Democrat party defector story

[Bob]

This is a taste ... this is part of the middle You will want to read the link


Many years ago, defection from the Democrat Party would be unnecessary because there was a sense of right and wrong. Once upon a time, leaders apologized, not glibly smirked, when caught in boldfaced lies like Senate Democrat Party leader Harry Reid just did when he said with a smile he had no regret about lying during the 2012 campaign because "Mitt Romney didn't win." He did not mean he would regret lying if Romney won; he simply acknowledged that lying got Democrats what they wanted; the end justified the means. In God's value system the end does not justify the means.
The end justifies the means only to those who think it is okay to force their "end" on others by any means possible. That's what happened in Ferguson, Missouri. The whole "Hands up, don't shoot" mantra was a story that even the Department of Justice admitted was untrue. Lying will never right a wrong, perceived or otherwise. What it will do is stir up chaos, wreck lives, destroy businesses and divide a country.


http://townhall.com/columnists/susanstamperbrown/2015/04/21/i-am-a-democratic-party-defector-n1988356/page/2

[Common]

Bob I believe it and I wouldnt try to dispute it but its all of them bob ALL OF THEM

[Tahuyaman]

This is always the defense. When a Democrat get caught in a lie, they always defend him or her by saying they all lie. Democrats can always justify lies and corruption. Always.

[midcan5]

As one travels through life she hears truth lies exaggerations tales imaginary things BS hope wishes coincidences misconceptions interpretations stories assumptions beliefs, so then one day she finds some fault in one of these things she hears, so she says, I no longer want to travel through life for life is full of contradictions. If your value system is so small and your knowledge of the world so small that you can see this in one place and not the other then you are small too.

"My mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." Forrest Gump

[Mr. Right]

As one travels through life she hears truth lies exaggerations tales imaginary things BS hope wishes coincidences misconceptions interpretations stories assumptions beliefs, so then one day she finds some fault in one of these things she hears, so she says, I no longer want to travel through life for life is full of contradictions. If your value system is so small and your knowledge of the world so small that you can see this in one place and not the other then you are small too.

"My mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." Forrest Gump

So, is the above justification for lies? In court, if you lie and are caught, you're charged with perjury. If you tell a lie about someone and it's proven to be that, the teller of said lie can be charged with slander. Mitt Romney should have sued Harry Reid for slander. He'd have won.

[Matty]

So, is the above justification for lies? In court, if you lie and are caught, you're charged with perjury. If you tell a lie about someone and it's proven to be that, the teller of said lie can be charged with slander. Mitt Romney should have sued Harry Reid for slander. He'd have won.



incorrect. He can say whatever he wants from the senate floor and cannot be touched. Course the lying liberal has damaged his reputation but he dosen't give a shit. Dirty tactics are the liberal way.

[PolWatch]

Bob I believe it and I wouldnt try to dispute it but its all of them bob ALL OF THEM

Some people don't understand that all politicians lie. They climb up on their soapbox and tell everyone about the other guy and all his faults. Hypocrisy? Misunderstanding? Naïve? Who knows why. Its too inconvenient to admit that their party/candidates have feet of clay.

Magical thinking = my party/candidate is wonderful/perfect & all problems will be solved if he/she is elected. The other guys are dirty, rotten scoundrels.

[Matty]

Liberal cop out to protect harry reed.

[MisterVeritis]

incorrect. He can say whatever he wants from the senate floor and cannot be touched. Course the lying liberal has damaged his reputation but he dosen't give a $#@!. Dirty tactics are the liberal way.
Somebody should beat the hell out of Dingy Harry. Oh, his brother did. Good for him. Good for Dingy Harry.

[MisterVeritis]

Some people don't understand that all politicians lie. They climb up on their soapbox and tell everyone about the other guy and all his faults. Hypocrisy? Misunderstanding? Naïve? Who knows why. Its too inconvenient to admit that their party/candidates have feet of clay.

Magical thinking = my party/candidate is wonderful/perfect & all problems will be solved if he/she is elected. The other guys are dirty, rotten scoundrels.
Why do liberals revel in the lying?
BJ Clinton was "an unusually good liar". Thanks Democrats.

[PolWatch]

Politicians have been lying since before they promised a chicken in every pot. It would be nice to believe that one party was truthful & the other not...but that would require looking at them with one eye closed & half a brain. It doesn't make it right....but then again, life ain't fair.

[Matty]

Well then. Provide an example of a Republican standing on the Senate floor lying about a private citizens paying taxes because he knows he has immunity. If it happens with ALL politicians it should be easy enough to prove.

[Common]

Politicians have been lying since before they promised a chicken in every pot. It would be nice to believe that one party was truthful & the other not...but that would require looking at them with one eye closed & half a brain. It doesn't make it right....but then again, life ain't fair.

I cant wait for the libs lie libs lie only libs lie

[Beevee]

This is always the defense. When a Democrat get caught in a lie, they always defend him or her by saying they all lie. Democrats can always justify lies and corruption. Always.

You mean like 'Mission accomplished'?

[PolWatch]

Dems/Repubs/Ind lie. Its a fact....we can go back to Nixon 'I don't know any plumbers', Reagan 'I don't know how those guns got to Iran', Clinton 'I didn't not have sex with that woman'. Take yer pick....the only people who don't believe they all lie are lying to themselves.

[Mac-7]

You mean like 'Mission accomplished'?

That was an American president on an American aircraft carrier.

It had nothing to do with you.

[Tahuyaman]

Originally Posted by TahuyamanThis is always the defense. When a Democrat get caught in a lie, they always defend him or her by saying they all lie. Democrats can always justify lies and corruption. Always



You mean like 'Mission accomplished'?

then when they get stuck in partisan hyperdrive they throw out the truly bizarre.

[Tahuyaman]

Some people don't understand that all politicians lie. They climb up on their soapbox and tell everyone about the other guy and all his faults. Hypocrisy? Misunderstanding? Naïve? Who knows why. Its too inconvenient to admit that their party/candidates have feet of clay.

Magical thinking = my party/candidate is wonderful/perfect & all problems will be solved if he/she is elected. The other guys are dirty, rotten scoundrels.

but only the partisans on the left justify or condone lying by claiming it's just the way things are done.

Democrats not only condone lying, they encourage it and reward it.

[Mr. Right]

One has to admit that in order for the Obamacare law to have been passed, very much deception and arm twisting took place. That, IMHO, is the foremost reason for a repeal. Two of the biggest whoppers were, "If you like your Dr., you can keep your Dr." and the other "Health care costs will go down under this plan." I find it also amusing that citizens must prove they have health insurance, but they don't necessarily have to prove they are a citizen.

[Tahuyaman]

I find it also amusing that citizens must prove they have health insurance, but they don't necessarily have to prove they are a citizen.

the stupidity of liberalism is indeed mind boggling

[maineman]

incorrect. He can say whatever he wants from the senate floor and cannot be touched. Course the lying liberal has damaged his reputation but he dosen't give a $#@!. Dirty tactics are the liberal way.

and land o' goshen, those nice republicans are ALL just so squeaky clean, AREN'T THEY? They NEVAH sling mud or tell tales, I do declare!

[maineman]

That was an American president on an American aircraft carrier.

It had nothing to do with you. It had a lot to do with me.

That was such a smarmy PR stunt. That carrier was originally supposed to be fairly far out to sea so that Bush was going to ride right seat in a two seater and get a trap on a carrier.... but, by the time the big day arrived, they made the carrier stay about two miles off Coronado and not come back into port so Bush could get his fake trap in... he could've flown in a helo to the carrier in less time that it took to get him suited up and strapped in.

and then, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. what a lie THAT was!

[Professor Peabody]

One has to admit that in order for the Obamacare law to have been passed, very much deception and arm twisting took place. That, IMHO, is the foremost reason for a repeal. Two of the biggest whoppers were, "If you like your Dr., you can keep your Dr." and the other "Health care costs will go down under this plan." I find it also amusing that citizens must prove they have health insurance, but they don't necessarily have to prove they are a citizen.

The Government can't collect the Vig any other way.

[Howey]

This is a taste ... this is part of the middle You will want to read the link



http://townhall.com/columnists/susanstamperbrown/2015/04/21/i-am-a-democratic-party-defector-n1988356/page/2

There's still someone working at Townhall? I thought they all quit.

[domer76]

This is a taste ... this is part of the middle You will want to read the link



http://townhall.com/columnists/susanstamperbrown/2015/04/21/i-am-a-democratic-party-defector-n1988356/page/2

The stupid fuck couldn't even get the name of the party correct. And in print, no less. Multiple times. Speaks volumes about ignorance.

[Beevee]

That was an American president on an American aircraft carrier.

It had nothing to do with you.

Oops! Embarrassed again, are you?

The whole world has nothing to do with you, but there you are, everywhere, causing havoc and deaths unabated.

[Bob]

It had a lot to do with me.

That was such a smarmy PR stunt. That carrier was originally supposed to be fairly far out to sea so that Bush was going to ride right seat in a two seater and get a trap on a carrier.... but, by the time the big day arrived, they made the carrier stay about two miles off Coronado and not come back into port so Bush could get his fake trap in... he could've flown in a helo to the carrier in less time that it took to get him suited up and strapped in.

and then, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. what a lie THAT was!

What are you so butt hurt about?

Bush congratulated the ship and crew and told the truth, the main invasion force was finished. They did a great job.

How could you forget the words on the banner, major combat is ended.

[domer76]

What are you so butt hurt about?

Bush congratulated the ship and crew and told the truth, the main invasion force was finished. They did a great job.

How could you forget the words on the banner, major combat is ended.

Right. The main invasion was finished. The deaths and casualties at the time of the speech was 139 killed and 542 wounded. Apparently, the only thing left unfinished was the finishing of thousands of more American lives. Unnecessarily. In vain. And hundreds of thousands of more casualties. Uncountable lives that were ruined forever. A horrible legacy that will follow this country well into the next century.

And here you are, apologizing and defending it. Despicable.

[Bob]

Right. The main invasion was finished. The deaths and casualties at the time of the speech was 139 killed and 542 wounded. Apparently, the only thing left unfinished was the finishing of thousands of more American lives. Unnecessarily. In vain. And hundreds of thousands of more casualties. Uncountable lives that were ruined forever. A horrible legacy that will follow this country well into the next century.

And here you are, apologizing and defending it. Despicable.

However, when he made the statement, it was true. And you probably don't give a flying flick why he said it but it was a needed statement to get the help flowing to Iraq from the countries poised to bring in assistance.

General Franks the Centcom Commander called Bush and asked him to make the statement.

[domer76]

However, when he made the statement, it was true. And you probably don't give a flying flick why he said it but it was a needed statement to get the help flowing to Iraq from the countries poised to bring in assistance.

General Franks the Centcom Commander called Bush and asked him to make the statement.

Riiiiight.

Bob, darn near everything you post is either an outright lie or such a twisted version of the truth, it verges on a lie. What is with that? Are you so fucking gullible that you automatically buy into the bullshit or do you just not give a fuck about the truth?

[Bob]

Riiiiight.

Bob, darn near everything you post is either an outright lie or such a twisted version of the truth, it verges on a lie. What is with that? Are you so fucking gullible that you automatically buy into the bullshit or do you just not give a fuck about the truth?

Unlike you, I happen to know the facts. Why do I know them? I read two awesome books. First by General Franks. Franks stated in his book that is why Bush delivered that speech. Franks needed help in Iraq to get the place cleaned up. No magic there. I also read General Mike DeLong's book and he says what Franks said.

Read books. They have information you lack and if you want to grow up, buy books. I can recommend more to you.

By the way, I read Bush's own book as well as Cheney's and Rumsfeld's. They all agree.

[maineman]

By the way, I read Bush's own book as well as Cheney's and Rumsfeld's. They all agree.

and that, of course, makes them all accurate, I suppose?

[Bob]

and that, of course, makes them all accurate, I suppose?

Yep, all in the records. Compare that to what you have. Nothing.

[domer76]

Unlike you, I happen to know the facts. Why do I know them? I read two awesome books. First by General Franks. Franks stated in his book that is why Bush delivered that speech. Franks needed help in Iraq to get the place cleaned up. No magic there. I also read General Mike DeLong's book and he says what Franks said.

Read books. They have information you lack and if you want to grow up, buy books. I can recommend more to you.

By the way, I read Bush's own book as well as Cheney's and Rumsfeld's. They all agree.

Bush and his two puppet masters? Jesus H. Christ, Bob!

Just more RW apologist bullshit. We still had 4500 deaths to go when our mission was "accomplished". Some accomplishment, huh? This Q&A Rumsfeld?


Q. (from a soldier) - "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don;t we have those resources readily available to us?

Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up..."


That fucker, along with Cheney and Wolfowitz that sent thousands of our own to their needless deaths? Those three fuckers?

[maineman]

Yep, all in the records. Compare that to what you have. Nothing.

what records, Bob?

[maineman]

How could you forget the words on the banner, major combat is ended.

seems like it is YOU who forgot the words on the banner:

google image Bush + mission accomplished (https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=google+image+Bush+%2B+mission+accomplishe d&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=RPAZEk_sGAULCM%253A%253BrSiw-ymewkv3BM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.nbcnews .com%25252Fvideo%25252Fnightly-news%25252F51739635&source=iu&pf=m&fir=RPAZEk_sGAULCM%253A%252CrSiw-ymewkv3BM%252C_&usg=__NI-d4S-XaVnUjDICd0-MXHtuz_s%3D&biw=1440&bih=704&ved=0CCYQyjc&ei=13I4VZqJN8OjsAXk54CQBw#imgrc=RD7opvdaxbifeM%253 A%3B2MDls_XvMx_6gM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmeetthemat ts.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F08%252Fg-cvr-080501-mission-10a.grid-6x2.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmeetthematts.com%252F 2014%252F08%252Fbush-43-mets-cadre-3-fair-trade-coffee%252F%3B474%3B424)

[Bob]

seems like it is YOU who forgot the words on the banner:

google image Bush + mission accomplished (https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=google+image+Bush+%2B+mission+accomplishe d&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=RPAZEk_sGAULCM%3A%3BrSiw-ymewkv3BM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nbcnews.com%252 Fvideo%252Fnightly-news%252F51739635&source=iu&pf=m&fir=RPAZEk_sGAULCM%3A%2CrSiw-ymewkv3BM%2C_&usg=__NI-d4S-XaVnUjDICd0-MXHtuz_s%3D&biw=1440&bih=704&ved=0CCYQyjc&ei=13I4VZqJN8OjsAXk54CQBw#imgrc=RD7opvdaxbifeM%3A% 3B2MDls_XvMx_6gM%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fmeetthematts.com%2 Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fg-cvr-080501-mission-10a.grid-6x2.jpg%3Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fmeetthematts.com%2F2014%2F0 8%2Fbush-43-mets-cadre-3-fair-trade-coffee%2F%3B474%3B424)

You are right. Now, explain his precise words.

[maineman]

You're the one who fucked up... You don't get to give me orders.

[Common]

Bush made the photo op right after baghdad fell. I think he believe the war was won because the iraqui army had been conquored. I dont think he expected alqueda to be ready to continue the war.
Im giving him the benefit of the doubt, who in their right mind as president would do that knowing what was going to happen.

[PolWatch]

We witnessed a long build up prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was a Madison Ave. advertising campaign to swing public support. People who questioned the decision were labeled un-American, etc. Politicians who started out questioning the justifications changed their votes....spines were optional.

The banner was simply another advertising technique to prove how successful we were....that was the modern version of the cowboy in the white hat riding into the sunset at the end of the movie.

[maineman]

It really was HYPED to the American people - and as public opinion turned, so did the politicians. America was a really odd combination of scared, righteously indignant, and vengeful after 9/11. Scared that it could happen again, AMAZED that anyone would DARE to do such a thing to the country standing on the moral mountain top of the whole world, and ready for some payback time. We were all pumped when we paratrooped into Afghanistan and started kicking some AY-rab butt.... but Dubya couldn't close the deal. He couldn't very quickly storm in, capture the bad man that did this horrible thing to us, cut off his head, stick it on a pike and parade it around Times Square for us all to cheer about and exorcize the demons and the fear and the bloodlust. Things bogged down in Afghanistan and we still needed that payback fix. Bada-bing. Saddam. Let's use our Madison Avenue skills to link Saddam to 9/11 and let's make that linkage even more scary by hyping the CERTAINTY that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and the certainty that Saddam would undoubtedly share them with his BFF Osama who would load them on another plan headed our way. Let's use phrases like "mushroom cloud" to really amp up the fear. Let's tell Americans that Saddam and OBL were actually plotting to pull off 9/11 before the fact. Again: On October 7th, 2001, every single American knew who Osama bin Laden was, we knew what he had done and we were certain that our enormously powerful military apparatus would swiftly bring him to justice. In the fall of 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind the attacks on 9/11. How did that amazing shift in public opinion take place in less than two years? Did 70% of the American population just all independently arrive at that faulty conclusion with no outside assistance, or were they LED to believe that? Let's be honest, they weren't led, they were MISLED. Team Bush and PNAC neocons using sophisticated Madison Avenue techniques to mislead and frighten Americans into supporting an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, had absolutely no connection with Al Qaeda and no reason to develop one, and NO WMD's. And 70% of America bought that soap. And Bush used that 70% to manipulate democratic congressmen and senators who cowered at the thought of losing an election by being labelled a coward or unpatriotic for not supporting the president. He got his war. On false pretenses. And it cost us dearly. two trillion dollars and 40 thousand casualties. And the undying enmity of every muslim on the planet who hadn't already been angry with us for our uncritical, unflagging support for Israel. Mission accomplished my ass.

[Bob]

what records, Bob?

General Franks records as an Army General are kept by Department of Defense. Franks book was well footnoted.

Was that all you wanted to know?

[Polecat]

To defect from democrat to republican shows no exceptional intelligence over say defecting from republican to democrat. Either place is for fools.

[Bob]

It really was HYPED to the American people - and as public opinion turned, so did the politicians. America was a really odd combination of scared, righteously indignant, and vengeful after 9/11. Scared that it could happen again, AMAZED that anyone would DARE to do such a thing to the country standing on the moral mountain top of the whole world, and ready for some payback time. We were all pumped when we paratrooped into Afghanistan and started kicking some AY-rab butt.... but Dubya couldn't close the deal. He couldn't very quickly storm in, capture the bad man that did this horrible thing to us, cut off his head, stick it on a pike and parade it around Times Square for us all to cheer about and exorcize the demons and the fear and the bloodlust. Things bogged down in Afghanistan and we still needed that payback fix. Bada-bing. Saddam. Let's use our Madison Avenue skills to link Saddam to 9/11 and let's make that linkage even more scary by hyping the CERTAINTY that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and the certainty that Saddam would undoubtedly share them with his BFF Osama who would load them on another plan headed our way. Let's use phrases like "mushroom cloud" to really amp up the fear. Let's tell Americans that Saddam and OBL were actually plotting to pull off 9/11 before the fact. Again: On October 7th, 2001, every single American knew who Osama bin Laden was, we knew what he had done and we were certain that our enormously powerful military apparatus would swiftly bring him to justice. In the fall of 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind the attacks on 9/11. How did that amazing shift in public opinion take place in less than two years? Did 70% of the American population just all independently arrive at that faulty conclusion with no outside assistance, or were they LED to believe that? Let's be honest, they weren't led, they were MISLED. Team Bush and PNAC neocons using sophisticated Madison Avenue techniques to mislead and frighten Americans into supporting an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, had absolutely no connection with Al Qaeda and no reason to develop one, and NO WMD's. And 70% of America bought that soap. And Bush used that 70% to manipulate democratic congressmen and senators who cowered at the thought of losing an election by being labelled a coward or unpatriotic for not supporting the president. He got his war. On false pretenses. And it cost us dearly. two trillion dollars and 40 thousand casualties. And the undying enmity of every muslim on the planet who hadn't already been angry with us for our uncritical, unflagging support for Israel. Mission accomplished my ass.

If you parachuted into Afghanistan, why the hell didn't you kill Bin Laden? Were you busy looking for IED's?

Stop blaming Bush if you could not handle the mission. Bush never told any serving, pretend you want to get Bin Laden, just don't find him. Democrat pretend that is how Bush handled it.

Today Obama admits killing an American and an Italian. I would never claim that was his intentions. Some of you act like Bush is just here for you to beat up on, verbally of course.

Clinton did such a good job on Saddam he had the world believing in Saddam's WMD. Don't you think Clinton also persuaded Bush? He sure persuaded enough Democrats that even Hillary was firmly convinced Saddam had WMD.

I did not think Saddam was connected to 911. Maybe you thought so, but you were not really listening to Bush. Your hate for Bush was simply too high.

I get a charge out of those protesting that claim they knew Saddam had no WMD. We have a poster (Peter) who has first hand evidence of his WMD since he went to Iraq and saw it. Ask him if Saddam had any.

Tell me this. If Saddam was not engaged in a WMD program, what the hell did he need tons of uranium for?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.VTkdvNJViko

updated 7/5/2008 6:57:12 PM ETThe last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

[Common Sense]

The yellowcake was from the early 80's.

[maineman]

Bobby has a tough time reading for content. I retired from the NAVY in 1993, Bob. I did not personally parachute into Afghanistan. "We" referred to the collective "we" being all of us Americans.... who were scared indignant and vengeful. The fact of the matter was, Bush subcontracted the capture of OBL to Afghan warlords who went into Tora Bora with their hands out and came out with cash, but, oddly enough, they couldn't seem to find OBL. Bush himself, after only six months, stated that he really wasn't that interested in OBL anymore.... because, as we now know, his real target - the target of PNAC since long before 9/11 - was Saddam. But he had to sell that to the Americans.... Americans who were.... scared, indignant and vengeful. He did it. I'll give him credit for that. He sold a whole lot of Americans on the fact that Saddam was an immediate threat to our security, that there was absolute certainty about his stockpiles of WMD's ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city") and they hinted around about Saddam and OBL being BFF's so successfully that, two years after 9/11, 70% of the American people believed Saddam was behind it.

"The guy's got WMD's (maybe NUKES!!! YIKES!!!) His boys had met (and planned, perhaps?) with Muhammed Atta in Prague prior to 9/11. He could give one of those WMD's (maybe NUKES!!! YIKES!!!!) to his buddies in Al Qaeda and they could be flying into another American city AT ANY MINUTE!!! (Mushroom cloud, perhaps? YIKES!!!) We can't WAIT for Hans Blix to finish his inspection. We have to invade NOW... it might already be too late... and any democrat in congress who does not support me on this is an unpatriotic Ay-rab lovin' coward!"

It worked. 70% of Americans put their muscle on a minority of democrats in congress and Dubya got his war.

2 trillion dollars
40K casualties

NO WMD's
NO connection to Al Qaeda.

Mission Accomplished!

[MisterVeritis]

What are you so butt hurt about?

Bush congratulated the ship and crew and told the truth, the main invasion force was finished. They did a great job.

How could you forget the words on the banner, major combat is ended.
It may help for you to recognize the difference between you. You are a patriot. He is an expatriot.

[MisterVeritis]

The yellowcake was from the early 80's.
And? Do you believe it ages to the point where it is no longer raw material for refinement?

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1058204#post1058204)
What are you so butt hurt about?

Bush congratulated the ship and crew and told the truth, the main invasion force was finished. They did a great job.

How could you forget the words on the banner, major combat is ended.


It may help for you to recognize the difference between you. You are a patriot. He is an expatriot.

It was pointed out to me the banner said Mission accomplished. The ship was part of major combat. Major combat per Bush in his talk had ended.

This was so the NGOs would show up to help rebuild Iraq.

But he spoke that major combat had ended. Actually he was correct.

Democrats don't understand such terms as major. They thought he said it all had ended. He stipulated major. Meaning ships, bombs runs, armor and so forth waging war on iraq.

One more thing Democrats forget. Iraq was conquered. It was pretty peaceful until about a year after Franks left Iran and retired.

[Bob]

Bobby has a tough time reading for content. I retired from the NAVY in 1993, Bob. I did not personally parachute into Afghanistan. "We" referred to the collective "we" being all of us Americans.... who were scared indignant and vengeful. The fact of the matter was, Bush subcontracted the capture of OBL to Afghan warlords who went into Tora Bora with their hands out and came out with cash, but, oddly enough, they couldn't seem to find OBL. Bush himself, after only six months, stated that he really wasn't that interested in OBL anymore.... because, as we now know, his real target - the target of PNAC since long before 9/11 - was Saddam. But he had to sell that to the Americans.... Americans who were.... scared, indignant and vengeful. He did it. I'll give him credit for that. He sold a whole lot of Americans on the fact that Saddam was an immediate threat to our security, that there was absolute certainty about his stockpiles of WMD's ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city") and they hinted around about Saddam and OBL being BFF's so successfully that, two years after 9/11, 70% of the American people believed Saddam was behind it.

"The guy's got WMD's (maybe NUKES!!! YIKES!!!) His boys had met (and planned, perhaps?) with Muhammed Atta in Prague prior to 9/11. He could give one of those WMD's (maybe NUKES!!! YIKES!!!!) to his buddies in Al Qaeda and they could be flying into another American city AT ANY MINUTE!!! (Mushroom cloud, perhaps? YIKES!!!) We can't WAIT for Hans Blix to finish his inspection. We have to invade NOW... it might already be too late... and any democrat in congress who does not support me on this is an unpatriotic Ay-rab lovin' coward!"

It worked. 70% of Americans put their muscle on a minority of democrats in congress and Dubya got his war.

2 trillion dollars
40K casualties

NO WMD's
NO connection to Al Qaeda.

Mission Accomplished!

What sort of loathing nickname do I get to use for you?

It is terrible to take a persons name and try to act disrespectful.

I plan to wait for you to say something useful to reply to. Much you said is not useful.

General Franks plans were to use the Afghan's to fight for their own country. He did not plan to make the war an American troops war, but put some of our troops there to play helpful roles to Afghan fighters. Read General Tommy Franks book called The American Soldier. Then you will understand what he did and why he did it that way.

You operate as if only Bin Laden was the target. All Bush had to do was bomb the camps and all suspected areas and park the bombers. But he had a better plan. He knew you capture Bin Laden using troops. Obama also used troops. But Bush lacked the needed intelligence to locate Bin Laden. Franks in his tell all book states they never saw Bin Laden. Franks was hot under the collar that at Tora Bora, the war lords quit at dark and would not enter Tora Bora.

But look at Tora Bora. Imagine an invasion of Mt. Everest. Think you would rush there?

We had some army with the Tora Bora attackers and Franks bombed the hell out of Tora Bora, using our largest non nuclear bombs. That means Franks wanted Bin Laden.

11251


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/pentagon-cites-urgent-need-mega-bomb-hidden-bunkers/

[Bob]

Maineman engages in far too much hysterical talking for my tastes. He creates strawmen argument then tries to bat them down thinking of himself he is a hero.

[The Sage of Main Street]

That was such a smarmy PR stunt.

and then, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. what a lie THAT was! Since Deciders never tell lies, the Heirguardsman must have been talking about his own mission, the one assigned by Exxon, Halliburton, and the MIC.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Bush made the photo op right after baghdad fell. I think he believe the war was won because the iraqui army had been conquored. I dont think he expected alqueda to be ready to continue the war.
Im giving him the benefit of the doubt, who in their right mind as president would do that knowing what was going to happen. Custer: "Don't cut and run, boys. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. We've got them on the run. Take no prisoners!"

[nic34]

Bob engages in far too much bias.... has no ability to look at both sides of an issue....

[PolWatch]

Bob engages in far too much bias.... has no ability to look at both sides of an issue....

both sides? there are 2 sides? when did this start?

[domer76]

both sides? there are 2 sides? when did this start?

Good one

[maineman]

It may help for you to recognize the difference between you. You are a patriot. He is an expatriot.and you are Mister verticulitis...., isn't that right?

[maineman]

Maineman engages in far too much hysterical talking for my tastes. He creates strawmen argument then tries to bat them down thinking of himself he is a hero.

there is a difference between being a "hero", which I have never claimed to be, and a sheep, which you certainly are.... you were one of the folks that gave Bush carte blanche to invade,conquer, and occupy Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the war against terrorism and NOTHING to do with the people that attacked us on 9/11. May you rot it hell.

[Bob]

there is a difference between being a "hero", which I have never claimed to be, and a sheep, which you certainly are.... you were one of the folks that gave Bush carte blanche to invade,conquer, and occupy Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the war against terrorism and NOTHING to do with the people that attacked us on 9/11. May you rot it hell.

no, you know the lies to tell and I know the truth to tell.

It has nothing to do with Bush. Tell me the truth and I agree. Simple as that.

[maineman]

no, you know the lies to tell and I know the truth to tell.

It has nothing to do with Bush. Tell me the truth and I agree. Simple as that.

was it the truth when Team Bush stated that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence officers in the months prior to(/11?

was it the truth when Team Bush stated there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's?

[Bob]

was it the truth when Team Bush stated that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence officers in the months prior to(/11?

was it the truth when Team Bush stated there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's?

Just like today we have to keep in mind that not all republicans voted for Lynch and those republicans guilty of switching parties today, will feel our wrath, only hold those who did wrong responsible for those events you bring up.

You can tell by the fuck up today by Obama just how unclear intelligence is. Obama kills innocents and takes full blame.

Bush did not decide that Atta was there. I am not clear he never was. But that never was why Bush invaded.

You might want to blame General Powell who took it upon himself to personally visit the CIA and study all evidence. He reported to Bush on what he believed to be true.

Bush is not the intelligence service. As I said about Obama, fuck ups happen.

Here is what you don't know.

King Hussein of Jordan along with then President Mubarak of Egypt told General Tommy Franks in person that Saddam has WMD. Clinton as president was firmly convinced. It was way more than just Bush.

[del]

Just like today we have to keep in mind that not all republicans voted for Lynch and those republicans guilty of switching parties today, will feel our wrath, only hold those who did wrong responsible for those events you bring up.

You can tell by the fuck up today by Obama just how unclear intelligence is. Obama kills innocents and takes full blame.

Bush did not decide that Atta was there. I am not clear he never was. But that never was why Bush invaded.

You might want to blame General Powell who took it upon himself to personally visit the CIA and study all evidence. He reported to Bush on what he believed to be true.

Bush is not the intelligence service. As I said about Obama, fuck ups happen.

Here is what you don't know.

King Hussein of Jordan along with then President Mubarak of Egypt told General Tommy Franks in person that Saddam has WMD. Clinton as president was firmly convinced. It was way more than just Bush.

lol

[maineman]

Just like today we have to keep in mind that not all republicans voted for Lynch and those republicans guilty of switching parties today, will feel our wrath, only hold those who did wrong responsible for those events you bring up.

You can tell by the $#@! up today by Obama just how unclear intelligence is. Obama kills innocents and takes full blame.

Bush did not decide that Atta was there. I am not clear he never was. But that never was why Bush invaded.

You might want to blame General Powell who took it upon himself to personally visit the CIA and study all evidence. He reported to Bush on what he believed to be true.

Bush is not the intelligence service. As I said about Obama, $#@! ups happen.

Here is what you don't know.

King Hussein of Jordan along with then President Mubarak of Egypt told General Tommy Franks in person that Saddam has WMD. Clinton as president was firmly convinced. It was way more than just Bush.

lots of people were pretty certain that Saddam had WMD'S.

Team Bush stated that there was absolute certainty that he had them. That's different.

Bush had Hans Blix back in country inspecting - a diplomatic coup I applauded him for. All he had to do is to let Blix finish his inspections and he would have known what we all now know: that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's and that he was not a near term threat to the USA. But obviously, you, like Bush, were too gosh darned anxious to send our boys to war even though those few extra months which would have saved us 2 trillion dollars and 40K American casualties. Mission Accomplished Bobby.

[Bob]

lots of people were pretty certain that Saddam had WMD'S.

Team Bush stated that there was absolute certainty that he had them. That's different.

Bush had Hans Blix back in country inspecting - a diplomatic coup I applauded him for. All he had to do is to let Blix finish his inspections and he would have known what we all now know: that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's and that he was not a near term threat to the USA. But obviously, you, like Bush, were too gosh darned anxious to send our boys to war even though those few extra months which would have saved us 2 trillion dollars and 40K American casualties. Mission Accomplished Bobby.

I replied to this message and the shit hit the fan. I lost my reply.

I personally don't need to prove shit to a person that talks down to me and uses foul language on me.

Save to say I did report factually that Hans Blix said post the invasion that he too believed Saddam has WMD.

Team Bush did what team Obama did. Obama fucked up and killed two people. I am more understanding of that than you are of the intelligence Bush had to deal with.

[maineman]

I replied to this message and the $#@! hit the fan. I lost my reply.

I personally don't need to prove $#@! to a person that talks down to me and uses foul language on me.

Save to say I did report factually that Hans Blix said post the invasion that he too believed Saddam has WMD.

Team Bush did what team Obama did. Obama $#@!ed up and killed two people. I am more understanding of that than you are of the intelligence Bush had to deal with.

two inadvertent casualties versus forty thousand .... yeah, I can see how you are really understanding.

[PolWatch]

uh...using 4 letter words to complain that someone has used foul language to you & they said nothing worse than gosh darned doesn't make a lot of sense...just sayin

[maineman]

and, if Team Bush had said, "we're pretty sure that Saddam may have some WMD's" that would have been one thing.

But to say, "THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" - especially when he was well aware of the doubts, the caveats, the qualifiers that accompanied the intelligence estimates - is another thing entirely.

the former would have been a statement of opinion, the latter was a statement of FACT that they gave, knowing at the time they gave it that it was false. That makes it a LIE.

[Bob]

uh...using 4 letter words to complain that someone has used foul language to you & they said nothing worse than gosh darned doesn't make a lot of sense...just sayin

I see you are a steady reader of me. Thus you know very well it take a lot to get me to say any cuss words.

Clearly you don't pay him much attention or you would understand my comment.

[Bob]

and, if Team Bush had said, "we're pretty sure that Saddam may have some WMD's" that would have been one thing.

But to say, "THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" - especially when he was well aware of the doubts, the caveats, the qualifiers that accompanied the intelligence estimates - is another thing entirely.

the former would have been a statement of opinion, the latter was a statement of FACT that they gave, knowing at the time they gave it that it was false. That makes it a LIE.

You need to pay far more attention to what Colin Powell said than what Bush said.

[PolWatch]

I see you are a steady reader of me. Thus you know very well it take a lot to get me to say any cuss words.

Clearly you don't pay him much attention or you would understand my comment.

I commented on the post you referenced....

[Bob]

two inadvertent casualties versus forty thousand .... yeah, I can see how you are really understanding.

None other than Peter who posts daily reports as an Army officer, he found WMD in Iraq.

You seem to blame Bush for the way our Army handled things in Iraq. Good for you, i suppose. But troops are trained in dealing with IEDs.

[Bob]

I commented on the post you referenced....

Oh lord is that all you think he said?

[PolWatch]

:rollseyes:

[MisterVeritis]

there is a difference between being a "hero", which I have never claimed to be, and a sheep, which you certainly are.... you were one of the folks that gave Bush carte blanche to invade,conquer, and occupy Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the war against terrorism and NOTHING to do with the people that attacked us on 9/11. May you rot it hell.
This is worthy of a kook alert.

[MisterVeritis]

was it the truth when Team Bush stated that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi intelligence officers in the months prior to(/11?

was it the truth when Team Bush stated there was absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's?
Yes. Clearly it was. Why do radical, anti-American Leftists lie so frequently about weapons of mass destruction? you are an anti-American radical leftist. Can you explain?

[Bob]

How does this strike you Polwatch?


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by maineman http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1059492#post1059492)
there is a difference between being a "hero", which I have never claimed to be, and a sheep, which you certainly are.... you were one of the folks that gave Bush carte blanche to invade,conquer, and occupy Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the war against terrorism and NOTHING to do with the people that attacked us on 9/11. May you rot it hell.

[MisterVeritis]

lots of people were pretty certain that Saddam had WMD'S.

Team Bush stated that there was absolute certainty that he had them. That's different.

Bush had Hans Blix back in country inspecting - a diplomatic coup I applauded him for. All he had to do is to let Blix finish his inspections and he would have known what we all now know: that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's and that he was not a near term threat to the USA. But obviously, you, like Bush, were too gosh darned anxious to send our boys to war even though those few extra months which would have saved us 2 trillion dollars and 40K American casualties. Mission Accomplished Bobby.
But this is a lie. And I believe you know it is a lie.

Chemical weapons were found. The ability to hide other kinds of research and the results of it vary. I have certain information that many chemical weapons were found. Some were reported. Most were not.

And yet you pretend, or lie.

[MisterVeritis]

and, if Team Bush had said, "we're pretty sure that Saddam may have some WMD's" that would have been one thing.

But to say, "THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" - especially when he was well aware of the doubts, the caveats, the qualifiers that accompanied the intelligence estimates - is another thing entirely.

the former would have been a statement of opinion, the latter was a statement of FACT that they gave, knowing at the time they gave it that it was false. That makes it a LIE.
Take comfort. All of the anti-American rabble lie.

[Bob]

Bob engages in far too much bias.... has no ability to look at both sides of an issue....

I was on your side. I know each side. I have argued with Democrats for 20 years. You people are nothing special to me. I have had better than you take me on. I am not saying this with a lack of respect. There are some killer Democrats on some forums. They really get nasty.

[MisterVeritis]

None other than Peter who posts daily reports as an Army officer, he found WMD in Iraq.

You seem to blame Bush for the way our Army handled things in Iraq. Good for you, i suppose. But troops are trained in dealing with IEDs.
Why waste your time with an anti-American ex-patriot? He is a real piece of work. We crossed swords on another board. We were both perma-banned. LOL. He, at least deserved it. :-)

I probably did as well. :-)

[PolWatch]

The wrong person is complaining about foul language in this conversation

This: May you rot it hell.

Compared to this: I replied to this message and the shit hit the fan. I lost my reply.
I personally don't need to prove shit to a person that talks down to me and uses foul language on me.
Save to say I did report factually that Hans Blix said post the invasion that he too believed Saddam has WMD.
Team Bush did what team Obama did. Obama fucked up and killed two people. I am more understanding of that than you are of the intelligence Bush had to deal with. 

[MisterVeritis]

The wrong person is complaining about foul language in this conversation

This: May you rot it hell.

Compared to this: I replied to this message and the $#@! hit the fan. I lost my reply.
I personally don't need to prove $#@! to a person that talks down to me and uses foul language on me.
Save to say I did report factually that Hans Blix said post the invasion that he too believed Saddam has WMD.
Team Bush did what team Obama did. Obama $#@!ed up and killed two people. I am more understanding of that than you are of the intelligence Bush had to deal with. 
What a girl you are.

[Bob]

The wrong person is complaining about foul language in this conversation

This: May you rot it hell.

Compared to this: I replied to this message and the shit hit the fan. I lost my reply.
I personally don't need to prove shit to a person that talks down to me and uses foul language on me.
Save to say I did report factually that Hans Blix said post the invasion that he too believed Saddam has WMD.
Team Bush did what team Obama did. Obama fucked up and killed two people. I am more understanding of that than you are of the intelligence Bush had to deal with. 


Wait to see if you get fair and find his foul language to me.

Nope, you wont' do it. He did get reported and stopped in case you don't know.

I get frustrated at his .... fibs? That okay with you?

Why not find a new pig to roast? I see you are gunning only for me.

[Bob]

What a girl you are.

She won't do that to anybody else. I used to like her.

[del]

She won't do that to anybody else. I used to like her.

tissue?

[MisterVeritis]

She won't do that to anybody else. I used to like her.
I never did. I have a sense about these things. Radical. Liberal. Emasculating.

:-)

[MisterVeritis]

tissue?
Did your panty bunch again?

[PolWatch]

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.hAKbvNi2IRbC7yTaupRAAw&pid=15.1&rs=1&c=1&w=110&h=115

[Bob]

tissue?

From your ample supply? No thanks. You need all you have.

[Bob]

I never did. I have a sense about these things. Radical. Liberal. Emasculating.

:-)

:applause:

[del]

Did your panty bunch again?

my panty?

lol

[PolWatch]

Wait to see if you get fair and find his foul language to me.

Nope, you wont' do it. He did get reported and stopped in case you don't know.

I get frustrated at his .... fibs? That okay with you?

Why not find a new pig to roast? I see you are gunning only for me.

Bob, you are the one who referenced a post and complained of foul language. Its not my fault you should have been complaining about your language. If you think expecting truth in a post is gunning for you, then you have real problem. I would suggest you not make false statements and then complain when you can't prove what you said.

[PolWatch]

I never did. I have a sense about these things. Radical. Liberal. Emasculating.

:-)

I have suggested you look into purchasing an athletic cup since you seem to be in fear for your anatomy. Insecurity does that to some men.

[PolWatch]

She won't do that to anybody else. I used to like her.

If you think you have been treated unfairly....report me. otherwise quit whining....its getting boring.

[Bob]

Bob, you are the one who referenced a post and complained of foul language. Its not my fault you should have been complaining about your language. If you think expecting truth in a post is gunning for you, then you have real problem. I would suggest you not make false statements and then complain when you can't prove what you said.

You never whined when he told me to rot in hell.

You think one or two posts can get me to cuss?

But you keep believing he is good and I am bad. I am used to your stuff by now.

[PolWatch]

Bob, either find the offending posts & report it or drop it.

[Bob]

If you think you have been treated unfairly....report me. otherwise quit whining....its getting boring.

I have been told you have already driven off one very good poster.

[del]

I have been told you have already driven off one very good poster.

gee, bob, if you leave, that total will be the same

[MisterVeritis]

my panty?

lol
Yep.

[MisterVeritis]

I have suggested you look into purchasing an athletic cup since you seem to be in fear for your anatomy. Insecurity does that to some men.
Yeah. LOL. No.

I am amused beyond my intense dislike for you. Men can be so resilient your children are probably just fine despite the degree of damage you dealt them.

[MisterVeritis]

gee, bob, if you leave, that total will be the same
Are you the sock or is Pol?

[del]

Are you the sock or is Pol?


i speak for myself

i can see why you get along so well with bob, though

[MisterVeritis]

i speak for myself

i can see why you get along so well with bob, though
So Pol is the sock?

[Tahuyaman]

Maineman engages in far too much hysterical talking for my tastes. He creates strawmen argument then tries to bat them down thinking of himself he is a hero.

plus he puts what should be six paragraphs into what looks like one giant sentence. You can't read it without getting a splitting headache.

[del]

So Pol is the sock?

you're going to wind up tied with teriyakiman

[MisterVeritis]

you're going to wind up tied with teriyakiman
Tied? If it is a contest I prefer to be the best if I cannot be unique.

[Peter1469]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1059862#post1059862)
None other than Peter who posts daily reports as an Army officer, he found WMD in Iraq.

You seem to blame Bush for the way our Army handled things in Iraq. Good for you, i suppose. But troops are trained in dealing with IEDs.




Why waste your time with an anti-American ex-patriot? He is a real piece of work. We crossed swords on another board. We were both perma-banned. LOL. He, at least deserved it. :-)

I probably did as well. :-)

If that is about me, I am not anti-American or an ex-patriot.

Also I have never been banned from any forum other that DUmmies (Democratic Underground) and that was simply for being a conservative who asked for a real debate.

Furthermore I have no idea who MV is. I have not even taking the time to check out his account info.

[Peter1469]

Warning: All stop attacking the moderators. All stop attacking each other. Stick to the topic.

[The Sage of Main Street]

lots of people were pretty certain that Saddam had WMD'S. Team Bush stated that there was absolute certainty that he had them. That's different. Bush had Hans Blix back in country inspecting - a diplomatic coup I applauded him for. All he had to do is to let Blix finish his inspections and he would have known what we all now know: that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's and that he was not a near term threat to the USA. But obviously, you, like Bush, were too gosh darned anxious to send our boys to war even though those few extra months which would have saved us 2 trillion dollars and 40K American casualties. Mission Accomplished Bobby. Bush and Cheney, both traitors during their class's war in Vietnam, knew perfectly well that there weren't any WMDs or else they wouldn't have sent ground troops in to get slaughtered by them. It's the same as claiming that Saddam had tactical nukes and then sending in the ground troops.

[MisterVeritis]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1059862#post1059862)
None other than Peter who posts daily reports as an Army officer, he found WMD in Iraq.

You seem to blame Bush for the way our Army handled things in Iraq. Good for you, i suppose. But troops are trained in dealing with IEDs.





If that is about me, I am not anti-American or an ex-patriot.

Also I have never been banned from any forum other that DUmmies (Democratic Underground) and that was simply for being a conservative who asked for a real debate.

Furthermore I have no idea who MV is. I have not even taking the time to check out his account info.
It was not about you. The guilty party knows who he is.

[nic34]

GUILTY as CHARGED!

[maineman]

You need to pay far more attention to what Colin Powell said than what Bush said.

so Colin Powell's remarks somehow make the "there is NO DOUBT" statement something other than false? How's that work?

[Bob]

so Colin Powell's remarks somehow make the "there is NO DOUBT" statement something other than false? How's that work?

Your claim is there were no WMD.

Who did Colin Powell talk to for several weeks?

Wasn't it the CIA?

It was not Bush you should blame, you should blame the CIA.

[maineman]

Your claim is there were no WMD.

Who did Colin Powell talk to for several weeks?

Wasn't it the CIA?

It was not Bush you should blame, you should blame the CIA.

I blame Bush for saying that there was absolute certainty about stockpiles of WMD's. His own NIE's were all filled with caveats and qualifiers concerning the less than certain nature of the intelligence contained therein. To say there was NO DOUBT was a lie.

[Bob]

I blame Bush for saying that there was absolute certainty about stockpiles of WMD's. His own NIE's were all filled with caveats and qualifiers concerning the less than certain nature of the intelligence contained therein. To say there was NO DOUBT was a lie.

Who gave Bush his information?

[maineman]

Who gave Bush his information?

reread my post #114. NOBODY told his that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.

Have you ever read an intelligence estimate? I have. They "estimate" a lot of things, and then, they go on to tell you all the reasons why they things that they "estimate" might not, in fact, be "accurate". There NEVER WAS absolute certainty in 2003 that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... all of the NIE's contained caveats and qualifiers - this bit of data was single sourced, this bit of data was based upon satellite imagery and could be prone to alternative interpretation, this bit of data was seven years old, and on and on. NO absolute certainty.... But Bush told us there was. THAT was a lie of his own creation.

[MisterVeritis]

reread my post #114. NOBODY told his that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.

Have you ever read an intelligence estimate? I have. They "estimate" a lot of things, and then, they go on to tell you all the reasons why they things that they "estimate" might not, in fact, be "accurate". There NEVER WAS absolute certainty in 2003 that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... all of the NIE's contained caveats and qualifiers - this bit of data was single sourced, this bit of data was based upon satellite imagery and could be prone to alternative interpretation, this bit of data was seven years old, and on and on. NO absolute certainty.... But Bush told us there was. THAT was a lie of his own creation.
I have as well.

They come in all shapes and sizes. The Presidential Daily Brief is unlikely to have emphasized the multi-hundred page briefings I routinely read. Here is an interesting tidbit from the net:

According to the CIA's own history of its presidential briefings, roughly 40 per cent of what the PDB covers is addressed in the newspapers. (Note 11) (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/#11) According to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, President Clinton complained that "most days the PDB contained material he had already read elsewhere." (Note 12) (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/#12)President Reagan's first national security adviser, Richard Allen, wrote that the PDB "is, at best, a form of staccato information, a news digest for the very privileged. But it is rarely predictive. In fact, some would consider it pedestrian, even anodyne."

I routinely received traffic from a variety of joint intelligence centers from around the globe. Sometimes they were very specific. Sometimes they were not. Then there are the other means for a President to receive information. He can call people.

knowing what I know I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Historians will have to offer their assessment as more of the information is declassified in another 20 years or so.

[maineman]

I have as well.

They come in all shapes and sizes. The Presidential Daily Brief is unlikely to have emphasized the multi-hundred page briefings I routinely read. Here is an interesting tidbit from the net:
According to the CIA's own history of its presidential briefings, roughly 40 per cent of what the PDB covers is addressed in the newspapers. (Note 11) (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/#11) According to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, President Clinton complained that "most days the PDB contained material he had already read elsewhere." (Note 12) (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/#12)President Reagan's first national security adviser, Richard Allen, wrote that the PDB "is, at best, a form of staccato information, a news digest for the very privileged. But it is rarely predictive. In fact, some would consider it pedestrian, even anodyne."

I routinely received traffic from a variety of joint intelligence centers from around the globe. Sometimes they were very specific. Sometimes they were not. Then there are the other means for a President to receive information. He can call people.

knowing what I know I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Historians will have to offer their assessment as more of the information is declassified in another 20 years or so.
I am not talking about the PDB, but the NIE. None of the NIE's EVER profess absolute certainty about anything.

[Bob]

reread my post #114. NOBODY told his that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's.

Have you ever read an intelligence estimate? I have. They "estimate" a lot of things, and then, they go on to tell you all the reasons why they things that they "estimate" might not, in fact, be "accurate". There NEVER WAS absolute certainty in 2003 that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's... all of the NIE's contained caveats and qualifiers - this bit of data was single sourced, this bit of data was based upon satellite imagery and could be prone to alternative interpretation, this bit of data was seven years old, and on and on. NO absolute certainty.... But Bush told us there was. THAT was a lie of his own creation.

I proved using Colin Powell's own research that your claims are not true.

Don't know how to state it clearer.

He went on record to state Saddam has it. And as you have been told, Saddam had several hundred tons of yellow cake in Iraq and Peter has informed you first hand he saw WMD when he was in Iraq,

[Bob]

I am not talking about the PDB, but the NIE. None of the NIE's EVER profess absolute certainty about anything.

Are you alleging you personally have read the NIE's?

[maineman]

Are you alleging you personally have read the NIE's?

did I say that? I said I had read plenty of classified intelligence estimates and they all followed the same format. Analysis followed by caveats and qualifiers. And I spent years working with spooks and they NEVER would say ANYTHING with certainty if there were one chance in a thousand that it was less than certain.

[maineman]

I proved using Colin Powell's own research that your claims are not true.

Don't know how to state it clearer.

He went on record to state Saddam has it. And as you have been told, Saddam had several hundred tons of yellow cake in Iraq and Peter has informed you first hand he saw WMD when he was in Iraq,

old rusted chemical weapons artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not really weapons of MASS destruction, no matter what Peter might think. Yellow cake is not a weapon of mass destruction. We didn't FIND any stockpiles of WMD's or any proof that Saddam had any viable program in place to create them, but Bush & Co. told us there was NO DOUBT that they all existed. That was a lie. There were degrees of uncertainty and doubt that the president chose to ignore and lie to us instead.

AND... they kept repeating the lie that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents before 9/11. MISLEADING and FRIGHTENING is not leadership.

[Bob]

I have as well.

They come in all shapes and sizes. The Presidential Daily Brief is unlikely to have emphasized the multi-hundred page briefings I routinely read. Here is an interesting tidbit from the net:
According to the CIA's own history of its presidential briefings, roughly 40 per cent of what the PDB covers is addressed in the newspapers. (Note 11) (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/#11) According to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, President Clinton complained that "most days the PDB contained material he had already read elsewhere." (Note 12) (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/#12)President Reagan's first national security adviser, Richard Allen, wrote that the PDB "is, at best, a form of staccato information, a news digest for the very privileged. But it is rarely predictive. In fact, some would consider it pedestrian, even anodyne."

I routinely received traffic from a variety of joint intelligence centers from around the globe. Sometimes they were very specific. Sometimes they were not. Then there are the other means for a President to receive information. He can call people.

knowing what I know I give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Historians will have to offer their assessment as more of the information is declassified in another 20 years or so.

i own a book that has not been discussed for around 15 years.

George Tenet, per pg 157 of my book testified to the US Senate in March of 2000 (Keep in mind Clinton was the president) that Saddam also had contacts with Al-Qaeda. Even (same page, same book) the Saudi family told the USA Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda. (Book -- The threatening storm by Kenneth Pollack)

It is wild to blame only Bush when to Clinton and his team, it was well known?

I bet we can find Tenet on CSPAN in 2000 explaining this to the Senate.

[Bob]

old rusted chemical weapons artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not really weapons of MASS destruction, no matter what Peter might think. Yellow cake is not a weapon of mass destruction. We didn't FIND any stockpiles of WMD's or any proof that Saddam had any viable program in place to create them, but Bush & Co. told us there was NO DOUBT that they all existed. That was a lie. There were degrees of uncertainty and doubt that the president chose to ignore and lie to us instead.

AND... they kept repeating the lie that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents before 9/11. MISLEADING and FRIGHTENING is not leadership.

I get a kick out of this failed argument.

Explain to me just how was Bush to know FIRST such munitions were old and rusted?

Tenet was bombarding Bush with his claims that Saddam was loaded with it.

Why would Tenet lie? And he testified in the Senate in March 2000,. Well ahead of Bush being president. (pg 157 The threatening Storm by Pollack)

It's nuts to blame Bush.

[maineman]

I get a kick out of this failed argument.

Explain to me just how was Bush to know FIRST such munitions were old and rusted?

Tenet was bombarding Bush with his claims that Saddam was loaded with it.

Why would Tenet lie? And he testified in the Senate in March 2000,. Well ahead of Bush being president. (pg 157 The threatening Storm by Pollack)

It's nuts to blame Bush.

you and I both know that every NIE contains caveats and qualifiers. Those are the analysts way of CYA and expressing degrees of doubt. There WERE degrees of doubt. Fact. Ergo, to say that "there is NO DOUBT" when doubt did exist, is, on its face, a LIE.

[Bob]

old rusted chemical weapons artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not really weapons of MASS destruction, no matter what Peter might think. Yellow cake is not a weapon of mass destruction. We didn't FIND any stockpiles of WMD's or any proof that Saddam had any viable program in place to create them, but Bush & Co. told us there was NO DOUBT that they all existed. That was a lie. There were degrees of uncertainty and doubt that the president chose to ignore and lie to us instead.

AND... they kept repeating the lie that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents before 9/11. MISLEADING and FRIGHTENING is not leadership.

What good to Saddam was Yellow-Cake? What is made using it?

Peter saw other WMD. Bet you have not asked him.

I keep telling you it was Tenet that told Clinton, the Senate and later Bush that Saddam had all of it. Was Bush supposed to tell Tenet he was full of puckey? Based on what?

[Bob]

you and I both know that every NIE contains caveats and qualifiers. Those are the analysts way of CYA and expressing degrees of doubt. There WERE degrees of doubt. Fact. Ergo, to say that "there is NO DOUBT" when doubt did exist, is, on its face, a LIE.

Seems your side won't make that claim about the August 2001 PDB. I rest my case on what George Tenet testified to.

Bush had much more than the NIE to work with. As did Bill Clinton. Both were certain Saddam had WMD.

Dead certain. So was Hillary.

[Bob]

did I say that? I said I had read plenty of classified intelligence estimates and they all followed the same format. Analysis followed by caveats and qualifiers. And I spent years working with spooks and they NEVER would say ANYTHING with certainty if there were one chance in a thousand that it was less than certain.

I realize that. But when will you admit George Tenet in March 2000 testified (working for Bill Clinton) he was positive that Saddam has WMD? When Tenet said it, seems it was true.

[maineman]

Seems your side won't make that claim about the August 2001 PDB. I rest my case on what George Tenet testified to.

Bush had much more than the NIE to work with. As did Bill Clinton. Both were certain Saddam had WMD.

Dead certain. So was Hillary.

there is a difference between not personally having any doubt, and making the statement of fact that doubt did not exist. Again.... the NIE's contain doubts. They ALL do. To tell America that there was NO DOUBT is a lie. You can forgive him for it if you like, but you cannot make it anything less than a lie.

[maineman]

I realize that. But when will you admit George Tenet in March 2000 testified (working for Bill Clinton) he was positive that Saddam has WMD? When Tenet said it, seems it was true.

This isn't about what Tenet was positive of. It is about claiming that there was no doubt when there were, in fact, degrees of doubt. Words have meanings. Presidents need to chose their words carefully. Bush knew of the existence of the caveats and qualifiers in the NIE... ergo, he knew that there were degrees of doubt and uncertainty about the intelligence surrounding Saddam's WMD's. He and his team told us "there is no doubt". A lie. pure and simple.

[Bob]

This isn't about what Tenet was positive of. It is about claiming that there was no doubt when there were, in fact, degrees of doubt. Words have meanings. Presidents need to chose their words carefully. Bush knew of the existence of the caveats and qualifiers in the NIE... ergo, he knew that there were degrees of doubt and uncertainty about the intelligence surrounding Saddam's WMD's. He and his team told us "there is no doubt". A lie. pure and simple.

I realize you must blame all of it on Bush but you have not shown a quote with Bush saying he has no doubts.

Still, all presidents have doubts. But you go with your best teams. Tenet was supposedly the best.

[maineman]

I realize you must blame all of it on Bush but you have not shown a quote with Bush saying he has no doubts.

Still, all presidents have doubts. But you go with your best teams. Tenet was supposedly the best.

If you have doubts, then, maybe you say something like "there is little doubt" or "I personally have no doubt". And I am not about to go back and scrounge around for 12 year old quotes from Bush. He said it. Cheney said it. Rumsfeld said it. They were all lying. There WAS doubt.

[Bob]

old rusted chemical weapons artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not really weapons of MASS destruction, no matter what Peter might think. Yellow cake is not a weapon of mass destruction. We didn't FIND any stockpiles of WMD's or any proof that Saddam had any viable program in place to create them, but Bush & Co. told us there was NO DOUBT that they all existed. That was a lie. There were degrees of uncertainty and doubt that the president chose to ignore and lie to us instead.

AND... they kept repeating the lie that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents before 9/11. MISLEADING and FRIGHTENING is not leadership.

Who is this mysterious they you mention?

[maineman]

and what does it matter now? we can't go back and get the 2 Trillion dollars we flushed down the sands of Iraq... we can't go un-spill the blood from 40 thousand American casualties. The fact that you all give him a free pass on all of that, but want to keep investigating Benghazi makes me want to puke.

[maineman]

Who is this mysterious they you mention?

are you suggesting that Dick Cheney himself did not say that we had intelligence that showed that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in Prague prior to 9/11?

yes or no.

[Bob]

you and I both know that every NIE contains caveats and qualifiers. Those are the analysts way of CYA and expressing degrees of doubt. There WERE degrees of doubt. Fact. Ergo, to say that "there is NO DOUBT" when doubt did exist, is, on its face, a LIE.

What Bush actually said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/13/george-w-bushs-claims-on-weapons-found-and-not-found-in-iraq/


“We both put together large coalitions of nations, and we both gave Saddam Hussein a chance to make a choice.”
“The man, Saddam Hussein, would have a lot of revenue as a result of high prices of oil. And even though there wasn’t, you know, a – we found a dirty bomb, for example – he had the capacity to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And so there’s – you know, it’s all very hypothetical. But yeah, I could argue that we’re much safer without Saddam. And I would argue that the people of Iraq have a better shot at living in a peaceful – a peaceful state.”

[Bob]

are you suggesting that Dick Cheney himself did not say that we had intelligence that showed that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in Prague prior to 9/11?

yes or no.

That comes under the category of .... no matter if it is yes or not, so what?

Tenet is on record as talking to the Senate about things like that.

You refuse to blame Colin Powell or George Tenet

Bush was the receiver of information, not the author.

[maineman]

That comes under the category of .... no matter if it is yes or not, so what?

Tenet is on record as talking to the Senate about things like that.

You refuse to blame Colin Powell or George Tenet

Bush was the receiver of information, not the author.

I blame him for claiming that there was no doubt when he knew doubt existed. He hyped the case for war and that is MISleading.

[Bob]

and what does it matter now? we can't go back and get the 2 Trillion dollars we flushed down the sands of Iraq... we can't go un-spill the blood from 40 thousand American casualties. The fact that you all give him a free pass on all of that, but want to keep investigating Benghazi makes me want to puke.

Didn't you get the Democrat memo that we never paid for the wars?

Somebody must have. I have no idea who paid given the story told by Democrats.

I admit you make our military look pretty damned bad. Supposedly they were highly trained for the missions. Why do you think the military lost so many? Inept commanders?

[maineman]

What Bush actually said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/13/george-w-bushs-claims-on-weapons-found-and-not-found-in-iraq/

and that quote was a lie in itself. Saddam did NOT have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. He can't KEEP from lying.

[Bob]

I blame him for claiming that there was no doubt when he knew doubt existed. He hyped the case for war and that is MISleading.

He did not have to hype it. Bill Clinton had hyped it. My god man. George Tenet hyped it. Colin Powell hyped. Bush was just the messenger.

[Tahuyaman]

There actually is a lot of credible evidence that Atta did in fact meet with at least one Iraqi intelligence officer on two occasions, once in 2000 and again in 2001. The evidence to the contrary is not any more credible.

I know now the left wingers will say that evidence had been "debunked", but that is their rote response to everything which doesn't mesh with their view.

[maineman]

Didn't you get the Democrat memo that we never paid for the wars?

Somebody must have. I have no idea who paid given the story told by Democrats.

I admit you make our military look pretty $#@!ed bad. Supposedly they were highly trained for the missions. Why do you think the military lost so many? Inept commanders?

I have nothing bad to say about the military's actions in Iraq. They were all brave men and women sent over on a fool's mission and they went into harms way. Inept commanders? No, but certainly an inept Commander-in-Chief.

[Tahuyaman]

He did not have to hype it. Bill Clinton had hyped it. My god man. George Tenet hyped it. Colin Powell hyped. Bush was just the messenger.


Hillary Clinton hyped it. John Kerry hyped it.

[Bob]

and that quote was a lie in itself. Saddam did NOT have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. He can't KEEP from lying.

Your argument is with George Tenet not me nor Bush. George was the expert and supposed to know what he was talking about.

Also, you act as if this is all Bush was invading about. Bush had to get rid of Saddam. Clinton passed the law.

[maineman]

There actually is a lot of credible evidence that Atta did in fact meet with at least one Iraqi intelligence officer on two occasions, once in 2000 and again in 2001. The evidence to the contrary is not any more credible.

I know now the left wingers will say that evidence had been "debunked", but that is their rote response to everything which doesn't mesh with their view.

yeah... and this "credible evidence" is....where, exactly?

I guess the word "credible" is probably most germane here. Credible to you? I could give a rat's rectum what YOU find credible. Or any other moron, for that matter.

[Bob]

Hillary Clinton hyped it. John Kerry hyped it.

This was Democrat party 101 message until we got reports of what really was stored in Iraq.

[maineman]

Your argument is with George Tenet not me nor Bush. George was the expert and supposed to know what he was talking about.

Also, you act as if this is all Bush was invading about. Bush had to get rid of Saddam. Clinton passed the law.

the law that Clinton passed specifically prohibited the use of US military assets. Get your facts right, pal.

[maineman]

Bush was just the messenger.

Gosh... and here I thought he had been the President of the United States!

who knew????

[Tahuyaman]

Liberals only assign credibility to things which confirm their view. Whether it's true or false is not an issue with them. If they wish it to be false, it's false.

[maineman]

Liberals only assign credibility to things which confirm their view. Whether it's true or false is not an issue with them. If they wish it to be false, it's false.

so...you got nothin' on this Atta meeting except from RWNJ websites? I didn't think so.

thanks for playing. you're excused.

[Tahuyaman]

Gosh... and here I thought he had been the President of the United States!

who knew????

^^^^^^ coming from a guy who can always find a way to relieve our current president from being held accountable for anything.

[Tahuyaman]

so...you got nothin' on this Atta meeting except from RWNJ websites? I didn't think so.

thanks for playing. you're excused.

other than the Czech Intel reports. Did they coordinate with RWNJ?..... whatever that is

[maineman]

other than the Czech Intel reports. Did they coordinate with RWNJ?..... whatever that is

link?

[maineman]

^^^^^^ coming from a guy who can always find a way to relieve our current president from being held accountable for anything.

that's a flat out lie. I have never done any such thing.

[Bob]

there is a difference between not personally having any doubt, and making the statement of fact that doubt did not exist. Again.... the NIE's contain doubts. They ALL do. To tell America that there was NO DOUBT is a lie. You can forgive him for it if you like, but you cannot make it anything less than a lie.

When to you plan to put on display Bush's actual words proving he used the word doubt?

[Tahuyaman]

link?


Where do you think the information came from in the first place? Research it for yourself. Anything I show you will be "debunked" in your silly little mind.

[maineman]

But Havel later "moved to quash the report once and for all"[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection#cite_note-12) by making the statement publicly to the White House, as reported in the New York Times. According to the Times report, "Czech officials also say they have no hard evidence that Mr. Ani was involved in terrorist activities, although the government did order his ouster in late April 2001." The New York Times report was described as "a fabrication" by a Ladislav Špaček,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection#cite_note-13) a spokesman for Czech president Václav Havel. But Špaček also "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection#cite_note-14) The Times story was a potential embarrassment to Czech prime minister Milos Zeman after "extensive interviews with Czech and other Western intelligence officials, politicians and people close to the Czech intelligence community revealed that Mr. Zeman had prematurely disclosed an unverified report."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection

[Tahuyaman]

that's a flat out lie. I have never done any such thing.

are you saying that you never blame Bush for the economic shortcomings of today? Really?

[Bob]

If you have doubts, then, maybe you say something like "there is little doubt" or "I personally have no doubt". And I am not about to go back and scrounge around for 12 year old quotes from Bush. He said it. Cheney said it. Rumsfeld said it. They were all lying. There WAS doubt.

Why didn't George Tenet use the term doubt? Why didn't Powell since he had the top secret Intelligence. Powell even spent several weeks investigating. No wonder you refuse to prove Bush used the term no doubt.

[Tahuyaman]

They have their story and they're sticking to it.

[maineman]

When to you plan to put on display Bush's actual words proving he used the word doubt?\
I don't. If you don't remember, I could give a shit. As I said, it doesn't matter now anyhow. $2T and 40K casualties..... and he gets a free pass from you.

you make me sick to my stomach. I'm going to bed.

[Tahuyaman]

But Havel later "moved to quash the report once and for all"[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection#cite_note-12) by making the statement publicly to the White House, as reported in the New York Times. According to the Times report, "Czech officials also say they have no hard evidence that Mr. Ani was involved in terrorist activities, although the government did order his ouster in late April 2001." The New York Times report was described as "a fabrication" by a Ladislav Špaček,[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection#cite_note-13) a spokesman for Czech president Václav Havel. But Špaček also "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection#cite_note-14) The Times story was a potential embarrassment to Czech prime minister Milos Zeman after "extensive interviews with Czech and other Western intelligence officials, politicians and people close to the Czech intelligence community revealed that Mr. Zeman had prematurely disclosed an unverified report."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's_alleged_Prague_connection

So the evidence is that Atta did meet with an Iraqi intelligence official, but they don't know why.

Wikipedia...... Good stuff. Did you know that you can edit the info there as you see fit?

[Bob]

and that quote was a lie in itself. Saddam did NOT have the capacity to make nuclear weapons. He can't KEEP from lying.

Do you know what a lie really is? You show no sign you can define a lie.

[maineman]

are you saying that you never blame Bush for the economic shortcomings of today? Really?

I blame Bush for the economic cliff we drove off in 2008. You blame Obama and expected him to magically stop the bus in mid air.... give it wings and have it fly back to Leave it to Beaver land in no time flat. I had no such illusions of such immediate success. I CERTAINLY wasn't expecting the leader of the GOP in congress to tell us that, rather than the economy, or education, or environment or jobs, his NUMBER ONE PRIORITY was to make Obama a one term president. I didn't expect that level of recalcitrance and obstruction. I don't blame Obama for that either. I blame him for a lot of things and a lot of democrats are disappointed with him for a variety of issues. But I think he has tried hard to overcome the number one priority of the GOP.... I think he could have done better.

[maineman]

Do you know what a lie really is? You show no sign you can define a lie.

are you suggesting that Bush saying that Saddam had the capacity to make nuclear weapons was NOT a lie?

Do you think ANYONE thought he was anywhere NEAR being able to make nuclear weapons? Do you really think that ANYBODY thought that when Bush MADE that statement? Really????

[maineman]

A lie is an untrue statement that the speaker knows to be untrue when he says it, yet says it nonetheless.

Like Bush knowing that there WERE degrees of doubt. Like Bush knowing that Saddam certainly had not had the capacity to make nuclear weapons.



But he said it anyway.

[Bob]

\
I don't. If you don't remember, I could give a shit. As I said, it doesn't matter now anyhow. $2T and 40K casualties..... and he gets a free pass from you.

you make me sick to my stomach. I'm going to bed.

I have to come right out and tell you, I believe you made all of this up.

Trying to urge us to hate Bush.

[Tahuyaman]

You blame Obama and expected him to magically stop the bus in mid air..


I blame obama for the new problems he created.

I never expected him to stop anything in mid air. On purpose or by magic. I knew from the start that he's an incompetent nit-wit.

[Ethereal]

Bob I believe it and I wouldnt try to dispute it but its all of them bob ALL OF THEM

So true... except Republicans... :embarrassed:

[maineman]

So the evidence is that Atta did meet with an Iraqi intelligence official, but they don't know why.

Wikipedia...... Good stuff. Did you know that you can edit the info there as you see fit?

that's not what it says....


Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat.i

In fact, it originally came from ONE source... a student who, after 9/11 saw a picture of Atta in a newspaper and reported that he had seen a guy that looked like that guy in Prague meeting with someone they thought was an Iraqi agent. That's it. single source. a student. a black and white passport photo in a newspaper.... a recollection from months earlier. But I am sure that sort of thing fits your definition of credibility just fine. fool.

[Ethereal]

This is always the defense. When a Democrat get caught in a lie, they always defend him or her by saying they all lie. Democrats can always justify lies and corruption. Always.

It's true, though. Republican elites are serial liars, just like Democrats.

They are all whores for bankers and war profiteers...

Anyone who tries to point fingers at one side or the other is just a useful idiot, and there appears to be no shortage of them.

[Bob]

A lie is an untrue statement that the speaker knows to be untrue when he says it, yet says it nonetheless.

Like Bush knowing that there WERE degrees of doubt. Like Bush knowing that Saddam certainly had not had the capacity to make nuclear weapons.



But he said it anyway.

This is what Bush actually did say.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74aStyP-dL0

[maineman]

I have to come right out and tell you, I believe you made all of this up.

Trying to urge us to hate Bush.

I made up the no doubt thing, the $2T thing, the 40K casualty thing? really.

[Ethereal]

I have to come right out and tell you, I believe you made all of this up.

Trying to urge us to hate Bush.

Bush is a big-government worthless worm who has the blood of millions on his hands. That must be why you love him so much.

[del]

What Bush actually said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/13/george-w-bushs-claims-on-weapons-found-and-not-found-in-iraq/


what bush actually said


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/

boob

[Ethereal]

Bush and Obama are murderers.

They have the blood of innocent women and children on their hands.

Their apologists are mentally ill conformists.

Look to Christ, if you call yourself a Christian.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also

[del]

That comes under the category of .... no matter if it is yes or not, so what?

Tenet is on record as talking to the Senate about things like that.

You refuse to blame Colin Powell or George Tenet

Bush was the receiver of information, not the author.

bush was the reckless asshat that took the country to war, bobby

not tenet, not colin powell, not bill fucking clinton

bush did it, no one else, and why you continue to lick his ball sack defies explanation

[del]

There actually is a lot of credible evidence that Atta did in fact meet with at least one Iraqi intelligence officer on two occasions, once in 2000 and again in 2001. The evidence to the contrary is not any more credible.

I know now the left wingers will say that evidence had been "debunked", but that is their rote response to everything which doesn't mesh with their view.

post links to it or stfu

[del]

Hillary Clinton hyped it. John Kerry hyped it.

who was commander in chief?

[maineman]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4882.htm

team Bush.... all these guys....all lies. The buck stops there.

[del]

Liberals only assign credibility to things which confirm their view. Whether it's true or false is not an issue with them. If they wish it to be false, it's false.

shouldn't you be sculpting chess pieces out of your feces while the adults talk?

[Bob]

It's true, though. Republican elites are serial liars, just like Democrats.

They are all whores for bankers and war profiteers...

Anyone who tries to point fingers at one side or the other is just a useful idiot, and there appears to be no shortage of them.

If you wish to be honest, no politicians tell the truth. And don't name a party that tells the truth. I only use your own standards.

For the record, I don't believe that is true.

[del]

Where do you think the information came from in the first place? Research it for yourself. Anything I show you will be "debunked" in your silly little mind.

got nothing

again

[Ethereal]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4882.htm

team Bush.... all these guys....all lies. The buck stops there.

Your buddy Clinton is a mass murderer as well.

[del]

are you saying that you never blame Bush for the economic shortcomings of today? Really?

that's not what you claimed, corky

you know the words stay on the screen, right?

[Ethereal]

If you wish to be honest, no politicians tell the truth. And don't name a party that tells the truth. I only use your own standards.

For the record, I don't believe that is true.

Bush is a disgusting puppet at best and a complicit mass murderer at worst.

His hands are drenched in the blood of innocents.

[Tahuyaman]

post links to it or stfu


Are you serious?

[Tahuyaman]

that's not what you claimed, corky

you know the words stay on the screen, right?

you're another one of those "blame Bush" nit-wits.

[Bob]

shouldn't you be sculpting chess pieces out of your feces while the adults talk?

Don't scold her, teach her from your own experience. Don't be stingy.

[Tahuyaman]

Your buddy Clinton is a mass murderer as well.


Bush is a disgusting puppet at best and a complicit mass murderer at worst.

His hands are drenched in the blood of innocents.

do you give Obama a pass?

[Ethereal]

do you give Obama a pass?

Never. He is a lawless mass murder. He has murdered American citizens, even a child, without due process. A sick man.

[Tahuyaman]

shouldn't you be sculpting chess pieces out of your feces while the adults talk?

You're a class act

[Tahuyaman]

got nothing

again


Why are are you intimidated by things you don't understand?

[Bob]

Bush is a disgusting puppet at best and a complicit mass murderer at worst.

His hands are drenched in the blood of innocents.

But you are to be believed? OMG

That is so funny.

[Bob]

Why are are you intimidated by things you don't understand?

Look at his Avatar. Emu are not smart.

[Tahuyaman]

Never. He is a lawless mass murder. He has murdered American citizens, even a child, without due process. A sick man.


I'm no fan of his policies. I think he's an incompetent boob, but I'd like to see how you support your notion that he's a mass murderer. And what hat child are you talking about?

[del]

Do you know what a lie really is? You show no sign you can define a lie.

any one of your posts will do.

[del]

Are you serious?

did i stutter?

[del]

You're a class act

and you're a mindless bush apologist.

did you have a point?

[Tahuyaman]

Look at his Avatar. Emu are not smart.

He responded to my comments five times one after another and not one of them was a coherent statement.

[del]

Why are are you intimidated by things you don't understand?

why do you have the apparent intellect of a gibbon?

[Tahuyaman]

Make that six times.

[del]

Make that six times.

liar says what?

[Tahuyaman]

and you're a mindless bush apologist.

did you have a point?

show me any comment I have made supporting Bush.

[Bob]

He responded to my comments five times one after another and not one of them was a coherent statement.

That was your welcome to the world of the Emu.

[Tahuyaman]

liar says what?
scroll back and read it again.

[Tahuyaman]

That was your welcome to the world of the Emu.

looks like I have a second stalker.

He responded eight times and never once provided any substance to the conversation. I think the subject matter is over his head.

[Ethereal]

But you are to be believed? OMG

That is so funny.

There is nothing funny about the mass slaughter of innocent people, Bob.

[Ethereal]

Look at his Avatar. Emu are not smart.

Emu are relatively quite intelligent. Much more intelligent than Bobs.

[Bob]

Emu are relatively quite intelligent. Much more intelligent than Bobs.

Much more intelligent than Ethereals.

[Bob]

There is nothing funny about the mass slaughter of innocent people, Bob.

That would be appropriate to say had I said such things. I actually agree.

[Tahuyaman]

Emu are relatively quite intelligent. Much more intelligent than Bobs.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Its-no-flight-of-fancy-emus-are-birdbrains/2005/02/21/1108834733152.html

Despite its place on the nation's coat of arms, the emu may not be the brightest bird in the aviary.
A Canadian scientist has concluded it is one of the world's dumbest birds.

[Bob]

bush was the reckless asshat that took the country to war, bobby

not tenet, not colin powell, not bill fucking clinton

bush did it, no one else, and why you continue to lick his ball sack defies explanation

That is not even the question.

Emus are so dumb.

[Bob]

I have nothing bad to say about the military's actions in Iraq. They were all brave men and women sent over on a fool's mission and they went into harms way. Inept commanders? No, but certainly an inept Commander-in-Chief.

Funny how you refuse to blame the proper people.

Oh well. You, and I do mean you, can't win all debates.

I took this one hands down.

[Bob]

what bush actually said



http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/

boob

Why are you so immature?

[Bob]

Bush is a big-government worthless worm who has the blood of millions on his hands. That must be why you love him so much.

There is no love for Bush in my heart.

I to this day have never loved any of the many Presidents this country has had.

The only one I like a lot is Reagan.

[Bob]

I made up the no doubt thing, the $2T thing, the 40K casualty thing? really.

You refuse to blame the correct people. No matter how much you are told, you keep returning to the same old nonsense.

[Bob]

the law that Clinton passed specifically prohibited the use of US military assets. Get your facts right, pal.

The law Congress passed told Bush to go ahead and invade.

I have debated this for 14 years pal.

[Bob]

are you suggesting that Bush saying that Saddam had the capacity to make nuclear weapons was NOT a lie?

Do you think ANYONE thought he was anywhere NEAR being able to make nuclear weapons? Do you really think that ANYBODY thought that when Bush MADE that statement? Really????

Bush said Saddam is a GRAVE and GATHERING danger.

[Redrose]

So, is the above justification for lies? In court, if you lie and are caught, you're charged with perjury. If you tell a lie about someone and it's proven to be that, the teller of said lie can be charged with slander. Mitt Romney should have sued Harry Reid for slander. He'd have won.


Mitt was to classy and too naive. He believed the truth would prevail and people would see through Reid's blatant lies. He was wrong. In politics, the truth doesn't matter, it's the perception, the fabricated perception that matters and wins.

[PolWatch]

Please keep the discussion civil...no name calling

[maineman]

Funny how you refuse to blame the proper people.

Oh well. You, and I do mean you, can't win all debates.

I took this one hands down.
aren't you really just a teenager in your mom's basement? Unilaterally declaring "victory" in an internet discussion is really pretty silly and juvenile, don't you think?

[The Sage of Main Street]

old rusted chemical weapons artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not really weapons of MASS destruction, no matter what Peter might think. Yellow cake is not a weapon of mass destruction. We didn't FIND any stockpiles of WMD's or any proof that Saddam had any viable program in place to create them, but Bush & Co. told us there was NO DOUBT that they all existed. That was a lie. There were degrees of uncertainty and doubt that the president chose to ignore and lie to us instead.

AND... they kept repeating the lie that Muhammed Atta had met with Iraqi agents before 9/11. MISLEADING and FRIGHTENING is not leadership. Another lie oft told is that Saddam sent the WMDs to Syria. They would have then been used against the Kurds, the Arab Springers, and ISIS. Also, they would have been passed on to Hezbollah to be used against the Israelis and the Lebanese Sunnis and Christians.

[The Sage of Main Street]

\
I don't. If you don't remember, I could give a $#@!. As I said, it doesn't matter now anyhow. $2T and 40K casualties..... and he gets a free pass from you.

you make me sick to my stomach. I'm going to bed. The bootlickers of the Plutes Who Never Wear Combat Boots are feverishly defensive because they're in denial about the fact that their lapel-flag flashing cowboys are sissyboy traitors whose Daddies and sponsors perverted the mission of the 60s National Guard and made the Draft Boards into death-panel bribery centers. Electing such guillotine-fodder scumbags to positions of war-making power is so disgraceful and anti-American than their worshippers have to go overboard in defending the Chickenhawks as wise and brave commanders in every way imaginable.

[MisterVeritis]

I am not talking about the PDB, but the NIE. None of the NIE's EVER profess absolute certainty about anything.
You are describing a horse designed by a committee. Of course it will be muddled. It is rare for a group that large to agree on anything.

[MisterVeritis]

Are you alleging you personally have read the NIE's?
National Intelligence Estimates are the muddled view of 16 different agencies about a particular subject or group of related subjects. Of course they tend to be soft and squishy.

[MisterVeritis]

i own a book that has not been discussed for around 15 years.

George Tenet, per pg 157 of my book testified to the US Senate in March of 2000 (Keep in mind Clinton was the president) that Saddam also had contacts with Al-Qaeda. Even (same page, same book) the Saudi family told the USA Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda. (Book -- The threatening storm by Kenneth Pollack)

It is wild to blame only Bush when to Clinton and his team, it was well known?

I bet we can find Tenet on CSPAN in 2000 explaining this to the Senate.
I am content to leave it to a future historian. Sometimes it take the passing of a whole generation before a dispassionate assessment is possible. Look at FDR. He made a real mess of things and yet he was loved and revered by people too unaware to recognize how much harm he did. We are getting close to the time when the truth will be finally told about how he positioned the federal government to be tyrannical today.

[MisterVeritis]

you and I both know that every NIE contains caveats and qualifiers. Those are the analysts way of CYA and expressing degrees of doubt. There WERE degrees of doubt. Fact. Ergo, to say that "there is NO DOUBT" when doubt did exist, is, on its face, a LIE.
Be happy then. You have found an old, irrelevant enemy from the past so that you are free to ignore the certain, present dangers.

[MisterVeritis]

there is a difference between not personally having any doubt, and making the statement of fact that doubt did not exist. Again.... the NIE's contain doubts. They ALL do. To tell America that there was NO DOUBT is a lie. You can forgive him for it if you like, but you cannot make it anything less than a lie.
National intelligence estimates are essentially worthless documents. It is clear to me that you know it. Why stake your claim on the muddled, homogenized work of a committee?

[MisterVeritis]

and what does it matter now? we can't go back and get the 2 Trillion dollars we flushed down the sands of Iraq... we can't go un-spill the blood from 40 thousand American casualties. The fact that you all give him a free pass on all of that, but want to keep investigating Benghazi makes me want to puke.
Benghazi involves a cover-up of the truth involving the current President. Doesn't that interest you even a little?

[MisterVeritis]

Liberals only assign credibility to things which confirm their view. Whether it's true or false is not an issue with them. If they wish it to be false, it's false.
Not ALL Democrats...well, yeah, all Democrats.

[MisterVeritis]

They have their story and they're sticking to it.
This is only true until the Democrat Central Committee changes the talking points. They know they can count on ex-patriots to drink their kook-aid, oops, kool-aid, and carry their water.

[MisterVeritis]

Bush and Obama are murderers.

They have the blood of innocent women and children on their hands.

Their apologists are mentally ill conformists.

Look to Christ, if you call yourself a Christian.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also
You do realize that he was speaking to individuals and not governments, don't you?

The problem I see is that we do not fight to win any longer.

[MisterVeritis]

post links to it or stfu
Plenty of heat but no light.

[MisterVeritis]

You refuse to blame the correct people. No matter how much you are told, you keep returning to the same old nonsense.
Bush was unable to seal the deal with a victory. But it took Obama to lose the war and set the stage for his IslamoNAZI friends to create two caliphates, on based in Iran and the second in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Why does The Insane One support our enemies and punish our friends? Why does he hate American citizens and import the worst of the third worlders to take our places?

[Professor Peabody]

who was commander in chief?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

You can see all the players right here and you don't need a program.

[Bob]

I blame him for claiming that there was no doubt when he knew doubt existed. He hyped the case for war and that is MISleading.

I think this is my final comment on this topic. We will see if I can stick to it being the last.

Bush at no time was the author of intelligence. He had to trust the senior leaders of the intelligence agencies. Tenet promised Bush, and Bush did ask Tenet, that it is a slam dunk.

When Tenet told Bush the WMD was there, Bush challenged him. Bush was really asking for proof.

This is when Tenet slammed his fist onto the table and say to Bush, Mr. President, this is a slam dunk.

Presidents end up trusting intelligence. When they tell the public such things, it is because they were told. Nobody, not even Hans Blix believed Saddam. Saddam worked hard to block the inspectors. No wonder nobody trusted Saddam Hussein.



Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk'

Says Bush didn't solicit Rumsfeld, Powell on going to war

Monday, April 19, 2004 Posted: 9:34 AM EDT (1334 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
That declaration was "very important" in his decision making, according to "Plan of Attack," which is being excerpted this week in The Post.
Bush also made his decision to go to war without consulting Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or Secretary of State Colin Powell, Woodward's book says.
Powell was not even told until after the Saudi ambassador was allowed to review top-secret war plans in an effort to enlist his country's support for the invasion, according to Woodward, who has written or co-written several best-selling books on Washington politics, including "All the President's Men" with Carl Bernstein.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/

So, Bush was the decider.

In General Tommy Franks book, Franks made it clear to Bush that if he was ordered to war, Franks would only do it his way.

What you snort?

Franks had planned to retire prior to the start of the war. Franks was the commander over the Middle East. Franks was appointed by Bill Clinton. Franks had a superior reputation so Bush needed him.

Franks was a no BS General. Think Patton was tough? Franks had the 4 stars and the complete power.

Bush told Franks and Rumsfeld that the war would be planned and fought as Franks decided.

Rumsfeld and Bush were kept in the loop. This is one reason it is terrible form to blame Rumsfeld for the lack or armor in Iraq vis a vis the Humvee since the entire plan was Franks plan.

When I say Franks plan, i mean his planners. Franks did not plan details. His team did that work. Mostly Majors and Lt. Col and Col.

Conclusion

Tenet as head of the CIA was responsible to Bush to tell him true intelligence

Bush relayed the findings

Bush did not lie

Had Tenet told him there was no WMD, then Bush would have lied

I am not even going to call Tenet a liar though it was him that told Bush there definitely was WMD.

Blame Tenet and shut up.

[Bob]

Bush was unable to seal the deal with a victory. But it took Obama to lose the war and set the stage for his IslamoNAZI friends to create two caliphates, on based in Iran and the second in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Why does The Insane One support our enemies and punish our friends? Why does he hate American citizens and import the worst of the third worlders to take our places?

I would like to bifurcate the war.

War one was Franks war. Franks conquered Iraq. There is no doubt. He demolished their military. They vanished so there was no disbanding of any army. Besides, who wanted the same army you just defeated to be in charge. This is a sure fire way to have the enemy force pretending to keep in check Iraq.

Imagine an army conquered the USA. And they decided to keep intact our army. LMAO

Would our own army suddenly work for the enemy? ROFLMAO

I have never understood the Democrats claims that Franks disbanded the army since the Iraqi Army, what was left of it, ran for the hills. :grin:

Phase two hit Iraq and not so much the Americans.

Franks had already issued orders to depart from Iraq, then he retired. General Sanchez then took charge under General Abizaid. Most of you might have forgot him.

It was around 10 month following the fall of Saddam that a kind of civil war broke out. Iraq had a not well functioning government that was watched over by Paul Bremer who acted as a guide to the Iraqis. Bremer for 12 months did have a kind of supreme power, similar to what General MacArthur had in Japan at the end of WW2. But Americans could not manage Iraq. It took Iraqis to manage their own country.

i suggest those who have not read Bremers book get a copy and read it.

Why run around reading non experts books when you get the story from the horses mouth!!!

[Bob]

I am content to leave it to a future historian. Sometimes it take the passing of a whole generation before a dispassionate assessment is possible. Look at FDR. He made a real mess of things and yet he was loved and revered by people too unaware to recognize how much harm he did. We are getting close to the time when the truth will be finally told about how he positioned the federal government to be tyrannical today.

That is a very important point about FDR.

We all blast Hitler for his concentration camps.

FDR had them too. He locked up Italians, Germans and Japanese and kept them as if they had been convicted.

Blacks had it lucky. Blacks could be citizens. Japanese and others were banned by law of being citizens from around 1920 forward until post WW2.

Funny how the Japanese managed to recover.

[Bob]

National Intelligence Estimates are the muddled view of 16 different agencies about a particular subject or group of related subjects. Of course they tend to be soft and squishy.

Thanks for explaining it to the forum.

[Bob]

aren't you really just a teenager in your mom's basement? Unilaterally declaring "victory" in an internet discussion is really pretty silly and juvenile, don't you think?

I only wish such is true. Mom would still be living and so would dad.

I will be glad to submit to a vote so long as you accept the outcome.

[maineman]

National Intelligence Estimates are the muddled view of 16 different agencies about a particular subject or group of related subjects. Of course they tend to be soft and squishy.

and filled with doubts. hmmmmmmm.

[maineman]

Thanks for explaining it to the forum.

so you knew they inherently contained doubters all along? why then are you continuing to carry Dubya's water for claiming certainty that even YOU admit did not exist?

[maineman]

I only wish such is true. Mom would still be living and so would dad.

I will be glad to submit to a vote so long as you accept the outcome.

a popularity contest on a board overrun with conservatives? equally juvenile and equally silly.

The point was made and you cannot refute it. Doubt did exist, and many members of the Bush administration publicly stated that doubt did NOT exist.

I posted a link with about fifty Bush administration quotes about knowing for certain, there being no doubt, not only knowing for certain that they existed but actually knowing right where they were.... on and on... all lies. And you could care less.

[Mister D]

a popularity contest on a board overrun with conservatives? equally juvenile and equally silly.

The point was made and you cannot refute it. Doubt did exist, and many members of the Bush administration publicly stated that doubt did NOT exist.

I posted a link with about fifty Bush administration quotes about knowing for certain, there being no doubt, not only knowing for certain that they existed but actually knowing right where they were.... on and on... all lies. And you could care less.

The board has a good mix.

[maineman]

The board has a good mix.

gosh... I was unaware of your status as official arbiter. please forgive me.

[Mister D]

gosh... I was unaware of your status as official arbiter. please forgive me.

Just an observation. No need to get defensive.

[maineman]

Just an observation. No need to get defensive.

defensive? hardly.

in a world where everyone is blind, the one eyed man is king, even though he lacks perspective. ;)

[Mister D]

defensive? hardly.

in a world where everyone is blind, the one eyed man is king, even though he lacks perspective. ;)

lol Maine, you were defensive. No worries. The board has a good mix. Not sure why that bothers you.

That was profound.