Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on November 15, 2005, 09:23:48 AM
-
Its about time the Reps hit back at the blatant lies of the Dems. This video or some form of it, should have hit the air last year. It hardly scratches the surface of the big time lies coming from the anti-bush crowd. Using the music from "The Low Spark of High-heeled Boys" adds a nice touch :)
Video link (http://www.gop.com/?s=video)
-
Awesome vid.
Good stuff.
-
About bloody time!
-
Yawn.
The "Clinton Defense" is getting old. The GOP needs a new tune.
-
The old addage that when you point a finger at someone there's three fingers pointing back at you is so true.
But when it's documented like this it's damning...
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yawn.
The "Clinton Defense" is getting old. The GOP needs a new tune.
The former president is only one of many. Keep in mind his wife is the current senator from NY and she agreed.
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
The old addage that when you point a finger at someone there's three fingers pointing back at you is so true.
But when it's documented like this it's damning...
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
It reads like very selective cherry picking.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yawn.
The "Clinton Defense" is getting old. The GOP needs a new tune.
Best you got is BUUUSH LIED>
http://home.rochester.rr.com/ascarbrough/demquotes.html
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Damn the truth always stings..
-
Low Spark is a great record
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Its about time the Reps hit back at the blatant lies of the Dems. This video or some form of it, should have hit the air last year. It hardly scratches the surface of the big time lies coming from the anti-bush crowd. Using the music from "The Low Spark of High-heeled Boys" adds a nice touch :)
Video link (http://www.gop.com/?s=video)
Because of the gravity of the subject and the President’s unique access to
classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President
and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in
describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and
National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq. To the
contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the
threat posed by Iraq. In 125 separate appearances, they made 11 misleading
statements about the urgency of Iraq’s threat, 81 misleading statements about
Iraq’s nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq’s chemical and
biological capabilities, and 61 misleading statements about Iraq’s relationship
with al Qaeda.
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____
132 Meet the Press, NBC (June 8, 2003).
133 Face the Nation, CBS (July 11, 2003).
134 See White House, Dan Bartlett and Steve Hadley Hold Press Briefing, supra note 6.
-
Typical political BULL If you think being against something will get you elected or discredit the incumbant than your against it. Same thing with being for something.
Somewhere between the party lines is the truth. Sadly me you and the other guy will never know it.
-
Originally posted by Silat
To the contrary, these five officials repeatedly made misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq.
According to who ? the DNC, the NYT? or the 40 + current and former Presidents, Senators, Secretary of states, administration officials and Intelligence agencies from around the world who all said the same thing.
It is time the Dems stop playing politics and come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
According to who ? the DNC, the NYT? or the 40 + current and former Presidents, Senators, Secretary of states, administration officials and Intelligence agencies from around the world who all said the same thing.
It is time the Dems stop playing politics and come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
Most of the responses to the WMD issue were framed by the White House selectively citing and releasing data, most of it only released immediately prior to a vote--that is, the White House said "trust me."
So, yes, based on what the White House said, people went along. Going along and objective, individual endorsement are two separate claims so don't mix them up.
Look, even Powell and his men, who took the heat for the Pres, notes it was selective BS.
If Bush was found sleeping with teenage boys Krusher, you'd blame it on Liberals.
Time to stop crying about the lost cause of W's greatness and be a tad more honest.
For god's sake, complete control over government, manipulating the agenda for years now and the GOP is still never responsible for anything?
If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable.
Sakai
-
just because you haven't found the WMD buried in the desert, it dosen't mean the WMD are not buried in the desert.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yawn.
The "Clinton Defense" is getting old. The GOP needs a new tune.
perhaps you should include an ostrich sticking his head into the sand in your avatar ostrichwithhisheadinthesandma n.
-
Google: clinton, Iraq, 1998 = 3.74 million hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton%2C+iraq%2C+1998)
Let's not forget about this little gem that the dems NEVER mention
The Iraq Liberation Act (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
It is time the Dems stop playing politics and come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
Pentagon finally admits using phosphorous bombs on Fallujah killing scores of women and children...burning thier skin down to the bone.
This only because an Italian documentary is to be aired next week exposing the carnage.
Two years of them lying about it saying it was only phosphorous flares.
It is time the Republicans to come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
-
Originally posted by storch
perhaps you should include an ostrich sticking his head into the sand in your avatar ostrichwithhisheadinthesandma n.
Perhaps you should stay on topic.
Now that Iraq has become as messy as a **** sandwich, the GOP is fishing for ways to spread the blame about. It's all crap. The buck stops at the oval. If the idiot from Crawford can't handle the heat, maybe he needs to leave the kitchen.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Pentagon finally admits using phosphorous bombs on Fallujah killing scores of women and children...burning thier skin down to the bone.
This only because an Italian documentary is to be aired next week exposing the carnage.
Two years of them lying about it saying it was only phosphorous flares.
It is time the Republicans to come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
This just in, WP is not an illegal weapon of war...and this just in...Civilians are always killed in every war.
Back to your regularly scheduled ranting...
Oh, and another thing, WP was used to flush insurgents out of buildings so that we could shell with with HE artillery, I suppose the next headline will be "HE was used to kill CIVILIANS!" ?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Pentagon finally admits using phosphorous bombs on Fallujah killing scores of women and children...burning thier skin down to the bone.
This only because an Italian documentary is to be aired next week exposing the carnage.
Two years of them lying about it saying it was only phosphorous flares.
It is time the Republicans to come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
This has nothing to do with the topic but I'll bite. The far leftists are calling WP a chemical weapon....yea that has a nice death tone to it "US admits using chemical weapons on Fallujah" To call WP a "chemical weapon" would mean to call every other piece of ammo round HE C4 semtec a "chemical weapon"
WP has been around for a LONG time. In deffense here the civilians were given more than ample oppertunity to get out of the city. If they were still there then they were bound to get hurt. Show me proof that they DELIBERATLY targeted civilians or these claims hold no weight at all
-
Originally posted by Sakai
>Look, even Powell and his men, who took the heat for the Pres, notes it was selective BS.
What is selective BS is a career diplomat in Powell's office made an unsubstantiated claim that Powell has denied.
>If Bush was found sleeping with teenage boys Krusher, you'd blame it on Liberals.
More of your BS if you have no proof insult.
>Time to stop crying about the lost cause of W's greatness and be a tad more honest.
Honesty is what this all about, the dems are being dishonest and ignoring 12 years while trying to rewrite history. If you want to jump on the band wagon feel free its your right.
>For god's sake, complete control over government, manipulating the agenda for years now and the GOP is still never responsible for anything?
>If that wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable.
What is pathetic is the transparent attempt to ignore the facts that almost everyone agreed on.
in 1998, Clinton's Justice Department indicted bin Laden. Count 4 of the
indictment has a paragraph that reads.
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan
and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballahfor the purpose of working together against their perceived 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.
* French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin: "Right Now, Our Attention
Has To Be Focused As A Priority On The Biological And Chemical Domains. It
Is There That Our Presumptions About Iraq Are The Most Significant.
Regarding The Chemical Domain, We Have Evidence Of Its Capacity To Produce VX And Yperite. In The Biological Domain, The Evidence Suggests The Possible Possession Of Significant Stocks Of Anthrax And Botulism Toxin, And Possibly A Production Capability." (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)
* German Ambassador To The United States Wolfgang Ischinger: "I Think All Of Our Governments Believe That Iraq Has Produced Weapons Of Mass Destruction And That We Have To Assume That They Still Have That They Continue To Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction. We Have Not Yet Seen Evidence Produced By The Inspectors." (NBC's "Today," 2/26/03)
-
It's obvious that the Clintonesqe mentality of "if you say it enough it becomes true" has taken it's course. Leftist revisionist want to rewrite history but just can't get past the facts.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Perhaps you should stay on topic.
Now that Iraq has become as messy as a **** sandwich, the GOP is fishing for ways to spread the blame about. It's all crap. The buck stops at the oval. If the idiot from Crawford can't handle the heat, maybe he needs to leave the kitchen.
Iraq is not a mess. It is exactly what the President said it would be before it began.....a long, difficult struggle.
We are not goining to lose and the region and the world will thank us after. After it's all said and done, it will be seen as a great moment in American and world history, while the fools like Kerry and the other liberal, lying peices of garbage will be noted as such.
The Dems think they smell blood in the water because of the Presidents poll numbers and Iraq. The fact is that Dems , whom many supported and voted to go to war, are now claiming the President lied and manipulated the intelligence. They are doing this because they are true liberals.......following the polls and taking the positions they think are moste popular. They make me sick.
Bush hasn't been trying to blame anyone that I ever saw. He asking that these fools stop lying and stop sending out mixed signals in a time of war.
Some of these liberal dems are absolute fools who would sell this country down the river if they thought they could benifit politically.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Pentagon finally admits using phosphorous bombs on Fallujah killing scores of women and children...burning thier skin down to the bone.
This only because an Italian documentary is to be aired next week exposing the carnage.
Two years of them lying about it saying it was only phosphorous flares.
It is time the Republicans to come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
Maybe you should watch the documentry and or read the BBC before you gloat.
Killing scores?
Carnage?
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
----
The credibility of the Italian TV station that is producing the doc your hanging your hat on is pretty thin.
does this ring a bell?
My dear friends in Palestine. We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah. One of the private Italian television stations which competes with us (and not the official Italian television station RAI) filmed the events; that station filmed the events. Afterwards Israeli Television broadcast the pictures, as taken from one of the Italian stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RAI) took these pictures.
We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way, because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work.
We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We do not (will not) do such a thing.
Please accept our dear blessings.
Signed,
Ricardo Christiano
Representative of RAI in the Palestinian Authority
(the official Italian station)
----
He had his press credentials suspeneded for his rah rah support of a televised lynching.
Kinda biased towards terrorist ehhh? then I suppose none of that matters. Did you see that masacre in Jennin?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's obvious that the Clintonesqe mentality of "if you say it enough it becomes true" has taken it's course. Leftist revisionist want to rewrite history but just can't get past the facts.
I thought that was a hitler tricks....of course all revisionists was to rewrite history, I occasionally wear my Washington Redskins 1984 Superbowl victory hat
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Iraq is not a mess. It is exactly what the President said it would be before it began.....a long, difficult struggle.
We are not goining to lose and the region and the world will thank us after. After it's all said and done, it will be seen as a great moment in American and world history,
I bet not. Tell ya what... in twenty years, if I'm right, you can buy me a beer. I'll do the same. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I bet not. Tell ya what... in twenty years, if I'm right, you can buy me a beer. I'll do the same. ;)
Sounds good.
-
Well... if you're right, you'll get your beer sooner. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... if you're right, you'll get your beer sooner. ;)
Well, technically you would have to wait 20 years, even if you were proven correct tomorrow. On the other hand, it could be more than 20 years before I could be said to have been correct.
Chit, I'd buy you a beer anyway. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Yawn.
The "Clinton Defense" is getting old. The GOP needs a new tune.
I have never blamed you for doubting Bush and his motives...legitimate effort as a American.
How on Gods green earth can you dismiss, not only Clinton, but the so many others, especially Albright.
Kinda dishonest.
I inderstand you served.....there are those here amoungst us who served in unconventional ways which if allowed, would open your eyes.
We should all be tired of Washington in it's entirety....they no longer serve us but rather themselves and guess what?
It's our fault for allowing it to continue as we have....ya reap what ya sow.
A simple truth to consider....we will have nuclear detonation on our soil if our boot is removed from the necks of those currently engaged against us, both overtly and covertly.
Be very careful what you wish for.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Google: clinton, Iraq, 1998 = 3.74 million hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton%2C+iraq%2C+1998)
Let's not forget about this little gem that the dems NEVER mention
The Iraq Liberation Act (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm)
Hmmmmm . . .
Well, no one ever said Saddam was in compliance which was the root of all Clinton's actions--UN compliance. It was linking non compliance to de facto weapons programs that Bush stated flatly we knew without question were there and speciously linking them to 9/11. Those are, again, false assertions that Bush made.
Heck, even Kofi Anan said Saddam should get compliant. So what?
But that is the problem with this specious and laughable defense:
Bush did not invade on non compliance, he invaded on what he said were terrorist related problems linked to known WMD. No association with terrorists or WMD have been found. Had he simply said "I want him dead and he aint compliant" we'd not have had as much support but no one could now call him a liar.
See how that works?
Everyone wanted Hussein gone, but Bush tried to get action on this by Congress on the compliance issue and when the vote failed--in a GOP controlled Legislature mind you--he sent in a new report ith a "new loook" at the same data and said "read this and see if you like it better."
Sure that is not fudging numbers to get your way?
Another problem is we see the standard OP for these guys is lie about anyone who says otherwise. So, if you have a pack of known character assassins saying not to trust the other guy, why believe them? If Bush has a credibility issue, why is that everyone else's fault?
Also, why enunciate a Bush doctrine if it wasn't meant to stand on its own but was really simply a rehash of Democratic doctrine? Neocon doctrine states that all democratic doctrine was appeasement and invasion was imperative to protect American interests. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
Pre-emptive war is new US doctrine, period. If your first use of it proves to have been errant, blaming it on everyone else is poor behavior, it is immature and simply churlish petulance.
Sakai
-
Libya has given up its WMD programs
Syria is out of Lebanon
Palestine is getting its statehood
Taliban is ousted and Democracy has come to Afghanistan (Freed Women for first Time can attend school, work and vote)
Iraq will soon be a democracy,
North Korea will soon negotiate a plane to dismantle it’s Nukes (that Clinton gave it)
What dose this all mean………………….
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR BUSH.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I have never blamed you for doubting Bush and his motives...legitimate effort as a American.
How on Gods green earth can you dismiss, not only Clinton, but the so many others, especially Albright.
Simple enough. The Clinton admin did not get us into a pre-emptive war.
-
Originally posted by JBA
What dose this all mean………………….
Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The credibility of the Italian TV station that is producing the doc your hanging your hat on is pretty thin.
Not as thin as your credibility Krusher.
Monday Bush said anyone calling for withdrawal was aiding terrorism, Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.
I guess the GOP senate is a pack of traitors?
Aren't you glad the GOP is finally getting out and calling its own senators liars?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Not as thin as your credibility Krusher.
Monday Bush said anyone calling for withdrawal was aiding terrorism, Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.
I guess the GOP senate is a pack of traitors?
Aren't you glad the GOP is finally getting out and calling its own senators liars?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Sakai
Oh really? a quick fact check shows you to have the credibility problem LOL
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 15, 6:27 PM ET
The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.
The overall measure, adopted 98-0
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Oh really? a quick fact check shows you to have the credibility problem LOL
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 15, 6:27 PM ET
The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.
The overall measure, adopted 98-0
Yes K they rejected the dem plan then went into a meeting and changed the line about time tables then presented it as their own.
Credibility?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
According to who ? the DNC, the NYT? or the 40 + current and former Presidents, Senators, Secretary of states, administration officials and Intelligence agencies from around the world who all said the same thing.
It is time the Dems stop playing politics and come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
According to http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
US House of Reps
Committee on Government Reform
Special Investigations
Try to look at this admin without seeing a lib behind every tree. The libs/dems have no power in this gov. Anything wrong at this time cannot be attributed to libs/dems. You and your party are in absolute control. Can you not look at it with an open mind?
Those who are criticising dissent in this country are the real anti Americans...
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Hmmmmm . . .
Well, no one ever said Saddam was in compliance which was the root of all Clinton's actions--UN compliance. It was linking non compliance to de facto weapons programs that Bush stated flatly we knew without question were there and speciously linking them to 9/11. Those are, again, false assertions that Bush made.
Heck, even Kofi Anan said Saddam should get compliant. So what?
But that is the problem with this specious and laughable defense:
Bush did not invade on non compliance, he invaded on what he said were terrorist related problems linked to known WMD. No association with terrorists or WMD have been found. Had he simply said "I want him dead and he aint compliant" we'd not have had as much support but no one could now call him a liar.
See how that works?
Everyone wanted Hussein gone, but Bush tried to get action on this by Congress on the compliance issue and when the vote failed--in a GOP controlled Legislature mind you--he sent in a new report ith a "new loook" at the same data and said "read this and see if you like it better."
Sure that is not fudging numbers to get your way?
Another problem is we see the standard OP for these guys is lie about anyone who says otherwise. So, if you have a pack of known character assassins saying not to trust the other guy, why believe them? If Bush has a credibility issue, why is that everyone else's fault?
Also, why enunciate a Bush doctrine if it wasn't meant to stand on its own but was really simply a rehash of Democratic doctrine? Neocon doctrine states that all democratic doctrine was appeasement and invasion was imperative to protect American interests. Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
Pre-emptive war is new US doctrine, period. If your first use of it proves to have been errant, blaming it on everyone else is poor behavior, it is immature and simply churlish petulance.
Sakai
The simple problem is you cannot back up ANY of this on fact.
and then there's this http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The simple problem is you cannot back up ANY of this on fact.
and then there's this http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
Guns hiya:)
How does your link knock down what Sakai is saying? I must be missing something. One short speech doesnt mean much.
-
Originally posted by Silat
According to http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
US House of Reps
Committee on Government Reform
Special Investigations
Try to look at this admin without seeing a lib behind every tree. The libs/dems have no power in this gov. Anything wrong at this time cannot be attributed to libs/dems. You and your party are in absolute control. Can you not look at it with an open mind?
Those who are criticising dissent in this country are the real anti Americans...
I have already wasted my time reading this once and my pov stands.
It reads like very selective cherry picking.
Try and understand what the bottom line is for Henry Waxman and then re-read the pdf. If you really have that open mind you mentioned it will be very clear.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I have already wasted my time reading this once and my pov stands.
It reads like very selective cherry picking.
Try and understand what the bottom line is for Henry Waxman and then re-read the pdf. If you really have that open mind you mentioned it will be very clear.
You prove my point. You cannot and will not read or digest anything that isnt written or said by a rep or right wing pundit.
Please prove the inaccuracy of anything in that OFFICIAL document.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Low Spark is a great record
I wouldn't know. A NYTHING that has boys in high heels...rather sounds unattractive to me.
Knock yourself out. It's all you:lol
-
Originally posted by Silat
You prove my point. You cannot and will not read or digest anything that isnt written or said by a rep or right wing pundit.
Please prove the inaccuracy of anything in that OFFICIAL document.
In your mind I am sure I do, but that works both ways.
You cannot tell me you read that report and honestly could not see the manipulation of statements that was clear from the opening pages.
You ask me to prove something that we both know is open to interpretation. The Dems are call them "misleading" or "lies" not because they have any actual proof that they are either, but because they can do so without actually needing proof. The selective quotes , taken out of context and used subjectively are not going to convince any juror who doesn't have a pre conceived bias.
So prove to me without a doubt that the officials knew those statements were misleading or lies. Then tell me why they were not lies when used by the previous administration, current senators and 40 + others who have said the same things.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes K they rejected the dem plan then went into a meeting and changed the line about time tables then presented it as their own.
Credibility?
I seriously doubt that only one line was changed so I googled looking for evidence. I couldn't find anything that came close to that statement.
That being said it really has nothing to do with Sakai's blatantly misleading statement of fact.
Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Guns hiya:)
How does your link knock down what Sakai is saying? I must be missing something. One short speech doesnt mean much.
Hiya Silat,
Well all the points he makes are based on his opinion. H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" is LAW and FACT.
To me this isn't about if Iraq had WMDs or ties to terrorism it is silenceing the "bush lied" crowed using viable fact. There's numerous out there and they've been layed out in thread after thread here on this board. Not one person here can prove to me that Bush lied about going to war. The real proof is in the deffenses they give and how much it changes while the prowar side has allways been steadfast in their reasoning.
Sadam had bio/chemical weapons. Everyone knows this because he used them. This is yet another silence to yet another argument of "why can other countries have them and not him" it's simple, he's used them and if left unfettered would have used them again.
No matter how you say it regieme change in Iraq had been US foreign policy since 1998. There's no way around it, it was written into law. No one in the "Bush lied" crowed can explain it away.
I'm very proud of Bush and Cheny for finally fighting back against their critics. Alot of us are saying it's about time.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sadam had bio/chemical weapons. Everyone knows this because he used them.
Everyone knows this cause your country sold him the raw materials to make the chemical weapons...
Which begs the question...Why did u sell that stuff to him?..Can you answer that one?
You illegaly arm the Contras..
You invade Grenada & Panama..
You sell weapons to both Iran & Iraq when they are at war
You deliver the chemical kaka to Sadam with a handshake from Rumsfeld
Then you take the moral high ground when he uses it and use that as the reason to invade Iraq?
Talk about yer ferkin indian giver.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Everyone knows this cause your country sold him the raw materials to make the chemical weapons...
Which begs the question...Why did u sell that stuff to him?..Can you answer that one?
You illegaly arm the Contras..
You invade Grenada & Panama..
You sell weapons to both Iran & Iraq when they are at war
You deliver the chemical kaka to Sadam with a handshake from Rumsfeld
Then you take the moral high ground when he uses it and use that as the reason to invade Iraq?
Talk about yer ferkin indian giver.
This is an absolute pointless statement. Can you back up the fact that we sold them the weapons? Was the US the ONLY country to sell weapons to Iraq/Iran? WTF does Grenada and Panama have to do with Iraq?
Last time I checked we were blowing up T-72 Tanks and fighting an enemy that used Kalishnakovs (SP?) Who make's SCUD missle's again?
The entire premise of this thread is a counter to the "Bush Lied" revisionists, do you have a point to make about that at all?
-
Answer the question.
-
Everyone knows this cause your country sold him the raw materials to make the chemical weapons...
Common misconception.
Saddam told us that he was worried that Iran would use WMD against him. So we gave him neutered samples (kind of like vaccines) for him to experiment with as to which way to best prevent the use against Iraqis.
You could take all the samples we gave saddam and shove them up your nose in a single instant, and you would not even catch a cold.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I wouldn't know. A NYTHING that has boys in high heels...rather sounds unattractive to me.
Knock yourself out. It's all you:lol
It's a great record
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000639A3.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Dont let the title scare you off.
If you're afraid listening to a record with this name it will turn you queer...too late Mr. Garrison
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Common misconception.
Saddam told us that he was worried that Iran would use WMD against him. So we gave him neutered samples (kind of like vaccines) for him to experiment with as to which way to best prevent the use against Iraqis.
You could take all the samples we gave saddam and shove them up your nose in a single instant, and you would not even catch a cold.
Sirloin has tried to derail this topic twice with the "BIG BAD USA DID IT" change of subjects. This particular version has been investigated by the UN and a democrat controlled congress back in 1993. They both have blown holes in his therory and if he cares to search the "O' Club" he will find at least two threads that discuss it in length.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Answer the question.
1. It's not a valid question pertaining to the topic
2. It's not a factual based question
-
Originally posted by Debonair
It's a great record
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000639A3.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Dont let the title scare you off.
If you're afraid listening to a record with this name it will turn you queer...too late Mr. Garrison
I was going to say the same thing to him.
-
a couple of reads Krusher & Gunslinger
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/hiro20020828
http://traprockpeace.org/rieglereportexports.pdf
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
a couple of reads Krusher & Gunslinger
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/hiro20020828
http://traprockpeace.org/rieglereportexports.pdf
1. This still does not prove anything right for the "Bush lied" crowd
2. I don't trust these articles, they make it sound like we were the chief supplier of weapons to Iraq wich just isn't the case. Did we help Iraq? I would say yes, During the cold war the world was a different place and you had to take sides in conflicts such as these.
(http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Common misconception.
Saddam told us that he was worried that Iran would use WMD against him. So we gave him neutered samples (kind of like vaccines) for him to experiment with as to which way to best prevent the use against Iraqis.
You could take all the samples we gave saddam and shove them up your nose in a single instant, and you would not even catch a cold.
You should read it too..especially the Senate report about how the biological kaka "was not attenuated or weakened and was capable of reproduction"..Anthrax,ecoli..etc..Wanna shove that up your nose?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
You should read it too..especially the Senate report about how the biological kaka "was not attenuated or weakened and was capable of reproduction"..Anthrax,ecoli..etc..Wanna shove that up your nose?
You still havn't proved that Bushed lied nore have you proved that Iraq did not have WMD prior to the invasion.....in fact your helping make that argument. And agian have you ever heard of the "cold war"?
-
Bush lied when he took the oath...
As for proving Saddam didn't have WMD before the invasion?...r u 4 real?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Bush lied when he took the oath...
As for proving Saddam didn't have WMD before the invasion?...wtf?
Exactly.....you got nothin huh.:lol
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Everyone knows this cause your country sold him the raw materials to make the chemical weapons...
say what? This must be a LIE! I guess it is on topic afterall
Iraq Genocide trial for dutchman (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4455786.stm)
A Dutch businessman has gone on trial accused of complicity in war crimes and genocide for selling toxic chemicals to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Frans van Anraat, 63, appeared before a war crimes court in The Hague, charged in connection with the 1988 chemical attacks on Halabja.
Prosecutors say he continued to supply industrial chemicals to Iraq after an export ban in 1984.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Libya has given up its WMD programs
Syria is out of Lebanon
Palestine is getting its statehood
Taliban is ousted and Democracy has come to Afghanistan (Freed Women for first Time can attend school, work and vote)
Iraq will soon be a democracy,
North Korea will soon negotiate a plane to dismantle it’s Nukes (that Clinton gave it)
What dose this all mean………………….
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR BUSH.
Maybe a Nobel pos Prize..i could see that.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Maybe a Nobel pos Prize..i could see that.
???
I love how much BIAS everyone here swims in:rofl
-
when is the GOP going to air it?
the sooner the better .. followed by more of the same
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Maybe a Nobel pos Prize..i could see that.
again, ya got nothing :D
-
sirloin, Im guessing rummie gave saddam the chems so he could kill Iranians, who called us the great satan, so its all cool. Unfortunately saddie apparently experimeted on friendly kurds, and this upset us so we went in and arrested saddam when the time was right.
Grenada and Panama were justified right on successes last time I checked. Arming the Contras helped defeat the nasty sandanistas, which was the goal and was a success last time I checked.
also, giving the iranians some old crappy munitions to kill iraqis with so the iranians would let some hostages go was a fair trade.
Actually, it was pretty brilliant, arming Iraqis to kill Iranians, and arming Iranians to kill Iraqis....too bad life aint so simple... never mind
:aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
sirloin, Im guessing rummie gave saddam the chems so he could kill Iranians, who called us the great satan, so its all cool. Unfortunately saddie apparently experimeted on friendly kurds, and this upset us so we went in and arrested saddam when the time was right.
Grenada and Panama were justified right on successes last time I checked. Arming the Contras helped defeat the nasty sandanistas, which was the goal and was a success last time I checked.
also, giving the iranians some old crappy munitions to kill iraqis with so the iranians would let some hostages go was a fair trade.
Actually, it was pretty brilliant, arming Iraqis to kill Iranians, and arming Iranians to kill Iraqis....too bad life aint so simple... never mind
:aok
I still don't see the point. Everything that's mentioned is an entirly different era. Different stratagies, different policys, different enemys, different goals, different climate, just a different world all around.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Hmmmmm . . .
Well, no one ever said Saddam was in compliance which was the root of all Clinton's actions--UN compliance. It was linking non compliance to de facto weapons programs that Bush stated flatly we knew without question were there and speciously linking them to 9/11. Those are, again, false assertions that Bush made.
screeeeeeech,, hold on.
Point 1 the Bush administration never linked Saddam to 9/11 and even admitted they coudl find no link between the two.
Point 2 As far as The current administrations claims that Iraq had WMDs
He ddint make a claim that the intel agencies didnt also beleive or the the previous administration didnt say.
Each claimed or beleived Saddam had WMDs
the ONLY difference between Bush and clinton as far as claims to Iraq possessing WMDs is that Bush invaded Clinton didnt even though congress including several prominent Democrats practically begged him to
If Bush lied or misled on the intel. so did alot of other people, including the previous administration
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Not as thin as your credibility Krusher.
Monday Bush said anyone calling for withdrawal was aiding terrorism, Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.
I guess the GOP senate is a pack of traitors?
Aren't you glad the GOP is finally getting out and calling its own senators liars?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
Sakai
Unreal the way you are trying to twist this one.
The GOP calling for a vote on withdrawal was to call the bluff on certain Democrats and to put on the recod exactly who stood where on this issue.
That way the Democrats couldnt say "pull em out pull em out" without really meaning it just to gain a political advantage.
Basically the GOP said "Ok put your money where your mouth is" and the Democrats chumped out
In the end out of the both sides combined they had what, like 3 votes to bring the troops home out of both parties?
Now the Democrates cant say they re in favor of bringing the troops home right now because they are already o the record as voting against exactly that action
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Oh really? a quick fact check shows you to have the credibility problem LOL
You never learn do you Bush apology man?
I said GOP senators were calling for a withdrawal and that's a fact not at issue except in folks who refuse to read outside of their own preconceived set of ideas.
Fact, June 2005, Hagel Hammers Bush on Iraq:
6/27/05
Hit by friendly fire
With his polls down, Bush takes flak on Iraq from a host of critics--including some in his own party
By Kevin Whitelaw
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
Fact, the senate aksed for a specific timetable to be overseen by them:
Senate puts heat on Bush over Iraq; Asks for updates on progress
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Addressing rising concerns over the war in Iraq, an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate yesterday voted to require the Bush administration to lay out a plan for accomplishing the U.S. mission there and to report on it quarterly to Congress.
Seventy-nine senators voted for an amendment to a spending bill stating that 2006 should be "a period of significant transition" in which Iraqi security forces take the lead in protecting their citizens, creating conditions for a "phased" withdrawal of U.S. forces.
You're dishonest Krusher, you only cite what you believe, not what is factually occurring. A damned liar, like those cowards Cheney and Bush.
Go ahead, revise what you want. The only people who believe you anymore are the ones who would blame Clinton if Bush were caught sodomizing a 10 year old boy. You're irrelevant because you got nothing but sound bytes and misreported nonsense.
Bush called everyone asking for a timetable dissenters who demoralized our troops, the next few days the GOP senate calls for a timetable overseen by themselves.
Fact, not your personal pipe dream about your dream Fuhrer, W.
Un american to question the president, right?
The 98-0 vote was a political stunt, the one that counted was the one that passed. But why learn when you can spew Rihgt wing sound bytes googled off the net, ehh bucky?
Just keep making excuses and making up data junior, apologizing for crooks and liars is all yer good for.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Basically the GOP said "Ok put your money where your mouth is" and the Democrats chumped out
Right, that's why the White House released their "plan for victory" today because you can't have one out in public without dmeoralizing the troops right?
That's why the Pentagon announced a draw down is likely becaus eyou cannot say those things, right?
That's why Condi was sent out in public to announce a draw down was likely soon because you can't say such things without hurting morale, right?
That's why teh Iraqi political parties all called for a timetable, because one can't exist, right?
That's why the senate voted to have oversight of the process you can't have, right?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hey, Rush limbaugh said it guys, it must be true!
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
You boys need to read the news, not report the sound bytes to us, we all know what Cheney wants you to repeat.
What's it like, to never think for yourselves but simply repeat what the machine feeds you?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Krusher
According to who ? the DNC, the NYT? or the 40 + current and former Presidents, Senators, Secretary of states, administration officials and Intelligence agencies from around the world who all said the same thing.
It is time the Dems stop playing politics and come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
According to, no weapons found! LMAO! ROFL!
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Right, that's why the White House released their "plan for victory" today because you can't have one out in public without dmeoralizing the troops right?
That's why the Pentagon announced a draw down is likely becaus eyou cannot say those things, right?
That's why Condi was sent out in public to announce a draw down was likely soon because you can't say such things without hurting morale, right?
That's why teh Iraqi political parties all called for a timetable, because one can't exist, right?
That's why the senate voted to have oversight of the process you can't have, right?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hey, Rush limbaugh said it guys, it must be true!
Bwahahahahahahahahaha
You boys need to read the news, not report the sound bytes to us, we all know what Cheney wants you to repeat.
What's it like, to never think for yourselves but simply repeat what the machine feeds you?
Sakai
That vote was what. about 2 weeks ago?
Not that long to forget what brought it about.
I suggest you work on improving your short term memory
Oh and by the way. You spin poorly
The vote was for "immediate" withdrawal.
not a Drawdown
And just for the record.
Im not braindead enough to have a particular party affiliation.
You might find me decidedly liberal or conservative or anywhere in between depending on the subject at hand
-
I guess in retrospect...
It would have been prudent for the sadman to allow the inspectors to see anything they wanted for as long as they wanted...
He might still be enjoying a pleasant evening of watching people being tortured or enjoying a good crap on his gold toilet seat still.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess in retrospect...
It would have been prudent for the sadman to allow the inspectors to see anything they wanted for as long as they wanted...
He might still be enjoying a pleasant evening of watching people being tortured or enjoying a good crap on his gold toilet seat still.
lazs
But that's still not the case. Even after 1441 Sadam let inspectors back in and while they were at the frunt door he was up to his old tricks of moving stuff out the back.
What people like Sakai and SkyRock don't seem to want to remember is that it has been US policy to enact regiem change in Iraq since 1998
They still can't prove that Bush lied. They got nothing but spin and talking points.
-
Originally posted by Sakai
You're dishonest Krusher, you only cite what you believe, not what is factually occurring. A damned liar, like those cowards Cheney and Bush.
Sakai [/B][/QUOTE]
Face it sakai, I posted the "exact" text from the AP.
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 15, 6:27 PM ET
The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.
The overall measure, adopted 98-0
You can call it a stunt if it suits your POV but it is a FACT.
I also posted the TEXT from the presidents speech last year prior to the first election in January that covers a "plan" that is remarkably similar to the plan being mentioned today. You either missed or ignored it but it is a FACT.
Democrats are losing the American public now (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1877903#post1877903post1877903)
And what a surprise, you call me dishonest and a damned liar when you can not back up your post with FACTS.
I am through with you Sakai, you are wasting my time with your school yard spew, its tiresome and boring.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Everyone knows this cause your country sold him the raw materials to make the chemical weapons...
Which begs the question...Why did u sell that stuff to him?..Can you answer that one?
You illegaly arm the Contras..
You invade Grenada & Panama..
You sell weapons to both Iran & Iraq when they are at war
You deliver the chemical kaka to Sadam with a handshake from Rumsfeld
Then you take the moral high ground when he uses it and use that as the reason to invade Iraq?
Talk about yer ferkin indian giver.
Actually that doesn't beg the question that raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which one assumes what one claims to be proving.
For instance a statement like "You illegaly (sic) arm the Contras.." begs the question of the legality of arming the contras. Just for the record, the arming of the contras was perfectly legal prior to the Boland (a Massachusetts Democrat, imagine that) Amendment.
I presume the purpose of your accusatory Canukistani bill of particulars is to throw enough dung around to vitiate any moral argument for what is occuring in Iraq.
My argument would be this: Let's stipulate that you are entirely correct and mutually accept that everything you allege is unvarnished gospel with whatever implication you feel should appertain. If that is the case, then our obligation to rectify the situation is increased. It is doubly incumbent upon us to atone for our misdeeds. I am glad to see that we are doing so.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
During the cold war the world was a different place and you had to take sides in conflicts such as these.
It is exactly that kind of stupidity that has plaqued this country since the end of WWII. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil. We didnt have to go into Korea, and US citizens turned their back on that conflict. We didn't have to go into VietNam, and US citizens eventually turned their back on that conflict. We didn't have to go into IRAQ, and eventually US citizens will turn their back on this conflict as well. If the purpose of the "Fight" is not pure and one of integrity or in some way directly affects the average Joe, then failure on some level is eminant! There was never a doubt to fight the Japanese in WWII, because they attacked us first. The American resolve was unwaivering. Korea did not attack us first and eventually most americans lost their support for the conflict. VietNam did not attack us first, and american resolve eventually waivered. IRAQ did not attack us first, and eventually if the costs drag on, the american people will waiver there as well! I have yet to hear from anyone that going into Afghanistan was a bad move, why? Because people inside afghanistan orchestrated the attack on our soil. ie.. attacked us first!
I sometimes chuckle at some in here and elswhere that blame Media and actors for losing wars. If US citizens are so easily swayed then I say that their resolve was never as strong as it should be before entering a conflict.
-
whatever skyrock.....say and think whatever the freedom to do so inspires you to say. But lets just this once, complete what we started and have sacrificed so much for before we retreat and surrender, again.
Lets win one for the team. what you say team mate? just this once?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
That vote was what. about 2 weeks ago?
Not that long to forget what brought it about.
I suggest you work on improving your short term memory
Oh and by the way. You spin poorly
The vote was for "immediate" withdrawal.
not a Drawdown
And just for the record.
Im not braindead enough to have a particular party affiliation.
You might find me decidedly liberal or conservative or anywhere in between depending on the subject at hand
Nope, three votes:
Two manipulated ones by the GOP to try and get some ploitical leverage(no one bought into these and they were dutifully reported as jokes), only referenced as meaningful by right wing apologists I might add, and 1 fostered by the GOP senate asking for (drumroll):
The troops being drawn down startig next year (that is a timetable, by the way) with senate oversight because Bush is playing fast and lose with his power.
End of story.
Not only need to read, need to understaand politics in our nation. It's amazing how you guys spit this tripe out as if it's meaningful.
Hey, there's still three of you who believe it, why not repeat it?
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Yeager
whatever skyrock.....say and think whatever the freedom to do so inspires you to say. But lets just this once, complete what we started and have sacrificed so much for before we retreat and surrender, again.
Lets win one for the team. what you say team mate? just this once?
If there can be no completion and the sacrifice is those same men and women you claim to support, why do it?
Sakai
-
why do it?
====
I believe in the mission. I believe this mission in Iraq can succeed. I also believe that the mission can fail. I believe people like you and I can have a serious impact on the success or failure of this mission.
-
Originally posted by Casca
If that is the case, then our obligation to rectify the situation is increased. It is doubly incumbent upon us to atone for our misdeeds. I am glad to see that we are doing so.
Agreed, and getting rid of Hussein was also a noble endeavor.
But castigating anyone who doesn't get on board with your methods and keeping the troops in a war where the enemy chooses all the fights and the outcome wrecks innocents . . . well, it won't be long before the people we're "saving" turn on us more and more. How many dead innocents will it take to get their relatives seeking retribution against us as well?
All Iraqi political parties are demanding a timetable for withdrawal (not the current govt. officials, all the guys running for offices to be determined in two weeks). We can't simultaneously say "we want them to be responsible" and "we'll tell them whe they can be responsible."
If they want to take over, let them, that is what self-determination means.
We need a reaction force in the region, our interests demand it.
We also do not have the forces to sustain the current situation, not according to any objective metric you can identify.
So list specific victory conditions, meet those and save our military intact.
The untenable portion of the Bush argument is this part" "Trust me, I can't tell you what will occur but I am sure I can't screw it up."
Trying to portray that argument as reasonable as so many here do is uhhmm . . . problematic for me.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
If there can be no completion and the sacrifice is those same men and women you claim to support, why do it?
Sakai
where do you get "no completion" from. The conflict has only gone on for two years wich is in it's relative infancey stage as compared relativly to any other conflict of simulare size and scope.
If the "people arent behind it" than that's the fault of our elected leaders for not selling it to the people.....why does it have to be sold? because most people lack foresite. If the allies had attacked Germany before 1935 They would have rolled over Germany before their war machine could be firmly established. WWII would have been prevented or delayed at least, millions of lives saved. No one had the foresite to stand up to a tyrant.
Islamo fascism is hell bent on world domination. Scoff all you want at me but it is the honest truth. This isn't just about Iraq but about the security of the entire world and keeping it from a blanket of mulsim banner.
one could argue that the spread of communism left un-checked could have landed on or doorstep eventually. FIghting it peacmeal prevented an all out world conflict. Of course that didn't happen so it really can't be proven. What you call stupidity I call foresite.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
where do you get "no completion" from. The conflict has only gone on for two years wich is in it's relative infancey stage as compared relativly to any other conflict of simulare size and scope.
Well, it is not possible to achieve a complete victory as Mr. Bush has stated being the only measure, because there will always be some insurgents in the field. As long as one terrorist stays in Iraq, they will claim victory as well.
It was poorly thought out on his part to say "I will only accept this" because he cannot achieve it, just as it was not possible to achieve total victory in Viet Nam. He keeps painting himself in absolutist corners. It makes the flag wavers happy, but it's not possible; that is where he always gets into trouble, stating as fact things which turn out to be not so.
Your statement that "it's only been two years" overlooks the fact that we don't have the manpower to stay in the conflict indefinitely and Congress won't spend for it any longer: the GOP senate has already said as much.
Thus, if it is to be such a standoff of claims, best to determine your conditions for victory and meet them, then no matter what they claim we can say "sorry, set concrete objectives, met them on time and left--you lost."
Bush is gambling everything on this policy of his, that's poor behavior for a president because he is saying that our military must endure any cost, even though he has no idea of knowing if that cost will out strip or damage our military.
It's easy for these guys to pound their chests and spout rhetoric, but so far they aint been right on any of this.
Sakai
-
I can laugh off the progressive far left liberals in this country (and the whining wannabes to our north) who want us to pull out of Iraq in spite of our continuing progress there. Hillory Clinton is the one that is scareing me. Her take on Iraq is one to be admired in spite of her sharp tongue and thick ankles, though I doubt her sincerity. She will fool some moderates I think.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html
-
Bush is gambling everything on this policy of his, that's poor behavior for a president because he is saying that our military must endure any cost, even though he has no idea of knowing if that cost will out strip or damage our military.
Bush makes the important decisions based on principles. That is a higher form, in my opinion, than making decisions based on politics. Bush has been consistent throughout. We can and are finishing the job we began - as long as we have our volunteer military.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
sirloin, Im guessing rummie gave saddam the chems so he could kill Iranians, who called us the great satan, so its all cool. Unfortunately saddie apparently experimeted on friendly kurds, and this upset us so we went in and arrested saddam when the time was right.
Grenada and Panama were justified right on successes last time I checked. Arming the Contras helped defeat the nasty sandanistas, which was the goal and was a success last time I checked.
also, giving the iranians some old crappy munitions to kill iraqis with so the iranians would let some hostages go was a fair trade.
Actually, it was pretty brilliant, arming Iraqis to kill Iranians, and arming Iranians to kill Iraqis....too bad life aint so simple... never mind
:aok
Yeager, Panama was a farce and basically was used as a testing grounds for new weapons systems. I believe 30,000 citizens were killed and many in one burrough where it mysteriously got torched! If you want to know what americans didnt learn, then u must do some research, but the horrible truths about that fiasco are out there. I will try and find you a link.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
whatever skyrock.....say and think whatever the freedom to do so inspires you to say. But lets just this once, complete what we started and have sacrificed so much for before we retreat and surrender, again.
Lets win one for the team. what you say team mate? just this once?
Yeager, I am all for this team, bro! Checks and balances are the way of the system, which means that people should inquire.
On the other hand, I myself feel that this IRAQ Crock of Chit, was basically stuffed down the US citizens throats and down the politicians throats as well. When the push for this invasion was at it's apex, a person couldn't even get a ? out of there mouths before they were called traitor or unpatriotic. I am a teacher and I remember at least 5 occasions where I made a statement to educated professionals about why we would even want ot go into IRAQ if they had nothing to do with the attacks here in America, only to hear as a reply, "hey, they attacked us first by hitting the towers!" Now, that would be understandable for some to mis-connect IRAQ with the towers being hit, but it seems that this invasion was pushed full force at a time when americans were still reeling from the shock of america's greatest tragedy! I thought it felt underhanded and misleading then and my views haven't changed. I always want our team to win, but I also want our team to always show class, integrity, and be leaders in the world, not come off as twisting the truth just because we can. In reality, there were hawks sharpening their teeth when Bush won the presidency and as soon as 3 months in were discussing how we might justify invading IRAQ. History has taught us that when people have to twist/bend/not be thorough/mold/sculpt the truth to get it by people, then usually it will come back to haunt them. I would like to see the transfer of power in IRAQ as soon as possible. I think that we owe the IRAQi's that much. But there will be a time when you have to call them on their end, which is to stand up for themselves and do it!
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Agreed, and getting rid of Hussein was also a noble endeavor.
But castigating anyone who doesn't get on board with your methods and keeping the troops in a war where the enemy chooses all the fights and the outcome wrecks innocents . . . well, it won't be long before the people we're "saving" turn on us more and more. How many dead innocents will it take to get their relatives seeking retribution against us as well?
All Iraqi political parties are demanding a timetable for withdrawal (not the current govt. officials, all the guys running for offices to be determined in two weeks). We can't simultaneously say "we want them to be responsible" and "we'll tell them whe they can be responsible."
If they want to take over, let them, that is what self-determination means.
We need a reaction force in the region, our interests demand it.
We also do not have the forces to sustain the current situation, not according to any objective metric you can identify.
So list specific victory conditions, meet those and save our military intact.
The untenable portion of the Bush argument is this part" "Trust me, I can't tell you what will occur but I am sure I can't screw it up."
Trying to portray that argument as reasonable as so many here do is uhhmm . . . problematic for me.
Sakai
I can't really disagree with any of your bullet points. They are sensible to me which puts us substantially in agreement in many ways. As far as being credulous of the portion of the Bush argument you cite, I am not particularly happy with what seems to frequently be the ad hoc conduct of the war.
I think where we possibly differ can be illuminated by substituting a phrase of yours with a phrase of mine:
You used the phrase "...anyone who doesn't get on board with your methods..." and I would have written it as "...individuals who are actively attempting to undermine your position to the detriment of the outcome, for political gain and with no clearly articulated alternative course of action besides cut and run..." Yeah, mine is god-awful grammatically but is probably as concise as I can get it. I find these folks to be worthy of a little deserved and much belated castigation.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Bush makes the important decisions based on principles. That is a higher form, in my opinion, than making decisions based on politics. Bush has been consistent throughout. We can and are finishing the job we began - as long as we have our volunteer military.
If IRAQ was based on a principle, even if truth was twisted to get everyone behind it, then the principle would be that no country in the world should have to live under a dictator like Saddam. If this is the principle that our leaders are following, then we would have to invade half of the world to set them free from their tyrannist leaders. I don't disagree with with the ideal that no human should live under oppressive leaders, it's just not very realistic to think we have the power to free them all! That is why IRAQ was bad move. Since we are there alrady, now we have to bring the job to a successful close as soon as possible! to the team!
-
This guys is no republican, actually a bit Liberal, read his blog, Google
Thomas P M Barnett. For his bio, military analysis Navel academy Newport RI.
He has lectured CIA, Pentagon and most World militaries on Terrorism,
If you want to understand the war on Terrorism then read this
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0425202399/thompmbarn-20/002-6542001-3010415?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
and this
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399153128/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-6542001-3010415?n=283155
From 1998 through 2004, Prof. Barnett was a Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College, Newport RI, where he taught and served--in a senior advisory role--with military and civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command. From November 2001 to June of 2003, Dr. Barnett was on temporary assignment as the Assistant for Strategic Futures, Office of Force Transformation (OFT), Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he worked with (then) OFT Director Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (USN, ret.) on a cluster of strategic concepts that link change in the international security environment to the imperative of transforming U.S. military capabilities to meet future threats.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I can laugh off the progressive far left liberals . . .[/url]
Ah yes, the Hillary Clinton bogeyman!
It could not be long before someone used the most inane, tired and useless cliche in modern politics could it?
"Look out, Hillary Clinton gone' git yo mama!"
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Casca
"...individuals who are actively attempting to undermine your position to the detriment of the outcome, for political gain and with no clearly articulated alternative course of action besides cut and run..."
We are in substantial agreement:
Yet Murtha's postulate was not cut and run, no one has said that is feasible to simply walk away without any plan, and they are only calling for planning.
Bush has used this war and terror in general for politics, no question and his admin has done so shamelessly: would that there was some consistency amongst conservatives calling that as bad as what they say about anyone else.
So we have one guy who is a total political monkey and has no plan he will enunciate beyond "9/11, stay the course" and other political monkeys of both parties who are saying "plan something please but don't quote me on it."
We are sad indeed.
Bush has stated he will listen to the "generals on the gournd." There is no evidence he has ever done that. That's my problem: he has no more credibility than Krusher or Hillary, yet we're banking on a "trust me" from the guy?
No, I don't want Hillary to be president, I also don't think Bush has the understanding and work ethic it requies to actually stay the course and steer us to victory because so many decisions are made publicly by others in his admin so I think our undermanned services will take it in the bellybutton again because of political desires that are out of proportion to what is feasible.
And Bush and his cronies will blame "liberals" for allowing him to drive our military off a cliff. I can't wait for the book titled: "We never made a mistake."
I'm more of a realist: if we can't and are not going to, and the GOP in the senate are applying the brakes now so we won't win as Bush has demanded we do, then change the criteria and win one for our guys now and keep our military intact.
The real war is on Terror and that aint being fought in Iraq, that's a global gig.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But that's still not the case. Even after 1441 Sadam let inspectors back in and while they were at the frunt door he was up to his old tricks of moving stuff out the back.
What people like Sakai and SkyRock don't seem to want to remember is that it has been US policy to enact regiem change in Iraq since 1998
They still can't prove that Bush lied. They got nothing but spin and talking points.
Proof is that we were mislead into believeing that there were definitely stockpiles of chem weapons and that the threat was imminent! "A smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud". As far as policy on IRAQ, it has been bungled by the last four administrations. There are many countries in the world that, because of being a threat to national security and/or human rights abuses, deserve regime change. Why pick IRAQ and why when we had a war on terrorism to fund and fight?
Bad choice and bad timing!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Proof is that we were mislead into believeing that there were definitely stockpiles of chem weapons and that the threat was imminent! "A smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud". As far as policy on IRAQ, it has been bungled by the last four administrations. There are many countries in the world that, because of being a threat to national security and/or human rights abuses, deserve regime change. Why pick IRAQ and why when we had a war on terrorism to fund and fight?
Bad choice and bad timing!
maybe you havn't heard of this little group that wants to take over the world called radical islam.
Iraq is the perfect location to do it as well. It happens to be centered were "radical islam" calls home. If you don't think we are fighting the WOT on the streets of Iraq you are sadly mistaken.....sadly mistaken.
But again, you have no way to prove that Bush lied about WMD smoking gun or intel. It simply doesn't exist....kinda like WMDs that just disapeared in mid air......vanished, but no one seems to care why they arent there just that there not there.
there's many reasons that make this the right war, at the right place, at the right time. It's just kinda hard to say I told you so when it comes to the security of our nation.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe you havn't heard of this little group that wants to take over the world called radical islam.
Iraq is the perfect location to do it as well. It happens to be centered were "radical islam" calls home. If you don't think we are fighting the WOT on the streets of Iraq you are sadly mistaken.....sadly mistaken.
But again, you have no way to prove that Bush lied about WMD smoking gun or intel. It simply doesn't exist....kinda like WMDs that just disapeared in mid air......vanished, but no one seems to care why they arent there just that there not there.
there's many reasons that make this the right war, at the right place, at the right time. It's just kinda hard to say I told you so when it comes to the security of our nation.
You are mistaken. Saddam generally had to big of an ego for any "radical islam" to call home there. Saddam was in fact a much less threat to the united states, as far as providing a launch pad to attack us, than lets say Saudi arabia, Lebanon, North Africa, South east asia. All of these ****ries and regions are losely policed when it comes to infiltrating islamic fundamentalist cells. Saddam was all up in everything so much so that most hardcore terrorist might ask to run to him, but wouldnt want to operate there.
IRAQ was a horrible choice to fight the WOT. The money and manpower we have already spent there could have constructed manned lazer detecting checkpoints on every inch of border here in the mainland. We would know everysingle movement across our borders from an illegal alien in the south to a moose fart in the north. After we finished securing our borders, then we decide on where to venture out and start a fight with the bad guys. The homeland is still left unprotected in many ways.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
You are mistaken. Saddam generally had to big of an ego for any "radical islam" to call home there. Saddam was in fact a much less threat to the united states, as far as providing a launch pad to attack us, than lets say Saudi arabia, Lebanon, North Africa, South east asia. All of these ****ries and regions are losely policed when it comes to infiltrating islamic fundamentalist cells. Saddam was all up in everything so much so that most hardcore terrorist might ask to run to him, but wouldnt want to operate there.
IRAQ was a horrible choice to fight the WOT. The money and manpower we have already spent there could have constructed manned lazer detecting checkpoints on every inch of border here in the mainland. We would know everysingle movement across our borders from an illegal alien in the south to a moose fart in the north. After we finished securing our borders, then we decide on where to venture out and start a fight with the bad guys. The homeland is still left unprotected in many ways.
you're a racist. You can't put lazers on the border. At least that's what the left would have said to Bush doing that.
Seriously, so you would have waited till country after country fell to islamo fascism spuring up many hate factories till you would have "spent the money" I'm glad you aint running things. Again these guys are hell bent on world domination. I'd much rather fight them when they are small less organized and managable than when they are knocking on our doorstep.
Again Germany Pre 1935
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you're a racist. You can't put lazers on the border. At least that's what the left would have said to Bush doing that.
Seriously, so you would have waited till country after country fell to islamo fascism spuring up many hate factories till you would have "spent the money" I'm glad you aint running things. Again these guys are hell bent on world domination. I'd much rather fight them when they are small less organized and managable than when they are knocking on our doorstep.
Again Germany Pre 1935
Racist?????? wtf are you talking about? I thought you had a little smarts before this piece. Wow! country after country??? lmao rofl! Please be more informed of the enemy that you try to talk about. They are wanderers and if we tighten up security at home they have nothing. They don't even have power in any of the middleastern countries. They are thugs/terrorists with out a country. They doo however seek refuge and co-ordinate out of a few countries. IRAQ was not one of them. Man, and I thought you knew some stuff! The way you talk, we could stop terrorist by going country to country and occupying it.
I am serious about the border security. It seems odd that so many "feel" that the war in IRAQ is making it safer here. There are so many holes in our nations homeland security that its like swiss cheese. Yet, here we are in IRAQ fighting IED's. Again gunslinger, what is the sole purpose of being in IRAQ? I mean the most important reason for being there?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe you havn't heard of this little group that wants to take over the world called radical islam.
Little being the operative word there.
It is not Iraq or all of the Middle east and creating more of them is hardly wise.
Even Bush knows enough to not say all of Islam, creating a monster where one does not exist will only force Islam into that position. You leave them only the void of hatred and that is where they will end up.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Yeager, Panama was a farce and basically was used as a testing grounds for new weapons systems. I believe 30,000 citizens were killed and many in one burrough where it mysteriously got torched! If you want to know what americans didnt learn, then u must do some research, but the horrible truths about that fiasco are out there. I will try and find you a link.
That's quite an allegation, I'd like to see some objective documentation.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
Yet Murtha's postulate was not cut and run, no one has said that is feasible to simply walk away without any plan, and they are only calling for planning.
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 73
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005
SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
If this is not cut and run the distinction is too fine for me and AlJazeera to comprehend.
-
Originally posted by Casca
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 73
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005
SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
If this is not cut and run the distinction is too fine for me and AlJazeera to comprehend.
That was not Murtha's bill, it was a GOP bill designed to embarass the Democrats that Murtha himself did not vote for. Tell me how it is that anyone in the GOP still falls for this facile and inane type of sound byte crapola?
You boys need to read more, stop listening to the right wing sound machine.
Also, if Bush's speech did not talk about redeployment, then I don't know what the definition would be. He said we won't cut and run, but he sure as hell said we'd step back and walk quickly as can towards the exits.
What do democrats want in Iraq?
Bayh: find realistic way to define success, then set benchmarks
Edwards: was "wrong". Wants "significant" reduction of troops after elections early next year. He'd tie the proportion of troops withdrawn to benchmarks set for Iraqi soldier performance.
Biden: no withdrawals until political situation improves, but sees 100K troops back home by '07. Does not rule out more troops if necessary. Wants admin to come clean about targets for Iraqi troop training. More civillian staff in Iraq.
Clark: add civillian component; consider adding troops; adjust the mix on the ground; establish clear benchmarks for training
Clinton: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for training Iraqi forces and make it clear to Iraq that the US's military committment is limited.
Feingold: 12/31/06 is a "target date" for troops to come home. But he's flexible.
Kerry: begin drawn down of 20K troops after elections in Dec and continue if successful.
Richardson: "It is now time for the military commanders to design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."
Warner: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for Iraqi forces. Eschews "debating the past."
The right has lost the initiative and with their continued spin has zero moral footing to move forward. The GOP senate called for the same things, time to stop pointing fingers over sound byytes and get on with life mate.
If you think the dems want us out too quickly, you should be after the entire GOP senate.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Casca
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
Here is Murtha's bill compared to the GOP's bill:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
The GOP revision, however, includes no preamble, and states that all troops will be removed immediately. This is it, in its entirety:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
See teh difference?
How lucky we are to have such scum sucking pigs making political hay with the lives of our military men and women? Right?
;-)
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Sakai
How lucky we are to have such scum sucking pigs making political hay with the lives of our military men and women? Right?
;-)
Sakai
Yup (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dick+durbin%2C+gulags)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dick+durbin%2C+gulags)
This game is over, he cited something he thought was accurate, it was falsifiable. That means all this ranting on this subject by the right wing is not reasonable enouh or accurate enough to spend any more time on: it's wrong, it's insupportable, it's over.
Sorry for calling you stupid, that was out of line. Please accept my apology for same.
Sakai
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dick+durbin%2C+gulags)
when the truth bites back :)
-
Originally posted by Casca
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 73
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2005
SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
If this is not cut and run the distinction is too fine for me and AlJazeera to comprehend.
THankyou for posting this.
You make Sakais case.
This isnt a dem saying this. It is Reps saying it. Murtha never said it.
LOL
-
Originally posted by Silat
THankyou for posting this.
You make Sakais case.
This isnt a dem saying this. It is Reps saying it. Murtha never said it.
LOL
???????
H. J. Res 73 is Murtha's bill. You are the second response attributing it to the Republicans.
Here, I'll even get ya started. (http://thomas.loc.gov/)
Cheers.
-
Originally posted by Casca
???????
H. J. Res 73 is Murtha's bill. You are the second response attributing it to the Republicans.
Here, I'll even get ya started. (http://thomas.loc.gov/)
Cheers.
My Apologies Casca:)
Casca can you tell me where the Rep counter is located as I cant find it?
If you do consider it cut and run I wont argue that:) It is only one war hero and ultra supporter of the military who said thisThe opinion is not mine to cut and run.... I just want the truth as to whether we were lied to. So let the non partisan investigations begin. NOT !!! :)
SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Earliest practical date is the key phrase here.
-
srry fellas, murtha is a disgrace to the USMC. If he had any class he would have taken this debate up in closed door session. Taking it public like he has disqualifies him from semper fidelis. He is a sad pathetic retired marine, but most importantly, a democratic congressman.
IwoJima be damned, murtha is here to sell you out....
ps skyrock...dod you ever come up with any link on the 30,000 innocent panamanians murdered by the US military in the invasion to oust the drug smuggling noriega?
-
Originally posted by Silat
My Apologies Casca:)
Casca can you tell me where the Rep counter is located as I cant find it?
If you do consider it cut and run I wont argue that:) It is only one war hero and ultra supporter of the military who said thisThe opinion is not mine to cut and run.... I just want the truth as to whether we were lied to. So let the non partisan investigations begin. NOT !!! :)
SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Earliest practical date is the key phrase here.
No problem Silat
The Republican bill is H. Res. 572 and was sponsored by Duncan Hunter. I freely admit that it was political chicanery but it made for an entertaining evening as I was stuck on the road the night it was brought to the floor and listened to it on C-Span radio.
As for the grammer I would maintain that "earliest practical date" is the second half of a compound sentence that modifies the simple declaration "The deployment of the United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated". I will concede that "earliest practical date" can mean whatever one wants it to mean.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
srry fellas, murtha is a disgrace to the USMC. If he had any class he would have taken this debate up in closed door session. Taking it public like he has disqualifies him from semper fidelis. He is a sad pathetic retired marine, but most importantly, a democratic congressman.
IwoJima be damned, murtha is here to sell you out....
ps skyrock...dod you ever come up with any link on the 30,000 innocent panamanians murdered by the US military in the invasion to oust the drug smuggling noriega?
I disagree with you about the disgrace part I totally agree with you about the closed door session. It would have been entirly more appropriate to bing it to a debate without all the political grand standing.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I disagree with you about the disgrace part I totally agree with you about the closed door session. It would have been entirly more appropriate to bing it to a debate without all the political grand standing.
The reps werent going to do anything as they dont have to Guns. They are in complete control. Murtha spoke his mind in public because that is the only way the reps listen to the dems and that is what America is all about. He is one of the great supporters of the military in Congress.
Lets hope when the dems are in power they are more willing to compromise with the reps than the reps are with them.
-
Originally posted by Silat
The reps werent going to do anything as they dont have to Guns. They are in complete control. Murtha spoke his mind in public because that is the only way the reps listen to the dems and that is what America is all about. He is one of the great supporters of the military in Congress.
Lets hope when the dems are in power they are more willing to compromise with the reps than the reps are with them.
Complete BS. I sure of it that if we hadn't heard our troops compared to nazis and talks of bring them homw now without completing the mission that a closed debate would have been welcome. Dems have done to much grandstanding the last two years denouncing the war and hurting the effort just to get to the president. In the same breath I'd say they are just as desperate to get in power as the repubs. are to cling to it.
-
Originally posted by Casca
No problem Silat
Yes after rereading the text it does sound CUT and RUN..........
"Providing for consideration of the resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately and providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H . Con. Res . 308) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3058. "
:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I disagree with you about the disgrace part
I don't think I've ever met a Marine, either active duty or formerly active duty that wasn't a good man. They truly are the few.
-
just because someone served in the USMC doesnt exempt them from being human. Last thing I heard murtha quoted as saying was that the us military was "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth,"
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/01/D8E7H2EG0.html
Im sorry fellas, murtha is old and his mind is wearing out. Either that or he is a drill bit on the democratic party tool for failure.
No good. Thanks for the service murtha and oh yeah, semper fi mac!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I don't think I've ever met a Marine, either active duty or formerly active duty that wasn't a good man. They truly are the few.
Drunky, Drunky = Hitler.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
...edit...
ps skyrock...did you ever come up with any link on the 30,000 innocent panamanians murdered by the US military in the invasion to oust the drug smuggling noriega?
Global security.org on "Operation Just Cause" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/just_cause.htm) The United States suffered 23 KIA and 324 WIA, with estimated enemy casualties around 450. There were an estimated 200 to 300 Panamanian civilian fatalities. Some were killed by the PDF, others inadvertently by US troops. More civilians almost certainly would have been killed or wounded had it not been for the discipline of the American forces and their stringent rules of engagement (ROE). However, the United Nations (UN) put the civilian death toll at 500; the Central American Human Rights Defense Commission (CODEHUCA) and the Peace and Justice Service of Panama both claimed between 2,000 to 3000; the Panamanian National Human Rights Commission and an independent inquiry by former Attorney- General Ramsey Clark claimed over 4,000.
Take it easy on Skyrock. He was only off by a factor of 8 or 10... or 15... or maybe 100...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Take it easy on Skyrock. He was only off by a factor of 8 or 10... or 15... or maybe 100...
Just like Bush and the medicaid numbers:)
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yes after rereading the text it does sound CUT and RUN..........
"Providing for consideration of the resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately and providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H . Con. Res . 308) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3058. "
:)
It was supposed to sound like cut and run. That was the point. When I said it was chicanery I was referring to the fact that it was submitted to force the hand of the Democrats, to require them to put their names next to the sentiment. Only three representatives in the whole house voted for it...Murtha was not among them.
-
Originally posted by Casca
It was supposed to sound like cut and run. That was the point. When I said it was chicanery I was referring to the fact that it was submitted to force the hand of the Democrats, to require them to put their names next to the sentiment. Only three representatives in the whole house voted for it...Murtha was not among them.
I knew and I know :)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Pentagon finally admits using phosphorous bombs on Fallujah killing scores of women and children...burning thier skin down to the bone.
This only because an Italian documentary is to be aired next week exposing the carnage.
Two years of them lying about it saying it was only phosphorous flares.
It is time the Republicans to come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.
Speaking of which. Here it is.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2312225338266619262&q=documentary+duration%3Along
-
Originally posted by Russian
Speaking of which. Here it is.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2312225338266619262&q=documentary+duration%3Along
Are there still people trying to attach a "chemical weapons" label to White Phospherous as if to compare it to nerve or musterd agent?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Are there still people trying to attach a "chemical weapons" label to White Phospherous as if to compare it to nerve or musterd agent?
What you talkin’ about Willis? This is my first post in this thread. ;)
-
These threads are getting old, can we start another BBQ thread?
-
Originally posted by Russian
What you talkin’ about Willis? This is my first post in this thread. ;)
Well you did post a video that starts out using one of the greatest propaganda photos of the vietnam war:
Myth: Americans bombed Trang Bang, Viet Nam, and burned Kim Phuc, the girl in the famous photo.
Fact: As stated by the photographer himself, Nick Ut, and clearly shown on film, the Viet Nam Air Force (VNAF) dropped the bombs that hurt Kim. This was witnessed and reported by UPI television correspondent Christopher Wain, and also reported at the time, by noted correspondent Peter Arnett. Other journalists who were not there, through assumption, sloppy work, or malice, have since reported that the attack was by US aircraft, and have further embellished the story with time. Most of the commercials for the recent A&E documentary, and indeed, the host on the broadcast, said that the documentary would show "the American commander who ordered the bombing". That statement is not true.
plenty more here (http://www.warbirdforum.com/vphoto.htm)
It's kinda hard to beleive anything in a 27 min documentary posted on google that starts out with either a blatent lie or a huge factual error with in the first 30 seconds
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
These threads are getting old, can we start another BBQ thread?
i think those start every thursday during daylightsaving time.
i always go for a good 'ol "pwnd" thread, of which there hasn't been in a while