Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on April 30, 2005, 01:52:35 PM
-
Let the spin begin. Let's see, Clinton gave NK almost everything it needed to produce a nuclear weapon and now it's Bush's fault that they have them?
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/30/110516.shtml
She called the nuke revelation - offered by Defense Intelligence Agency chief Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee - "The first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States."
The top Democrat pointed her finger at the Bush administration despite a 1999 congressional finding that North Korea first obtained the capacity to develop nuclear weapons under her husband's administration, which actually gave Kim Jong Il nuclear technology in exchange for the promise that he would not make weapons.
A report compiled at the time by the House North Korea Advisory Group warned: "If the [Clinton administration's] 1994 Agreed Framework is implemented and two [U.S. Light Water Reactors] are eventually built and operated in North Korea, the reactors could produce close to 500 kilograms of plutonium in spent reactor fuel each year; enough for nearly 100 bombs annually if North Korea decides to break its obligations and reprocess the material."
The advisory group also blasted the Clinton administration for making North Korea "the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region."
"In an astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations," the report said, "the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1994, committed not only to provide foreign aid for North Korea, but to earmark that aid primarily for the construction of nuclear reactors worth up to $6 billion."
The advisory group also warned that North Korea would soon be able to hit the U.S. with ICBMs - and blamed the Clinton administration for facilitating Pyongyang's progress.
-
no one will listen if it's newsmax. First liberal defense is to attack the source even if they are correct and ignore the problem completly.
-
We're gettin kinda tired of stomping on regimes armed with only conventional weapons. Makes us look arrogant and uncouth.
We're gonna give the NK's a sporting chance.. then boil their own eyeballs in kimchee.
:D
-
Thread stopper, lol.
-
If I find an eyeball in my kimchee I'm suing Wendy's.
-
Where exactly did Hillary blame anybody for anything?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Where exactly did Hillary blame anybody for anything?
you're right MT, she doesn't say she blames anyone in that article.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no one will listen if it's newsmax. First liberal defense is to attack the source even if they are correct and ignore the problem completly.
Tasty foot?
-
Parachute me into NK and ill chopstick the little commies to death!!!!!
-
No... it was Awwek Bawwdwin..
(http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/t/Team_America_World_Police/teamamerica_09.jpg)
-
Widescreen tv is overkill for that guy.
-
Eisenhower's fault
-
So Ronery (http://home.earthlink.net/~westcoastminicon/SoRonery.mp3)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Where exactly did Hillary blame anybody for anything?
from the article linked above, Hillary said:
"They couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can,"
Do you believe she is just using the election of GWB as a time refference?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Do you believe she is just using the election of GWB as a time refference?
Good question. If I could find any other reference to the quote... even in the New York Times (who she "complained" to) I might be able to answer.
Here is a another spin of what happened...
U.S: N. Korea Nuke-Missile Capable (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/29/world/main692162.shtml)
-
it was really trumans fault for firing MacAuther when mac wanted to blow up the bridges , "oh , can't do that , half the bridges are on the chinese side of the river"
same with vietnam, LBJ & mcnamera "can't bomb SAM sites until they shoot at you"
leave the war to the military, it's their job.
-
Originally posted by john9001
leave the war to the military, it's their job.
Thats a really bad idea, but at the same time its a really good idea.
It depends so much on the circumstances that it really should not be up to them.
bottom line.. yeah, not at all but it sure should be.. some times.
-
OK, I went to the NYT and found this...
Admiral Jacoby said that the United States had increased its assessment of the current North Korean arsenal's size, but he gave no numbers.
Six-nation talks the United States is backing in an effort persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program have been stalled since last June. China, a neighbor and ally of communist North Korea, has been host to three inconclusive rounds of the negotiations, which involved the United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia.
Senator Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's testimony "troubling beyond words."
She added: "We have been locked into this six-party idea now for a number of years and all the while we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States."
Spin is right... but who is doing the spinning?
-
Ummm... I'm missing something here.
Is it that you guys refuse to believe she said it? Or that there's not enough supporting evidence for her saying something that stupid?
What is your oppinion on the comment itself.
-
She added: "We have been locked into this six-party idea now for a number of years and all the while we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States."
So, the six party idea is now to blame? Albright and Clinton had nothing to do with any of it.
As opposed to 6 nation talks, I'm sure bi-lateral talks are the way to go.....as long as it's the US and NK and the US gives in and gives them all that they demand. That worked real well so far.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, the six party idea is now to blame? Albright and Clinton had nothing to do with any of it.
As opposed to 6 nation talks, I'm sure bi-lateral talks are the way to go.....as long as it's the US and NK and the US gives in and gives them all that they demand. That worked real well so far.
you want to go hard-line with NK ?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
you want to go hard-line with NK ?
Yah.. but not untill they take out Tokyo, Seoul and Manilla and Taipei. Otherwize, we'll be considered imperialistc drama queens for acting too soon.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
you want to go hard-line with NK ?
Back when Clinton and Albright ( who loved Kim) were "negotiating" with NK, I say we should have never offered them one dime in assistance, let alone 6 billion to build the 2 nuclear reactors that allowed them to build nukes.
We do not owe NK anything.
In fact, I think the US should remove itself from anything to do with NK and instead let the rest of the world deal with them. It's not our problem.
Time for Europe to deal with its threats and Asia to deal with it's threats without the US.
-
How far into Bush's second term should we go before he takes responsibilty for foreign affairs?
And... My comment was on the title of the thread. Attacking Hillary for ... something she didn't do or say. Seems to be a regular passtime of the far right....... and Nuke.
Hillary is just one Senator on the committee that heard the testimony on the NK nukes. I'm glad she asked the question, aren't you?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
How far into Bush's second term should we go before he takes responsibilty for foreign affairs?
And... My comment was on the title of the thread. Attacking Hillary for ... something she didn't do or say. Seems to be a regular passtime of the far right....... and Nuke.
Hillary is just one Senator on the committee that heard the testimony on the NK nukes. I'm glad she asked the question, aren't you?
When did Bush say he didn't take responsibility for his forgein affairs?
And I have never attacked Hillary.
-
The article quoted her MT. You're the one holding out hope that she didn't.
As for the part you quoted... you do realize how completely assenine it is... right? Hillary is criticizing the current administration for wasting time talking with China, Russia, Japan and SK about NK? Really?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The article quoted her MT. You're the one holding out hope that she didn't.
As for the part you quoted... you do realize how completely assenine it is... right? Hillary is criticizing the current administration for wasting time talking with China, Russia, Japan and SK about NK? Really?
Hey, 6 nations are just meddling....we need to go it alone.....just like she suggested for Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The article quoted her MT. You're the one holding out hope that she didn't.
As for the part you quoted... you do realize how completely assenine it is... right? Hillary is criticizing the current administration for wasting time talking with China, Russia, Japan and SK about NK? Really?
Assinine? It obviously isn't working. Why is it assinine to question it?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Assinine? It obviously isn't working. Why is it assinine to question it?
So you want the US to deal with NK alone like the NK's demand?
Giving NK 2 nuclear plants didn't work too well.
-
Obviously what isn't working MT? What would be the alternative and the implications of that alternative?
If anyone is even remotely suggesting that the solution to NK would be to completely leave out China, SK, Japan and Russia when dealing with NK then it is simply assenine. There is no other way to put it.
The only only place the solution for NK's antics will come from is the East. This is painfully obvious to most. Except, of course, the die hards.
And let's not forget the direct contradiction with the reasoning behind why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq from ms clinton. There is no consideration for international politics with any statement she makes. She is only doing one thing: Finding fault with the actions of the current administration without maintaining any level of consistancy with her statements. She talks for the cameras and for those who really want to believe her. She says little of relevance and has zero conviction for any of it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
And let's not forget the direct contradiction with the reasoning behind why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq from ms clinton. There is no consideration for international politics with any statement she makes. She is only doing one thing: Finding fault with the actions of the current administration without maintaining any level of consistancy with her statements. She talks for the cameras and for those who really want to believe her. She says little of relevance and has zero conviction for any of it.
Oh c'mon!! Do you REALLY believe THAT? Hillary Clinton has no other interest other than whats best for the United States of Billary!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Obviously what isn't working MT? What would be the alternative and the implications of that alternative?
Well, if the objective of the 6-nation talks was to stop NK from becoming a nuclear power... then we have achieved failure. Well done. And if critisizing the opposition is now just a spin job we nmight as well end all politics as we know it.
I'm just sick of the automatic attacks. People do things that are stupid sometimes and should be called on it. The simple fact that their last name is Clinton should have no bearing on the facts. The same goes for Bush or Reagan or freakin lowlife Nixon. The title of this thread said Hillary was blaming Bush for the nukes in NK. She isn't, she did critisize the diplomacy.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well, if the objective of the 6-nation talks was to stop NK from becoming a nuclear power... then we have achieved failure. Well done.
Yeah, and Clinton really did a great job by giving NK 2 nuke plants.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well, if the objective of the 6-nation talks was to stop NK from becoming a nuclear power... then we have achieved failure. Well done. And if critisizing the opposition is now just a spin job we nmight as well end all politics as we know it.
I'm just sick of the automatic attacks. People do things that are stupid sometimes and should be called on it. The simple fact that their last name is Clinton should have no bearing on the facts. The same goes for Bush or Reagan or freakin lowlife Nixon. The title of this thread said Hillary was blaming Bush for the nukes in NK. She isn't, she did critisize the diplomacy.
She's a politician that is putting herself in front of the camera making assenine comments. I've got news for you MT: She's a media potato. She goes on the news and announces how she plans on keeping a VA hospital open on Veteran's day. She shows up as a speaker at a NY policemans ball right after 9/11. She does both of these things strictly for the camera without even an incling of consideration for what she has said about vets and the NYPD in the past. She is the absolute worst type of politician out there. There's plenty of people to defend from Nuke's attacks, but Hillary isn't one of them.
And... do you really think the talks were about how to stop NK from becoming a nuclear power? You do realize that's a bit tough when they already have everything the need... right? Stopping him is going to take intervention. You tell me how that is going to be done without China, Russia, Japan and SK being part of it. Once he was given the ability to make weapons grade plutonium, the rest was simply academic. This is not a really big cause/effect stretch of the immagination MT.
-
From Global Security
In the autumn of 1998 a report leaked from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory indicated that air samples acquired from the Kharan Desert test by US intelligence aircraft contained traces of plutonium. Pakistan, at the time of the tests, had not had time to develop a warhead from the minimal quantities of plutonium generated by the research reactor at PINSTECH. The most plausible explanation was that North Korea had participated in a joint test of an atomic weapon.
-
BUT TAHT'S UNPOSSIBLE TOAD!
We all know that Clinton's oil blackmail payments were honored by the DPRK.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Yah.. but not untill they take out Tokyo, Seoul and Manilla and Taipei. Otherwize, we'll be considered imperialistc drama queens for acting too soon.
why :confused:
-
When my kid was about 3 years old she'd take all her clothes off and run around the house naked.
When we'd put her clothes back on her and tell her not to do that she'd ask 'Why"?
How do you explain the obvious to a three year old?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
How do you explain the obvious to a three year old?
By not dodging the question and talking to her like a 3 year old?
-
Fair enuff.. a three year old not capable of understanding social morals is not somebody I care to debate with.
Your "why" is as deserving of debate as hers.
Happy?
-
So when you cant answer the question them you try to insult the person that asks the question.
I bet its late were you live so get back to me when you are more awake in the morning.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
She's a politician that is putting herself in front of the camera making assenine comments. I've got news for you MT: She's a media potato. She goes on the news and announces how she plans on keeping a VA hospital open on Veteran's day. She shows up as a speaker at a NY policemans ball right after 9/11. She does both of these things strictly for the camera without even an incling of consideration for what she has said about vets and the NYPD in the past. She is the absolute worst type of politician out there. There's plenty of people to defend from Nuke's attacks, but Hillary isn't one of them.
And... do you really think the talks were about how to stop NK from becoming a nuclear power? You do realize that's a bit tough when they already have everything the need... right? Stopping him is going to take intervention. You tell me how that is going to be done without China, Russia, Japan and SK being part of it. Once he was given the ability to make weapons grade plutonium, the rest was simply academic. This is not a really big cause/effect stretch of the immagination MT.
Hiya fellow Portlander:) Lets do lunch sometime.
Come on you can substitute Bush or any other politicians name in your paragraph. :)
They are all weasels.
And its our fault . We keep voting the weasels in:)
-
Jeze, Nils, I didn't insult yah.. and I didn't insult my three year old when she trolled me either.
I gotta question for you tho.. what's the difference between 'obvious' and 'oblivious'?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Jeze, Nils, I didn't insult yah.. and I didn't insult my three year old when she trolled me either.
I gotta question for you tho.. what's the difference between 'obvious' and 'oblivious'?
Want me to look it up for you?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Jeze, Nils, I didn't insult yah.. and I didn't insult my three year old when she trolled me either.
I gotta question for you tho.. what's the difference between 'obvious' and 'oblivious'?
Don't you feel addicted again Hang. ?
Ps the answer to your question is LI
What I win ?
-
Don't you feel addicted again Hang. ?
Nope. *sigh* It's all so... useless and unfulfilling.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Hiya fellow Portlander:) Lets do lunch sometime.
Come on you can substitute Bush or any other politicians name in your paragraph. :)
They are all weasels.
And its our fault . We keep voting the weasels in:)
I know what politicians are. If you think hillary is typical, you are dillusional. I've not seen a combination of pandering to polls, no real clue as to how anything works and no real guidance other than responding to other candidates stances and statements. She has not had a single original idea. These are not quotes that are being taken out of context. These are quotes that she walked right up to a camera to say.
I have a bit more respect anyone that has a certain level of distaste for the media. The Clintons did not. They used them like they were part of their campaign team. Eventually, the media felt right at home there. They were just a little put off when Bill wasn't running again and managed to show just how lost they were for the next 5 years. Dan Rather's little blunder was the culmination of that and a major wake up call for most of America.
-
Oh... and I'm always up for lunch. Send me an e-mail.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, and Clinton really did a great job by giving NK 2 nuke plants.
I may be wrong and not to take sides here but i don't believe we ever actually built the two Nuclear plants, that's the reason they gave for backing out of the deal. Not that they ever stuck to it anyways.
68Parker
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I know what politicians are. If you think hillary is typical, you are dillusional. I've not seen a combination of pandering to polls, no real clue as to how anything works and no real guidance other than responding to other candidates stances and statements. She has not had a single original idea. These are not quotes that are being taken out of context. These are quotes that she walked right up to a camera to say.
I have a bit more respect anyone that has a certain level of distaste for the media. The Clintons did not. They used them like they were part of their campaign team. Eventually, the media felt right at home there. They were just a little put off when Bill wasn't running again and managed to show just how lost they were for the next 5 years. Dan Rather's little blunder was the culmination of that and a major wake up call for most of America.
Talk about pandering to the press and out right lieing:
1."Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
ZERO Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq
2.“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
ZERO Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
3.
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
ZERO Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)
4.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
NOT TRUE
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
5.
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
NOT TRUE
“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."
IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003
We can go back and forth forever. I dont find Hillary to be any different than the rest of them.
-
Not so much lies as it is statements made on faulty intelligence.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Not so much lies as it is statements made on faulty intelligence.
You can only believe that if you discount that Bush and friends were told it wasnt good info. They were told but chose to ignore it. They had an agenda.
-
Wow silat. There's not much point in even adressing that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the press since those were actually speaches delivered to the world... but you go ahead and refuse to see any difference if that makes you feel better.
Bush presented things to the people... right or wrong. The Clintons presented it to the press who then presented it to the people.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow silat. There's not much point in even adressing that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the press since those were actually speaches delivered to the world... but you go ahead and refuse to see any difference if that makes you feel better.
Bush presented things to the people... right or wrong. The Clintons presented it to the press who then presented it to the people.
Ummm I do believe the press showed us what the Pres and friends were saying.
And if you dont believe the Pres was manipulating us and the press then you are correct in saying there isnt much point in addressing this.
-
Manipulating us? Yeah... I see.
This will come up in any topic you post on silat. It's like a broken record with you. You were so spoon fed for 8 years that you simply fail to see anything else. It's OK... sometime in the next 20 years someone will whip out the spoon again. Someone will run a popular oppinion campaign and you'll be all cheary. Then, when they leave things in shambles, you can blame the next administration for having to makes some very difficult decisions.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Manipulating us? Yeah... I see.
This will come up in any topic you post on silat. It's like a broken record with you. You were so spoon fed for 8 years that you simply fail to see anything else. It's OK... sometime in the next 20 years someone will whip out the spoon again. Someone will run a popular oppinion campaign and you'll be all cheary. Then, when they leave things in shambles, you can blame the next administration for having to makes some very difficult decisions.
WOA "Flagg on the play" common sense inclusion infraction! 5 yard penalty....first down!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Manipulating us? Yeah... I see.
This will come up in any topic you post on silat. It's like a broken record with you. You were so spoon fed for 8 years that you simply fail to see anything else. It's OK... sometime in the next 20 years someone will whip out the spoon again. Someone will run a popular oppinion campaign and you'll be all cheary. Then, when they leave things in shambles, you can blame the next administration for having to makes some very difficult decisions.
First of all Im never ever cheery:)
Second Im not sure Ill be alive in 20 years.:)
And Im pretty sure its you who is being spoon feed and liking it:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
WOA "Flagg on the play" common sense inclusion infraction! 5 yard penalty....first down!
Common sense ended with this administration... Game over....:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Ummm I do believe the press showed us what the Pres and friends were saying.
And if you dont believe the Pres was manipulating us and the press then you are correct in saying there isnt much point in addressing this.
Maybe you should try backing up your statements with links?
You can only believe that if you discount that Bush and friends were told it wasnt good info. They were told but chose to ignore it. They had an agenda.
I believe that if there was any credible evidence that this might be true that the media would have been all over this like white on rice.
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
FALSE!!
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf
Since May 2004, ISG has recovered 41 Sakr-18
CW rockets and eight Buraq CW rockets.
Since 2003, insurgents have attacked Coalition
Forces with two CW rounds (not including attacks
with riot control agents)
ZERO Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.
(besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US)
None?
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=12798
Saddam was known to harbor and give aid to terrorists. If I gave food, shelter and medical aid to someone I knew was a murderer I would immediatley become an accomplice and just as guilty as the murderer himself. I think the same priniciple applies here.
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.
Link(s) please.
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
ISG report linked above clearly talks about how Saddam tryed to preserve his WMD programs.
You really should post sources for this stuff. :)
*edit* Whoops! forgot the ISG link ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe you should try backing up your statements with links?
I believe that if there was any credible evidence that this might be true that the media would have been all over this like white on rice.
FALSE!!
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf
Since May 2004, ISG has recovered 41 Sakr-18
CW rockets and eight Buraq CW rockets.
Since 2003, insurgents have attacked Coalition
Forces with two CW rounds (not including attacks
with riot control agents)
None?
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=12798
Saddam was known to harbor and give aid to terrorists. If I gave food, shelter and medical aid to someone I knew was a murderer I would immediatley become an accomplice and just as guilty as the murderer himself. I think the same priniciple applies here.
Link(s) please.
ISG report linked above clearly talks about how Saddam tryed to preserve his WMD programs.
You really should post sources for this stuff. :)
*edit* Whoops! forgot the ISG link ;)
Yes Elf you are correct. A flyspeck of old and useless decomposed biological weaponry was found.
NO IMMINENT DANGER:)
Elf you can google as well as I. Intelligence aids to Bush said that IRAN was the wrong target. Bush, Rummy and Cheney didnt like that answer.
This is common knowledge. Check it out.
Elf Pres Bush says there is no link to 9/11 and Saddam. Google it if you must. It is common knowledge.
:)
I just read the current ISG report 2005
Polish Forces recovered 41 Sakr-18 rockets in June
and July 2004. Of the rockets tested one contained
residual sarin, fi ve contained petroleum and a pesticide,
and the remainders were empty. ISG believes
that the Iraqis who provided the rockets added the
pesticide because we have no previous reporting
indicating that Iraq weaponized pesticides.
ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq
did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents.
However, even if biological agents from the former
program do remain they probably have signifi cantly
decreased pathogenicity because Iraq never successfully
formulated its biological agents for long-term
storage.
• According to a former Iraqi BW researcher, Iraq
was not able to acquire drying technology because
of sanctions.
Sarin IED
Mustard IED
Elf you need to read the whole report:)
They had no viable weapons:)
Now if you think they did then you are saying the Pres is lying now:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Common sense ended with this administration... Game over....:)
"delay of game"
I beleive you mean the previous administration!
-
Elf you need to read the whole report
I did read the entire report. I copied/pasted sections that were relevant to a comment you made about NO weapons being found. There has in fact been more weapons found than what the ISG report says. Example, several artillery shells filled with Mustard gas. The gas was tested and found to be 94 - 97% pure, still viable.
Elf you can google as well as I. Intelligence aids to Bush said that IRAN was the wrong target. Bush, Rummy and Cheney didnt like that answer.
I'm not the one making claims like this. Hence I am not the one that needs to back them up :) I can google, but I have no idea what sources you have been reading. So fess up with some sources :) I will glady reverse my position on some of these issues if you can come up with convincing proof.
Your previous post says that there was absolutely nothing found in regards to chemical weapons. That is a false statement. Just in case you forgot what you posted:
ZERO Chemical Weapons Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I know what politicians are. If you think hillary is typical, you are dillusional. I've not seen a combination of pandering to polls, no real clue as to how anything works and no real guidance other than responding to other candidates stances and statements. She has not had a single original idea. These are not quotes that are being taken out of context. These are quotes that she walked right up to a camera to say.
I have a bit more respect anyone that has a certain level of distaste for the media. The Clintons did not. They used them like they were part of their campaign team. Eventually, the media felt right at home there. They were just a little put off when Bill wasn't running again and managed to show just how lost they were for the next 5 years. Dan Rather's little blunder was the culmination of that and a major wake up call for most of America.
No offence, but,...
I'm not sure anyone could be more wrong then you are right now. I mean this is no brainer stuff here. In fact, I'm not really sure you gave your own comment much thought at all. Fact is every single political person uses the camera anytime and everytime they can to push their own agenda.
Hillary may get a tad more camera time because she was once a first lady.
Every one uses the camera and the audience that watches the other side of it to push thier beliefs.
I will admit that some will not use it as often because they realize they just don't speak well or don't know when to shut up.
The dillusion is not on Silat's hands.
-
Oh and BTW,...
The republicans totally and undeniably abused the media cameras when they went after Clinton for a blow-job, and used it repeatedly every single day to insure they ruined him.
But I'm sure that's perfectly fine
;-)
-
Evil Boosh, Bad Boosh, Down with Boosh... boohoohoo
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
I'm not sure anyone could be more wrong then you are right now. I mean this is no brainer stuff here. In fact, I'm not really sure you gave your own comment much thought at all. Fact is every single political person uses the camera anytime and everytime they can to push their own agenda.
Ah... the "everyone does it" excuse. Let me modify that for you a bit. "Everyone does it, so doing it a whole hell of alot is OK."
I'm a bit more on the money than you're even remotely willing to admit.Hillary may get a tad more camera time because she was once a first lady.
Ummmm... yeah. It could also be because she was in a campaign where having the media in their pocket was the cornerstone. It wasn't until the president did something as dumb as getting caught with a fat chick in his room that things managed to turn a bit. But hell... even the spoon fed media can't turn away from the big ones. Every one uses the camera and the audience that watches the other side of it to push thier beliefs.
I will admit that some will not use it as often because they realize they just don't speak well or don't know when to shut up.
The dillusion is not on Silat's hands.
Once again, you are supporting my argument. Every politician does not use the media to the same degree. You're saying that very thing right now. To believe otherwise is dillusional, no matter how you try to dismiss it.
We can quibble over two politicians in regards to their use of the media and pretty evenly trade blows, unless one of those politicians is hillary clinton.
-
BTW... this is a decent quote from Alex Ross:
All politicians, of course, are ironists to the extent that they are all dissemblers. But the Democratic Party seems remarkably inept in the face of Letterman-Limbaugh culture. It has mastered guerrilla-level media manipulation, but its candidates perennially adopt an earnest tone that television cuts to shreds. The Clinton people, who ought to be young enough to know the territory by heart, show no grasp of irony at all.
Guerrilla-level media manipulation.
Of course, the weakness is the one that Hillary is currently displaying on an all too regular basis: Absolutely no grasp of irony.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... the "everyone does it" excuse. Let me modify that for you a bit. "Everyone does it, so doing it a whole hell of alot is OK."
I'm a bit more on the money than you're even remotely willing to admit.Ummmm... yeah. It could also be because she was in a campaign where having the media in their pocket was the cornerstone. It wasn't until the president did something as dumb as getting caught with a fat chick in his room that things managed to turn a bit. But hell... even the spoon fed media can't turn away from the big ones. Once again, you are supporting my argument. Every politician does not use the media to the same degree. You're saying that very thing right now. To believe otherwise is dillusional, no matter how you try to dismiss it.
We can quibble over two politicians in regards to their use of the media and pretty evenly trade blows, unless one of those politicians is hillary clinton.
I think you're a little bit over jealous Clinton hater. To be honest I don't watch TV, unless the wife drags me into watch girly movies, but there is one on constantly 3 ft from my face next to my PC and I almost never see Blillary on it.
On a side note; People who speak through smiles are sending big red flags and flares. Body language is a wonderful thing to learn. You know who I am talking about?
And I still think you're wrong;-)
You will only see what you *want* to see. Therefore arguing with someone who refuses to see both sides, is fruitless.
And again no offence intended, it's a discussion not a flame. ;-)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Evil Boosh, Bad Boosh, Down with Boosh... boohoohoo
3.5 more years and we won't have to worry about all the lies he tells, will we?
Your problem with the bush haters is you think short term, it will all come out in the wash in time. Even now as time goes by even Bush supporters are turning on him, you just have a white knuckle death grip.
-
Also, to me, you failed to prove your point.
It's ok for the reps to abuse it during the Clinton era, but it's not ok for Hillary to use it the same way, IF she is?
There is an unwritten rule,.. paybacks are a MFer. ;-)
-
You're pointing to Monica Lewinski and saying "the republicans did it!"?
Wow. I don't need to prove anything for that one. You've dropped off the deep end there. You use an incident to dismiss an entire campaign strategy. Next thing you know you'll be claiming the whole lewinski thing was a republican ploy and the article breaking the whole thing open was a republican plant. Afterall, the dems and CBS did it... why not the republicans? That would make it all better for you.
You're still ignoring one simple fact: Hillary has consistantly gone in front of the camera with the most ironic statements of all time. The one quoted in the article posted initially in this thread personifies that. The quote MT made also personifies that. Her use of the media is so short sighted that is simply has to be an addiction.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You're pointing to Monica Lewinski and saying "the republicans did it!"?
Wow. I don't need to prove anything for that one. You've dropped off the deep end there. You use an incident to dismiss an entire campaign strategy. Next thing you know you'll be claiming the whole lewinski thing was a republican ploy and the article breaking the whole thing open was a republican plant. Afterall, the dems and CBS did it... why not the republicans? That would make it all better for you.
You're still ignoring one simple fact: Hillary has consistantly gone in front of the camera with the most ironic statements of all time. The one quoted in the article posted initially in this thread personifies that. The quote MT made also personifies that. Her use of the media is so short sighted that is simply has to be an addiction.
Oh come on, the reps didn't get *that* blow job but it's not rocket science to know they totally abused the media on it, every single day of over 400 days.
And I will reiterate, IF she is over using the media, which I just don't see happening, it's usually rep supporters/Clinton haters saying so.....paybacks are a MFer, good for her to flip the tables, but she is still not abusing it now as the reps did then. Hey let people dig their own holes, ya know? And it was the reps abusing it going after Kerry's military record BEFORE the CBS thing.
And now, IF she is, again I will repeat, it's ok for the reps to do it but as soon as a dem does it's wrong?
Here's a point, I'm not for either side. I wil go for what party has the best people at the time. I do not stick with any party regardless of who they have running, that's too shallow for me.
You're kind of mixing apples and oranges and the timeline is wrong.
The only way this conversation can exist in any form to deal with reality is to remove the thought or stance as to the party you hang on to. Look from the outside in without parties and it makes much more sense.
What the reps did to Clinton was a campaign strategy. they exploited it every single chance they got, all the while the guys leading the train were themselves caught cheeting on their wives, lets not forget that part of hypocrocy.
I think they all do it, but to single Blillary out is clearly a republican stance because she is smart enough to harm that party. The only people offended by what she says are mostly reps. I think that's pretty clear to see.
You can believe what ever it is you believe and so can I and life goes on. Convincing me of something I see clearly for myself is not an easy task.
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
Oh come on, the reps didn't get *that* blow job but it's not rocket science to know they totally abused the media on it, every single day of over 400 days.
And I will reiterate, IF she is over using the media, which I just don't see happening, it's usually rep supporters/Clinton haters saying so.....paybacks are a MFer, good for her to flip the tables, but she is still not abusing it now as the reps did then. Hey let people dig their own holes, ya know? And it was the reps abusing it going after Kerry's military record BEFORE the CBS thing.
And now, IF she is, again I will repeat, it's ok for the reps to do it but as soon as a dem does it's wrong?
Here's a point, I'm not for either side. I wil go for what party has the best people at the time. I do not stick with any party regardless of who they have running, that's too shallow for me.
You're kind of mixing apples and oranges and the timeline is wrong.
The only way this conversation can exist in any form to deal with reality is to remove the thought or stance as to the party you hang on to. Look from the outside in without parties and it makes much more sense.
What the reps did to Clinton was a campaign strategy. they exploited it every single chance they got, all the while the guys leading the train were themselves caught cheeting on their wives, lets not forget that part of hypocrocy.
I think they all do it, but to single Blillary out is clearly a republican stance because she is smart enough to harm that party. The only people offended by what she says are mostly reps. I think that's pretty clear to see.
You can believe what ever it is you believe and so can I and life goes on. Convincing me of something I see clearly for myself is not an easy task.
We are going to have to get the van out ANIMAL. Round up some of these Moonies :) and reprogram them to see that there is no Left media and that the cult they belong to has lollapooloosled them.
:aok
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
And I will reiterate, IF she is over using the media, which I just don't see happening, it's usually rep supporters/Clinton haters saying so.....paybacks are a MFer, good for her to flip the tables, but she is still not abusing it now as the reps did then. Hey let people dig their own holes, ya know? And it was the reps abusing it going after Kerry's military record BEFORE the CBS thing.
LOL! damn... denial is a scary thing. Did you just say that a strategy the Clintons perfected during their campaign and that hillary has been systematically screwing up since she became a senator is the fault of the republicans and people who support republicans? That was masterfully stupid.
And now, IF she is, again I will repeat, it's ok for the reps to do it but as soon as a dem does it's wrong?
Find where I've bashed another dem for doing this. Like I said: I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE THAT HAS USED THE MEDIA THE WAY THE CLINTON'S DID. Did you notice how I said the media was lost the election after bill left office? For the next 5 years? It's odd, but I thought there was a democrat running in that election.Here's a point, I'm not for either side. I wil go for what party has the best people at the time. I do not stick with any party regardless of who they have running, that's too shallow for me.
And where have I used a term "democrats do this." I haven't. You are the one applying what I'm saying as if I'm talking about all of the party. As a matter of fact, given what you said, wouldn't it make sense for me to continue not liking someone that I haven't liked for the last 15 years? I mean... I'm talking an individual here, not a party. The party talk is coming from you.you're kind of mixing apples and oranges and the timeline is wrong.
The only way this conversation can exist in any form to deal with reality is to remove the thought or stance as to the party you hang on to. Look from the outside in without parties and it makes much more sense.
Dude... don't lecture me on routing for a party. It's not even remotely about that. Hillary is an idiot, but you seem to think I'm talking about all Democrats when I say that. Hell... you probably think that not liking John Kerry means the same as not liking Democrats in general. What the reps did to Clinton was a campaign strategy. they exploited it every single chance they got, all the while the guys leading the train were themselves caught cheeting on their wives, lets not forget that part of hypocrocy.
You're still sticking to the monica lewinski event as if this were the end all be all? You are the one that is now dillusional. Day in, day out. Not events. The republicans did not plant the sperm on monica's dress. They did not save the dress. They did not take it to the press. The whole thing was blown up by the media. The republicans took an opportunity to slap bill when they could.
I think they all do it, but to single Blillary out is clearly a republican stance because she is smart enough to harm that party. The only people offended by what she says are mostly reps. I think that's pretty clear to see.
You can believe what ever it is you believe and so can I and life goes on. Convincing me of something I see clearly for myself is not an easy task.
Offended by what she says? Are you serious? Let me ask you a question:
Do you think the situation in NK happened because GWB was elected?
Do you think that the U.S. should not be including China, Russia, Japan and SK in talks on dealing with NK?
Tell me how I should be offended by her view? I used the term Irony... it still applies. Tell me how I'm wrong instead of wasting time just blindly defending hilllary.
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
Oh and BTW,...
The republicans totally and undeniably abused the media cameras when they went after Clinton for a blow-job, and used it repeatedly every single day to insure they ruined him.
But I'm sure that's perfectly fine
;-)
Lets not mention he (clinton) lied to a grand jury (felony) and lost the right to practice law in Arkansas because of his lies.
-
Originally posted by john9001
it was really trumans fault for firing MacAuther when mac wanted to blow up the bridges , "oh , can't do that , half the bridges are on the chinese side of the river"
same with vietnam, LBJ & mcnamera "can't bomb SAM sites until they shoot at you"
leave the war to the military, it's their job.
Leave the war to Rebulicans, Dems have lost every war they have been in charge of.
-
I think Hillary beat up mini in grade school.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by JBA
Leave the war to Rebulicans, Dems have lost every war they have been in charge of.
We lost WWI & WWII?
Gawdamn.. at least in the world I went to sleep in, Wilson & FDR were Democrats. Where in hell am I, and how do I get back to the screwed up place I wuz when I fell asleep?
-
when Hillary becomes our 1st female president I think I'll start up a janitorial business... cleaning up after all the conservative heads that're gonna explode. I'll be rich!
Of course I will not forget to feel guilty about being rich.
-
I think this is where FT_Animal is supposed to come in and lecture you on not stereotyping.
-
well, a women leader could go ballistic on another country's arse once a month, and get a free pass from everyone.
i would buy GE and Hallibury stock, if it came to be.