PDA

View Full Version : As expected.......+



Qtec
06-06-2008, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In a sweeping, 200-plus page review of the administration's pre-war case for invasion, the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the American public was being fed information at odds with prevailing views, and officials were ignoring contemporary disagreements in the Intelligence Community.

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed,” Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said in a press release announcing the new report.


The full report is available as two large .pdf files here and here. Rockefeller summarized its findings as follows:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. </div></div>

link (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intelligence_community_didnt_vet_Cheney_Bush_0605. html)

Faulty intelligence?

Q

Gayle in MD
06-06-2008, 11:23 AM
And this report, a bi-partisan Senate Select Committee finding, as you know, proves what we've known for years.

I wonder how the families of all those young dead and injured Americans must feel now, knowing that Bush, and Cheney, and Rice, and the other Neocon idiots, lied us into an un-necessary war and occupation of Iraq.

The question now, is, what will the Republicans do to throw the next election?

Do you think when McCain begins to trump up the Iran threat, right around election time, there will still be enough stupid sheep around to vote for him?

One big advantage Obama will have, he knew that going into Iraq would be a huge mistake, and believes in using diplomatic talks, and global political and economic pressure to deal with our enemies, rather than the usual half witted and decietful Republican bluster, threats and demonizing, the Cowboy Diplomacy, that got us into this mess.

I am still in hopes that there will be action taken for impeachment.

Gayle in Md.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

</div></div>

Interesting, the Senate also knows that the war in Iraq, was not necessary. Now, we'll have to read the words of the sheep...what will they say in denial of the facts, in the face of this bi-partisan finding? OTOH, who cares what they say, it is a fact, the war was un-necessary. Bush Lied.

Deeman3
06-06-2008, 12:23 PM
Q,

I can't tell you what the price of oil would have been had we not entered Iraq. I admit that. It may have slipped to 10 cent s a gallon but because of the emergence of the China and India market, I doubt it.

However, after September 11th, we did have 3,000 innocent dead and you can't tell me, with any certainty, how many more we would have had if we had ignored or surrended or even begged the enemy to leave us alone. Yes, there are over 4,000 courageous U.S. soldiers who are dead. If we had been attacked over here a few more times, instead of the focus in Iraq, we may have had tens of thousands dead here.

I know it is upsetting to the left that there is now a better outlook in Iraq and a better possibility that we can bring the troops home soon. Even with that, it will not be a perfect solution, of course. If we do surrender and the vioilence spreads to a degree where millions are killed around the world, will you still say, "It is America's fault!" or will you own up to poor judgement in assessing the danger of these people?

If Holland were to be invaded by the Muslims (even more so than now) would it change your understanding of the threat? Have you heard the moderate position on non Muslims from it's leaders? What part of convert them or kill them do you not grasp?

How long will you pretend that the intellegence failures are your primary oppositions to the war?

Gayle in MD
06-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorist attacks here, before 9/11, or after.

What part of al qaeda presently training their new recruits, in Pakistan, who were inspired to join al Qaeda due to Bush's invasion of Iraq, (according to our own National Intelligence Estimate) do you not understand?

Iraq, Saddam, had, and has, NOTHING to do with 9/11, or terrorist attacks, here, before, or after 9/11. The people who are killing our troops in Iraq, all but under 2% of them, are not al qaeda, but are Iraqis! It is Iraqi, that we are paying to stop killing Americans, not al Qaeda.

You are far too intelligent to believe that fighting an un-necessary war and occupation in Iraq, prevents another 19 or 20 terrorists from flying planes into buildings, or hiding bombs in shipping containers.

Our Intelligence, throughout, has stated that Iran, and Saudi Arabia, have been behind the insurgency, both in Iraq, and those who traveled into Iraq. Our Intelligence agencies have stated, throughout, that al Qaeda represents a very slim number of the fighters in Iraq, most are insurgents, Iraqis. How long does it take for people to grasp the statements made by our own intelligence agencies?

All National Intelligence Experts agree that this war in Iraq, was a huge mistake. The results have been devastating to our economy, our debt, our credibility, our allies, and our political strength, our Army, our troops, and their future medical needs, our foreign power and respect in the world. How can you continue to ignore such massive proof that Bush lied, and that going into Iraq, was a huge mistake. Do you think you know more about foreign affairs than both past and present foreign affairs experts? Or is Freddie Kagen the only person you believe?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
06-06-2008, 01:20 PM
Gayle,

As you separate one terrorist group from another, it is difficult, no impossible, to advance and destroy an enemy as defined by your assessments, even those of experts. I see the terrorists as Middle East Muslims with intent to do harm to non-Muslims. It is very hard to identify each group who all, collectively would like to klll Americans. Now, I am not even calling for us to attack African Muslims as long as they stay there killing themsleves. No, Saddam's citizens did not fly those particular planes as the majority were Saudis. I am not that concerned about any 20 in a group that may attack us as long as the focus of the conflict is not here, on out soil.

You can gather all the foreign affairs experts former and latter together and they, who have done very little to protect us can spew their opinions. You have complained how our ports are open invitations and Bush has let us down in so many security areas but, in truth, whatever he has done has kept them away for now. You will say it's an accident that 9/11 was a Bush caused problem and that they may just have not tried since 9/11.

However, if we had follow-up attacks in the years following, you would have been the first in line to say it was Bush's fault. You want it all you way. Either he has gone overboard and protected us or he has let the terroriest thorugh the gate. You just ca't fashion everything he has done as bad, or at least to the nutty 33%. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

You hate Bush. You have always hated Bush. It's personal to you. You'll say it's the soldiers you visit that makes it personal. No, it's your hate that makes it personal. That's o.k. just don't pretent it's rational judgement and try to convince others by quoting only those who agree with you.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2008, 09:40 AM
Gayle,

As you separate one terrorist group from another, it is difficult, no impossible, to advance and destroy an enemy as defined by your assessments, even those of experts.

<span style="color: #000066">That is not a fair assessment of the extremely complex situation in the Middle East as regards our greatest enemies. That fact is, our efforts there have not advanced our cause, which is to defuse, as best we can, the process of Middle Eawst youth being raised to hate Americans. From a diplomatic point of view, we have learned, over decades, that our greatest successes when dealing with rogue nations where anti-american sentiment exists, is through reasonable humanitarian work, and diplomatic pressure, economically, and also through support from other peaceful countries in the world. Accumulating allies who join the United States in those efforts has proven successful. Fighting and killing among fractured factions, in civil wars, and as occupiers, has never been successful, as we learned, or should have learned, in Vietnam. Once you become an occupier, invading the homeland of nationalists, YOU ARE their enemy, and lose even many of the more moderates of those nationalists, growing insurgencies who will kill your soldiers. Continuing on a path which is adverse to our own best interests, which is a fact that you, and those from the right, prefer to ignore, is a waste of young American lives, and treasure. Had we left Vietnam, once we realized that we were fighting in a war in which identifying the enemy, among a civilian population, involved in a civil war, which we could not win, atleast thirty thousand Americans would not have lost their lives. All of the disasters which we were told by hawks at the time, would result if we left, never happened.

We have assessments in our National Security Estimates, which tell us very clearly that our efforts in Iraq, have strengthened the radical elements in Iran. Iran's citizens, mostly young adults, are not our enemies. They are moderates. Their leaning toward western styled government, with more moderate factions taking the lead, was short circuited by the occupation in Iraq, and took a turn back toward the more radical elements taking control, and a loss of progress all round, in Iran. We were attacked by al Qaeda, not Iraq. The experts we refer to, all seem to agree that this occupation in Iraq has been a huge mistake. If you can believe that the radical elements in the African region should be left to kill one another, and the vulnerable innocents who are being slaughtered there daily, with no concern for what is happening to innocent citizens, to be in our best interests, how can you also believe that we were correct to invade Iraq, where we now have Iran pulling strings, behind the scenes, and much more influential in Iraq, than America will ever be.

</span>



I see the terrorists as Middle East Muslims with intent to do harm to non-Muslims. It is very hard to identify each group who all, collectively would like to klll Americans. <span style="color: #000066">Well, I don't agree with that, at all. Not all Muslims are terrorists, or radicals. And I have heard the assessments of several journalists who have been in Iraq, throughout our occupation, and their statements point to the varried factions, using us to get rid of radical Sunnis, some, although few of those, percentage wise, are involved with al Qaeda, and most, insurgents, are Iraqi Sunni, and iraqi Shiia insurgents. Then there are the religious Muslim leaders, yet another group, and their own malicias, and Shiia, out to get back at Sunnis for what was done to them over the decades. There is no shortage of hate, and no shortage of an emotional mood of retaliation, from both Sunni, and Shiia, which two of those journalists who have embedded themselves with various factions, both predict will continue their respective struggles for power regardless of how long Americans stay in Iraq, and they plan to wait only as long as they can continue to rip us off for the money we pay them at present to get them to stop killing us, but all of them fully intending to continue their battle for power once we can no longer afford to waste American lives, and dollars, and build American debt, as we break our own Army, as we are paying them to stop killing us, yet our trops are still being killed.

The simple truth is that our Army is broken. Broken to the point that we cannot properly defend our own homeland, nor re-build our own infrastructure. This war was lost long ago, by Neocons, who completely F-ed up everything. </span> Now, I am not even calling for us to attack African Muslims as long as they stay there killing themsleves. <span style="color: #000066">Well, that is interesting, since one of the arguments of the right was that we had to get Saddam for what he did to his people, yet you don't think we should stop the killers who are committing horrendous genocide, rape, and ravaging innocents in Africa, who are more vulnerable, and less able to defend themselves, than any Iraqis ever were. </span> No, Saddam's citizens did not fly those particular planes as the majority were Saudis. I am not that concerned about any 20 in a group that may attack us as long as the focus of the conflict is not here, on out soil. <span style="color: #000066">All due respect, Deeman, these last two sentences are illogical, atleast to me. On the one hand, you are saying you are not concerned about another attack on our shores, like 9/11, and on the other hand, you use the event of our troops being slaughtered in the Middle East, as not really important? They are not Americans? Bush's policies have killed and injured many many more, than al Qaeda killed and injured on 9/11, and that WAS here on our shores, but you are suggesting that another such attack, is not your concern, as long as we have even more Americans, dying in the Middle East, at the same time? Killing Arabs in the Middle East, does not in any way solve the ideological conflicts which are at the base of this entire problem. In fact, Killing Arabs in the Middle East, was the original source of all the hatred we now must try to overturn, if we are ever to be truly safe from the possibility of terrorists gaining nuclear power, and blowing us all away, ON OUR SHORES. Now we fight two wars, and we are losing both, and as our NSE states, have emboldened our enemies. All former, and present, National Secirty experts, both from Republican, and Democratic administrations, have said that this occupation was a mistake, a grave one at that, which has hurt our country in many many ways. In fact those who warned against it, were precisely correct in their predictions and warnings of what disaster would follow such an illogical and self defeating action, at the time we went in. Saddam, and Iraq, were not the central threat, nor the central issue. The entire world was behind us when we went to Afghanistan to get al Qaeda, and the Talliban. Bush F-ed up, and people who voted for him twice, simply refuse to acknoweldge what a huge mistake it has been, in every way. It has exascerbated the hatred, and we are paying for this turmoil in many ways which are devastating to our economy, and our ability to be safe here at home, and protect our own homeland. Deny it all you wish, that will not change the results of Bush's policies. We cannot kill ALL Muslims, hence, we had better work to improve our relationships with Muslims all over the world, and learn to live in this world in peace, together, or see the end times come, as the nutty religious people seem to be so ready and eager to see happen.</span>

You can gather all the foreign affairs experts former and latter together and they, who have done very little to protect us can spew their opinions. <span style="color: #000066">LOL, well, I am not the one who gathers them. And they are not the president, whose job it is to protect us, by listening to the National Secuurity Estimates, rather than creating his own, as he did and continues to do, and as he lies, over and over to all of us. I merely read what they all agree on, save the fat ass owl, Kagen, from the AEI, who has been wrong about everything, along with all the other Neocon Intelegentcia. </span> You have complained how our ports are open invitations and Bush has let us down in so many security areas but, in truth, whatever he has done has kept them away for now. <span style="color: #000066">That is what you would like to think, but what Bush has done, has enraged more Muslims all over the world. The odds are much greater now, that we will be attacked, just a matter of when, say ALL the national Security Experts, and Bush's open borders policies, which are designed for greater corporate profits, through cheap labor, which costs Americans their jobs, make it much much easier for them to do so. Bush is the man who severely cut the funding for bordor patrols. There is absolutely no way that you or anyone else can prove that George Bush's policies have prevented another attack. He has been caught lying about the results of his illegal wire tapping, and his illegal torturing. And it has been proven that our ability to protect ourselves, with a broken Army, and an exhausted treasury, and exhausted national Gaurd, has made us unsafe. Let's try to stick to the facts, and not presume what cannot be proven, since the absense of an attack, is not necessarily a result of anything other than they have not yet finalized their next plan, which is likely to be held up in their quest for what they have said will be far more devastating, translation, NUKES, and more planning time, which Bush has given Al Qaeda in Pakistan, the true center of al Qaeda, and their training ground, who have since had plenty of time to prepare. </span> You will say it's an accident that 9/11 was a Bush caused problem and that they may just have not tried since 9/11. <span style="color: #000066">I have never said that Bush caused 9/11, only that he failed, after warnings months in advance, to properly address the coming attack, and prevent it, or even TRY to prevent it. I believe that Republican Policies, arming radicals in the Middle Est, promising to back up their efforts to overthrow dictators, and then breaking their promises,(Bush I) and invading their turf, all led to the their Death To America Ideology. WE should have stayed out of it, just as you are happy to stay out of the Genocide in Africa, now. </span>

However, if we had follow-up attacks in the years following, you would have been the first in line to say it was Bush's fault. <span style="color: #000066">IMO, it was Bush's fault the first time, that those people were not stopped. They could have been stopped, but to use Condi's words, "The President was not going to swat at flies." Well, Those "FLIES" killed three thousand Americans, and he had months of warnings, and unprecedented emergency visits to Condi's office from the Director of the CIA, and the National ANti Terrorist Czar, and they dropped the ball, and then covered up their incompetence, and their real intention, which was to invade Iraq. </span> You want it all you way. <span style="color: #000066">That's funny, I could say the same about you, although I have much more documentation to prove my points, than you do. Anyway, it isn't a matter of "My Way" although you like to frame these discussions that way, it is simply the factual information which we may all study, however, we must drop our partisan slants in order to digest the information, which is something that the right, and the Hawks, have failed to do regardless of libraries full of documentation. </span> Either he has gone overboard and protected us or he has let the terroriest thorugh the gate. <span style="color: #000066">He went overboard spying on us, breaking his agreements to our Representatives throughout, breaking all the conditions he agreed to keep with, if they gave him the power and trust which he was asking them to give to him. That is the truth. He also went over board on torture, and on the invastion, again, breaking his agreements with our own representatives. That is the truth. </span> You just ca't fashion everything he has done as bad, or at least to the nutty 33%. <span style="color: #000066">To the contrary, Deeman, YOU just can't compeletely ignore the facts in order to defend him, and your votes for him, which all of the right wing hawks like to do, from the nutty 28%, to the AEI idiots, who were wrong about everything, and refuse to admit to what we all know have been the devastating results. </span>

You hate Bush. You have always hated Bush. <span style="color: #000066">LMAO, Oh, so you are going to reduce it all to that kind of Republican Propaganda, huh? OK then, you can twist the results of all my study and reading, along with our own National Security Estimates, and the views of all former and present National Security experts, and all the authors who have been brave enough to speak out to us and warn us against Bush, and you can just call it all "Gayle hates Bush" Whatever makes you feel justified, and correct, and right, have at it. </span> It's personal to you. You'll say it's the soldiers you visit that makes it personal. No, it's your hate that makes it personal. <span style="color: #000066">I'm disappointed in you, Deeman, that you are sinking to those kinds of accusations. I am angry at George Bush, and all those who deny his vast lies and mistakes and incompetence. And yes, I am angry because hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, injured, and ruined, by One egomaniac, who also denies reality, out of his need to be right. </span> That's o.k. just don't pretent it's rational judgement and try to convince others by quoting only those who agree with you.

<span style="color: #000066">You are welcome to quote any sources you like, Deeman, it's just easier for you to ignore the assessments of experts, and reduce it all down to Gayle Hates Bush. I have no need to convince you, or anyone else, I just state my opinion, which you are most welcome to prove, with intelligence, and facts, to be wrong. That is what a debate is all about, and it's just too bad that the right prefers to inject personally insulting comments, on this site, to intelligently presenting their own proof, which none of you EVER do, and where there is any attempt, it is drawn from right wing propaganda. I do present the opinions of both Republican experts, and Democratic experts, and also draw on historical information. Those who voted for George Bush have consistantly denied all the obvious results of his disasterous policies. Your positions are truly only held by a very slim minority, both among American Voters, and among National Security Experts, both past, and present, both Republican and Democratic, yet you seek to reduce every opinion of mine as partisan, and the result of hatred. Nice try, but it won't fly, now, or historically.

Gayle in Md. </span>

cheesemouse
06-07-2008, 10:41 AM
Gayle, I always like your assessments of the situation we, as Americans find ourselves. It is good news the 'decider' will be gone soon. The bad news is he has shit in America's mess kit and now he gets to walk out the door and live out his fantasy life on his make believe ranch leaving the next, hopefully a real leader, President to clean up his mess. It will take years of real leadership to undo this mans mistakes & incompetences. Those who continue to support this man take solace in his bogus cowboy toughness when in fact they are taking solace in his stupidity, by association there own stupidity.
I am focused on the election this Nov. were I hope for the best. The best being a super majority in both houses and Obama as President. While I like the idea of a divided Congress just to keep things on an even keel I believe this country is in peril and only a true leader with the backing of a super majority can pull us out of the dangers ahead. We need to refocus and redirect the ship of state with a landslide in November.

LWW
06-07-2008, 11:52 AM
This manner of posting is anti green and contributes to global warming due to the amount of electricity needed to display it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <s><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In a sweeping, 200-plus page review of the administration's pre-war case for invasion, the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the American public was being fed information at odds with prevailing views, and officials were ignoring contemporary disagreements in the Intelligence Community.

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed,” Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said in a press release announcing the new report.


The full report is available as two large .pdf files here and here. Rockefeller summarized its findings as follows:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed. </div></div>

link (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Intelligence_community_didnt_vet_Cheney_Bush_0605. html)

Faulty intelligence?


Q</s></div></div>

In the future, please try this type of posting as it causes far less CO2 to be released into the atmosphere:

B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!


same effect as you see, just much greener.

The preceding has been a public service announcement by the El Dubb Dubb Committee to save the planet.

LWW

Gayle in MD
06-07-2008, 11:56 AM
I couldn't agree more, friend, and I fully believe that we will win in November. Our party, divided as it may have been over two very successful candidates, who each ran outstanding campaigns, will be victorious. Americans know that another Republican President would be complete disaster for America, and our daily life and circumstances, here, and also the long, disasterous plight of our brave men and women who have been at the mercy of a dishonest, incompetent president, supported by an equally dishonest Republican party, save a very few brave Republicans who have spoken out against these failed policies, does know how important it is to insure that we do not have to suffer more consequences of Republican lack of leadership. REpublicans are truly out of touch with reality, and they have no problem with skewing the facts to their liking, hence, they resort to personal insults, both in their campaigns, and in their debating mode.

We will win in November, and for all their slandering lies about the Clintons, they ARE loved by millions and millions of people, both here in our country, and all over the world.

I will have to bite the bullet and vote for Obama, I suppose, because there is no doubt in my mind that John McCain, and a Republican calling the shots, a Hawk at that, would surely finish us off, and I think that Democratic voters will rally behind him, and that Hilary will work her butt off to insure his success.

Although we will have lost the opportunity to have Hillary leading us through a very difficult process of un-doing this mess, and Bill, as the very best roving ambassador we could possibly have, a man who is loved and admired and trusted all over the world, and the man who originally warned George Bush against failing to make al Qaeda his number one priority, as Clinton did throughout the time when we began to understand who bin Laden was, and what al Qaeda could accomplish, he surely did not fail to impliment a vast group of agencies to focus on bin Laden, and al Waeda, where it has been documented by our National security people that Bush, OTOH, sent them the message that he ONLY wanted to hear about Iraq. It is clear, that he duped those people who believe in his own words during his own campaign, No Nationa Building, a more compassionate foreign policy, and responsible spending, BWA HA HA HA...a true fantasy, which was surely nothing but lies from the start.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
06-07-2008, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The best being a super majority in both houses and Obama as President.

We need to refocus and redirect the ship of state with a landslide in November.</div></div>

Is it the tax increase you long for or the end of the war or both?

Wally_in_Cincy
06-07-2008, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

for all their slandering lies about the Clintons, they ARE loved by millions and millions of people, both here in our country, and all over the world.

</div></div>

But not loved enough to get the nomination it would seem.

against an inexperienced lightweight with tremedous baggage.

Hillary will never admit that she is just not very likeable and she and Bill will always blame somebody or something else.

Gayle in MD
06-07-2008, 12:31 PM
Bill Clinton, and Hillary, both have far greater support among Americans than George Bush.

More proprganda from WallEy. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

Hillary got more votes than McCain, or Obama...and if Bush wanted to run, he'd be laughed out of the country!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

</div></div>

Bill Clinton never lied this country into going to war, never approved torture, and never spied on Americans, illegally. You don't have a leg to stand on, WallEy, since your boy Bush has destroyed our country, and thrown us into devastating debt, and all for nothing.

Although it really kills you, Hillary's campaign, and in fact the Democratic Primary, brought more voters to the polls than at any other time in history, and Bill Cliton's approval rating, is far far greater than Georg bush's.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

cheesemouse
06-07-2008, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wally_in_Cincy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The best being a super majority in both houses and Obama as President.

We need to refocus and redirect the ship of state with a landslide in November.</div></div>

Is it the tax increase you long for or the end of the war or both?</div></div> Hey, Wally...it has been a while:) I sure do want an end to the Iraq mess and I have never minded paying for things in my personal life that I needed or wanted so I don't mind investing in America. If we are going to go Trillions in debt let's at the very least be able to jump in our gas hogs and drive bye and have a look see at what we are paying for.

LWW
06-07-2008, 06:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bill Clinton, and Hillary, both have far greater support among Americans than George Bush.</div></div>
Then you should have no problem explaining why Clinton never received a majority vote?

LWW

Qtec
06-08-2008, 09:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If Holland were to be invaded by the Muslims (even more so than now) would it change your understanding of the threat? Have you heard the moderate position on non Muslims from it's leaders? What part of convert them or kill them do you not grasp? </div></div>

In any society you have extremists. In America you have Hagee- big pal of McCain and Dobson and others - who quite openly are in favour of dropping a nuke or two on Iran!
What would you think if you were an Iranian hearing this?



The price of oil is being manipulated.

9/11 and Iraq/Saddam are unrelated. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Q. That was a lie perpetuated by the Govt and the press. Its a fact that within 24 hours the neo-cons in the WH were pressing for taking out Saddam and moving into Iraq.
All they needed was an excuse. Don't take my word for it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WMDs only 'bureaucratic reason' for war: Wolfowitz

May 29 2003

Los Angeles: The US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in remarks released today.

Wolfowitz, seen as one of the most hawkish figures in the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, said President Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons was merely one of several reasons behind the decision to go to war.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.

No chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq despite repeated assertions by President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair before the March 20 invasion that the threat posed by Saddam's vast stocks of banned weapons warranted a war to eliminate them.

The United Nations and America's allies were not convinced by the argument that it was justification for a war, which was launched amid protests in many world capitals. Washington's ties with major allies France and Germany are still strained.



Wolfowitz said another reason for the invasion had been "almost unnoticed but huge" - namely that the ousting of Saddam would allow the United States to remove its troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence had long been a major al-Qaeda grievance.

"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door" to a more peaceful Middle East, Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.

The magazine said he made the remarks days before suicide bombings, attributed to al-Qaeda, against Western targets in Riyadh and Casablanca two weeks ago had killed 75 people.

The United States announced last month that it was ending military operations in Saudi Arabia, where they have long generated Arab resentment because of their proximity to Islam's holiest sites.

Wolfowitz's remarks were released a day after US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seeking to explain why no weapons of mass destruction had been found, said Iraq may have destroyed them before the US-led invasion. </div></div>

They decided to attack Iraq and decided to push the WMD issue. - Saddam has nukes and he will give them to Al Q - to con the public into supporting the war.

Bush invaded Iraq not because of the intelligence but in despite of it.

Q


I still work part-time in a pollhall. I know a lot of Mulims and belive me, they are not making plans to invade Alabama. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif