conspiracy theories...
Novak admits he got his information from a high level government official in the White House - Novak is NOT a liberal.
O'Neil is either a liar... or he's telling the truth.
Regardless of what he says... if he has the paper trail to back up his statments... it sheds more light upon what's really going on in the White House...
And why US Military Intelligence which Bush proported he had has failed to lead directly to WMD in Iraq
And the recent find of 150 shells is just a serendiputous event.. which Bush supporters will desparately cling to and say "See we we're right!"
It's just a matter of time before a special prosecutor will be asked to investigate this matter.
It's hard to believe in lies... isn't it... the more the facts disprove people's beliefs the angrier they get...
It's just some Bush hating liberals stirring up a conspiracy... isn't?
That's easier to believe... then where the facts of the matter are leading...
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
He's saying not only were there plans but Bush sought for excuses to execute this plan prior to 9/11...
We knew this before O'Neill decided to talk. Bush said as much during his debates with Gore.
-
Quick reality check. 9-11 had nothing to do with the Iraqis. (Except for the fact it made people more willing to accept this kind of action)
Of course they would have looked at ways to get rid of Hussein from the get go. Do you think Clinton didn't? Hussein has been a threat for some time now. (Until we found him in a hole.)
-
Welcome back Weazel! How long this time before Skuzzy figures this out? :D
-
Originally posted by majic
Quick reality check. 9-11 had nothing to do with the Iraqis. (Except for the fact it made people more willing to accept this kind of action)
Well it did have something to do with it indirectly, that being State-sponsored terrorism by a rogue country and the future potential to breed such terrorism. Do you recall what the going price for blowing ones self up is in Israel? I believe Saddam was paying $25,000 to family members of such.
-
A President had a plan.
And this is a bad thing.
Very, very bad.
-
nakhooey has droped all pretense and is letting the foam of his mouth show... soon he will be quoting old weazel lefty corners of the internet..
The sadman is out.... everyone is better off. Unleaded premium is $1.65 a gallon and Taxes will most likely go down... the EPA will lose some funding hopefully and Anyone who isn't a friend of the NRA won't get elected...
life is good.
lazs
-
Weazel? Maybe. I'm thinking DmdNexus though.
C'mon, Nak.... take the bag off your head and let's have a peek!
-
If he is weazel.... his tightly controled facade will begin to deteriorate or he will implode.
lazs
-
Hi weazel!! :)
-
Posting style reminds me of weazel. If it is, he will soon slip up and insert a "lol" somewhere...then we'll know for sure.
-
LOL....
Again no real response to real issues.... ho hum....
You all love calling names and sticking to your patriotic litany -"Sadam EvIL... Ameerika GOOD"
"Bush hero... Liberals Traitors"
Yet no real thinkers here.
No watermelon Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
That's not the issue....
The issue is the legal excuse America used to go to war...`
You guys just don't get it do you.
Democratic (Representative) governments do not act with out legal authority.
That's why Bush needed an excuse to get rid of Sadam - let me point out... it has to have the pretense of being legal!
I never said getting rid of Sadam is a bad thing.... in fact... there's other things going on.. which are rather clever!
The whole reason why Bush needed to classify Afghani Taliban as "Enemy Combatants"... was a legal issue...
Rather, smart move, he managed to milk that for 2 years and gain some intelligence from it... unfortunately, not the intelligence he was hoping.
This is a war for oil...
Americans don't realize how critical this war is, or why it really is important to them.. that it is a war for oil.
They are too hung up on morals and human rights.
The oil reserves will run out this century... the pie is only so big.
The question is who should eat that pie?
In 30 to 40 years the crunch for fuel will be on everyone's mind.... there will be global war if alternative fuels aren't found...
However solar enegry can't fly a military jet plane
9/11 gave Ameerika the pretense to seize the pie - at least wants left of it.
Similarities to Wilson's 14 point plan... don't you think?
Though I wouldn't classify Bush on the same intellectual level as Monroe and Wilson.... just don't think he's that great of a thinker.
There are smarter people working this... that's what people just don't realize.
-
Nak-
The point is this isn't at all a revelation. I wasn't at any board meetings, and I knew we'd be back in Iraq. I knew it in '91. I said then "10 years". I admit my prognostication skills were awry, and I missed it by a couple years, but you can't be seriously trying to say this whole thing comes as a surprise.
One thing is common in the office of the POTUS over the last 12 years; it's seen Iraq as a problem that would be dealt with sooner or later. Bush Jr. chose sooner. We can argue all day long whether he did the right thing with the WMD argument (I think it was a mistake), but the least we can see at this point is there was some basis for it, even if it was inadvisable. Nonetheless, the other aspects of the argument were valid, and aren't really even being challenged by anyone.
So... if the it should come to pass more banned weapons are found, what spurious argument will the left find to attack the war? I'll give Thrawn credit where due... he remains consistant (if wrong IMHO ;)) in his viewpoint the UNSC was the legal body responsible to call for a resolution to war. The point you're trying to make here just doesn't carry much water.
-
ban him he said deep throat!!!!
and questioned glorious leader
in other news the president is a bad liar
and unimployment went down because thousands of americans literaly gave up.
does personaly attackin people help you feel better?
you guys post more fascist inflamatory crap on a daily bases and nothing id done to you so why the instant attacks?
methinks nerves have been struck!!!
i here oxicontin is a good toothache/concience killer for conservatives :)
-
O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
====
No wonder the guy got fired.
-
Paul O'Neil is making some very serious accusations... if he only has his words to back up what he says... he'll look like a fool and be dismissed as a disgruntled former cabinet member just out for revenge with a kiss and tell book.
His republican political career is already over - he's bitten the hand that appointed him.
If he does in deed have any evidence to back up what he says... now that's an entirely different matter...
60 minutes is certainly the right choice for nefarious conspiracy stories...
We'll see...
And the CSCI is working on their report on the matter and a preliminary report should be out in the next month or so...
I understand that there are certain members wanting to delay it.
-
Paul O'Neil is making some very serious accusations
====
What accusations are serious?
I havent bled through the entire CNN story, just the headers, but I didnt see anything in the header that seemed outside of the usual political hacking. Just a guy that was fired and had dumb things to say.
-
This story is a total non-starter.
-
Paul O'Neill was overrated. Injuries robbed him of speed and range, and he could never hit lefties very well.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ban him he said deep throat!!!!
and questioned glorious leader
in other news the president is a bad liar
and unimployment went down because thousands of americans literaly gave up.
does personaly attackin people help you feel better?
you guys post more fascist inflamatory crap on a daily bases and nothing id done to you so why the instant attacks?
methinks nerves have been struck!!!
i here oxicontin is a good toothache/concience killer for conservatives :)
does personaly attackin people help you feel better?
-
"No watermelon Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
That's not the issue...."
Ahem...
"This guy is coming out and saying the Iraqi war was planned before 9/11 and he has a paper trail to prove it..."
You seemed to think it was an issue.
-
majic,
Go outside into the garden, find a nice porous round little chub of a rock and engage it in a thoughtful discussion. The results you achieve there will far outweigh any result you could have with that type of persona in here.
Of course I do not mean to suggest that the discourse in here is any less entertaining :)
-
using the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to advance a political agenda against iraq is a very, very bad thing.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
This story is a total non-starter.
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Kieren here. The quotes from his book sound like so much spin. If there was really something to tell he should have done better.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to agree with Kieren here. The quotes from his book sound like so much spin. If there was really something to tell he should have done better.
And I'm going to have to agree with MT.
If for no other reason, I can at least come back in 3 years and tell everyone about the time MT and I agreed.
-
In other news... snowball fights have broken out all over Hell.
-
nakhooey... the oil reserves will run out in the 1990's. I read it in the papers and in time magazine in the 1960's. I had a professor who told me that also.
lazs
-
I disagree that he was influenced by Liberals.
However, I can almost guarantee that he's saying these things to get more attention and sell books.
Just like Michale Moore.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Nak-
The point is this isn't at all a revelation. I wasn't at any board meetings, and I knew we'd be back in Iraq. I knew it in '91. I said then "10 years". I admit my prognostication skills were awry, and I missed it by a couple years, but you can't be seriously trying to say this whole thing comes as a surprise.
Back In Iraq?
We bombed the hell out of them in 1991, and continued to bomb them on and off till we declared a end to major hostilities in 2003.
Making it nearly a 12 year conflict with Iraq.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nakhooey... the oil reserves will run out in the 1990's. I read it in the papers and in time magazine in the 1960's. I had a professor who told me that also.
Lazy,
I've never heard 1990... but I can imagine in 1960 and the state of technology back then someone making a best quess and coming up with that estimate.
Science has evolved just a little bit since then...
The known reserves are limited and the estimates that I have seen is they'll run out in about 80 years.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I disagree that he was influenced by Liberals.
However, I can almost guarantee that he's saying these things to get more attention and sell books.
Just like Michale Moore.
Bob Dole said it's common place these days for someone to leave an administration early and write a book.
Actually O'Neill didn't write the book. A reporter, Ron Suskind, did. O'Neill only consulted and claims he didn't take any money for it.
Not sure how O'Neill's profitting from this... because he's setting himself up to be crucified as a disgruntled appointee.
He has everything to loose and nothing to gain....
60 minutes doesn't pay for interviews either.
As one white house official said it's a "real head scratcher"
-
The estimates I am familiar with say "known" reserves are good for 400 to 500 years based on current consumption.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The estimates I am familiar with say "known" reserves are good for 400 to 500 years based on current consumption.
400 to 500 years. Wow!
I think the oil companies would love to know your source of information. That's pie in the sky!
I would have to go with the US Department of Energy's estimate.... which is between 50 and 80 years.
http://www.energy.gov
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Bob Dole said it's common place these days for someone to leave an administration early and write a book.
Actually O'Neill didn't write the book. A reporter, Ron Suskind, did. O'Neill only consulted and claims he didn't take any money for it.
Not sure how O'Neill's profitting from this... because he's setting himself up to be crucified as a disgruntled appointee.
He has everything to loose and nothing to gain....
60 minutes doesn't pay for interviews either.
As one white house official said it's a "real head scratcher"
George Stephanopolis... Stefanopoly... Steffigraff... heck, that short guy who worked for Clinton.
-
hahooey... I see... the old science was what? "junk science"? this new stuff is ded on, real deal, we all came from one female stuff huh?
nobody will be laughing at this exact science stuff 40 years from now I bet..
Just one thing.. which is it exactly? 80 years or 400-500 that we run outta barney juice?
oh... and eggs... good for me or bad for me? I only have the old 60's junk science stuff to go on.
lazs
-
Well Ill be derned...
====
The United States Geological Survey's (USGS) World Energy Resources Program (WERP) produces the federal government's estimates of world oil resources.
The volume of the world's petroleum reserves is important because of the fear that the oil will run out. This fear should be expected, because the estimated 1 trillion barrels of crude oil is only enough to supply the world for about 50 years.
This prediction is based on the present world consumption, however, world consumption is expected to increase. Although the known reserves are only about a trillion barrels (1 barrel equals 159 liters, 42 gallons, or 0.16 m3), the estimated world reserves, according are about 1.5 x 1011 m3.
====
The 400 to 500 years figure was just something I recalled from a popular science magazine about twenty years ago. I never would have imagined the change in estimating would be that drastic.
So whats your point here?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hahooey... I see... the old science was what? "junk science"? this new stuff is ded on, real deal, we all came from one female stuff huh?
nobody will be laughing at this exact science stuff 40 years from now I bet..
Just one thing.. which is it exactly? 80 years or 400-500 that we run outta barney juice?
oh... and eggs... good for me or bad for me? I only have the old 60's junk science stuff to go on.
lazs
Ms Liza,
Old science? Junk Science? and one female thing? Where'd you get that?
You been smoking mary jane again?
Science improves dude.
By the way... I hope you've stopped using that IUD!
Go to the Department of Energy's web page and read the last report to the congress which talks about America's Energy supply and the known world supplies....
You won't read 400 to 500 years.
Go mock Mr. Bush as he continues to try to open up Alaska for oil drilling.
Why does he want to do that? Why is that so very very important....
You might think he only wants to kill the wild life, polute the environment, and get rich!
However, he's a very evil man - of course all republicans are - he knows glutonous Amereekans will be crying like wittle girls when they can't drive to McDs and get their McHeart Attacks with fries when there's no more gas left.
One thing evil can't stand is crying wittle girl.... 350 million of them.
By the way, eggs are good for you... just cook them first.... salmonella poisoning is not a very pleasant experience. Stay away from the sausage though... they are usually 100% pork... and I do mean 100% - cartilage, sinew, eye balls...you know all that by-product stuff... with rice added as a filler. Gives me gas in a bad way.
Enjoy
-
Pure evil dude. Pure evil.
and oh yeah. Vote for Nader
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Well Ill be derned...
The 400 to 500 years figure was just something I recalled from a popular science magazine about twenty years ago. I never would have imagined the change in estimating would be that drastic.
So whats your point here?
Oh I'm not so cracked after all...
Thank you... my point
50 years is a blink of the eye...
and the real trouble starts sooner...
Oil is a fundamental essential resource... that we have not yet found a replacement for.
Jet planes can not fly with out oil..
Cargo ships do not sail with out oil..
Trucks do not transport with out oil...
Oil is needed to make plastics... the majority of objects we come in contact with every day is in some way or form brought to us, made by, or made with oil.
As we get closer to the 50 year mark... like in 25 years.... the government will start rationing consumption... to preserve enough to supply essential services with fuel.... military, transporation of vital goods, etc.
In the mean time the search for more aquifers is underway... and the pressure to open up national forests to drilling will become more persausive... and out right military aggression against the OPEC nations will be considered a viable and reasonable option (just like Nixon did in 1973)
-
Dont forget about the Guild Navigators...they use oil to fold space.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dont forget about the Guild Navigators...they use oil to fold space.
That's true... fortunately we have spice as an alternative.
Muadib
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Dont forget about the Guild Navigators...they use oil to fold space.
LOL...