PDA

View Full Version : Delay Convicted.



Gayle in MD
11-25-2010, 05:54 AM
It's about time.

Convicted for money laundering. I heard it said he could serve life??? That didn't make sense? Can you get life, for money laundering?

Anyway, it does my heart good to see one crook get what he had coming.

I wonder if he'll be shaking he ass around when they lock him up, LOL....I'd imagine he'd get more action in jail for doing that, than he did on dancing with the stars.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G.

LWW
11-25-2010, 06:30 AM
The jury has spoken.

LWW

sack316
11-25-2010, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's about time.

Convicted for money laundering. I heard it said he could serve life??? That didn't make sense? Can you get life, for money laundering?

</div></div>

I'm not sure if you can get life... but considering the feelings on financial funny business these days, I'm not opposed to some stern messages being sent.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-25-2010, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's about time.

Convicted for money laundering. I heard it said he could serve life??? That didn't make sense? Can you get life, for money laundering?

</div></div>

I'm not sure if you can get life... but considering the feelings on financial funny business these days, I'm not opposed to some stern messages being sent.

Sack </div></div>

I agree. Now wouldn't it be great if we saw them marching all those Wall Street CEO's in for their crimes, insider trading, and lying about the value of what they were selling?

That would make this a very Merry Christmas for a lot of people, I'd say.

Why only Madoff? Makes you wonder if it's more of a crime when someone steals from the rich, than when they steal from the average people, doesn't it?

G.

eg8r
11-25-2010, 09:31 AM
I agree, if you get caught and convicted then you need to do your time.

eg8r

llotter
11-25-2010, 11:04 AM
This would not be the first time that a person was prosecuted for political reasons and I am suspicious that this is one of those times....like Scooter Libby.

LWW
11-25-2010, 11:18 AM
Libby was undoubtedly a martyr.

Let's see if Gee holds the democrooks of the current regime to the same standards?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for running a gay prostitution ring from his condo?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for cultivating marijuana from his vacation home?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for bribery as a federal judge and then ran for congress?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for keeping bribe money in the freezer?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for vehicular manslaughter?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for perjury?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for draft evasion?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for being a hypocritical minister/boy buggerer?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for being involved in an Arab bribery scheme?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for involvement in a crooked book deal?

Imagine if a democrook was busted for buggering underage male pages?

Oh ... wait a second ... all of those happened ... and ... Gee gave them ... all ... a pass ... imagine that?

LWW

cushioncrawler
11-25-2010, 05:10 PM
Delay justiced.

pooltchr
11-25-2010, 05:21 PM
And then we have our own former Democrat governor Mike Easley, charged with multiple counts of illegal use of campaign funds, including a failure to report contributions, who copped a plea this week for a whopping $1 thousand dollar fine!!

Steve

eg8r
11-25-2010, 07:46 PM
What difference does it make? If the guy committed a crime and was actually guilty of said crime, aren't you happy he will be punished for it? Or do you only care about getting the bad guys when they are Dems and prosecuted for purely political reasons?

eg8r

eg8r
11-25-2010, 07:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Libby was undoubtedly a martyr.

</div></div>Did he lie?

eg8r

llotter
11-25-2010, 08:11 PM
Libby's memory differed from Tim Russert's memory on an issue that was moot in any case. Of course, we all know that the MSM are f'n liars...to the man.

Deeman3
11-25-2010, 08:59 PM
Throw away the key on all these crooks. In time, perhaps they will get serious on all these type crimes.

LWW
11-26-2010, 03:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Libby was undoubtedly a martyr.

</div></div>Did he lie?

eg8r </div></div>
By definitions 1, 2, and 4 he did not. By definition 3 he did, and if that is the legal standard then everyone in America can be jailed.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lie
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.</div></div>

The bottom line is that Libby was the victim of a prosecutor who kept seeking for the "LEAK" even after he knew who the leaker was.

LWW

Qtec
11-26-2010, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Libby was undoubtedly a martyr.

</div></div>Did he lie?

eg8r </div></div>
By definitions 1, 2, and 4 he did not. By definition 3 he did, and if that is the legal standard then everyone in America can be jailed.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lie
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.</div></div>

The bottom line is that Libby was the victim of a prosecutor who kept seeking for the "LEAK" even after he knew who the leaker was.

LWW
</div></div>

Again, a lot of opinion and no facts to back it up.

The TRUTH.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In those statements--made during two FBI interviews and two grand jury appearances--Libby said that though he had once possessed official information about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment, he had forgotten all about that, that he then heard about her CIA connection from reporters (mainly, Tim Russert of Meet the Press), and that he subsequently discussed this gossip (not official information) with other reporters. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>His explanation was essentially this: I forgot to remember what I had once known but had forgotten.</span>

Fitzgerald vowed that he would demonstrate this was a pack of lies. He previewed evidence and testimony cited in the indictment and pretrial submissions that (according to Fitzgerald) shows that Libby in June and early July 2003 was an active gatherer of official (and classified) information on Joseph Wilson and his wife. <u>Fitzgerald pointed to several witnesses who will testify that Libby requested information on the Wilsons from them when they were government officials:</u> Marc Grossman, the No. 3 at the State Department, Robert Grenier, a CIA official, Craig Schmall, a CIA briefer, and Cathie Martin, a spokesperson for Cheney. (Fitzgerald said that Libby called Grenier out of meeting to receive information on the Wilsons from him.) He also noted that Libby, according to Libby's own notes, had learned from Cheney that Valerie Wilson worked at the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA. (This is a unit within the agency's clandestine operations directorate.) </div></div>

That's not all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Libby's story to the FBI and the grand jury was that on July 10, 2003--four days after Joe Wilson had published an op-ed article noting he had inside information proving the administration had misrepresented the case for war--he had called Russert, that Russert had told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and that he (Libby) had believed that he was learning about her for the first time. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>(Libby testified that he was "taken aback" when he heard from Russert that Wilson's wife was a CIA official.) Yet, according to Fitzgerald, Libby had already discussed Valerie Wilson and her CIA affiliation with Fleischer on July 7 and with Miller on July 8. <u>"You cannot learn something startling on Thursday that you were giving out on Monday and Tuesday,"</u> Fitzgerald declared.</span> He charged that Libby had concocted the Russert tale to "wipe out" the fact that Libby had earlier been told about Valerie Wilson by Cheney. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"This is not a case about bad memory," he maintained. Libby, he said, had been caught in a cover-up.</span> </div></div>

The real story about this is not the outing of a CIA WMD specialist, not the lies that Libby told, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>its the fact that the Bush Govt used the press to lie to the people of the USA and falsely lead them into an unnecessary war.</span>

Wilson showed that the Govt was not objectively handling info but cherry picking parts of the info that they could use to make their case for war.
That's why they panicked and made mistakes in their rush to trash him and his wife.

Look below at my signature. See what it says?



Q . link (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4998)


Lets now talk about DeLay. The stand up good Christian guy that he is.

llotter
11-26-2010, 04:46 AM
without trying to belabor the point about Libby, using David Corn in a publication called 'The Smirking Chimp' as a valid source is questionable. Rebutting this 'evidence' is a column by Christopher Hitchens, a highly respected author in Slate.com, and neither Hitchens or Slate can be accused of having a RW bias.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168642/

Qtec
11-26-2010, 04:56 AM
That's not a rebuttal. If it was, he would take the points made by the other guy and disprove them. He does no such thing. Its more like an op-ed.

Libby lied. We know why he lied.

Q..he took the fall.

llotter
11-26-2010, 05:16 AM
not a rebuttal of Corn but a rebuttal of sourcing, since you claim lww's post was without evidence. Because you can find a column that supports your position does not make it evidence. When the judge was obviously biased and disallowed exculpatory evidence, you cannot take conviction at face value.

LWW
11-26-2010, 05:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">not a rebuttal of Corn but a rebuttal of sourcing, since you claim lww's post was without evidence. Because you can find a column that supports your position does not make it evidence. When the judge was obviously biased and disallowed exculpatory evidence, you cannot take conviction at face value. </div></div>

B-B-B-BUT THEY P-P-P-PUT IT ON THE SP-SP-SP-SPOON FOR THE LEFTISTS!!!!

LWW

LWW
11-26-2010, 05:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">without trying to belabor the point about Libby, using David Corn in a publication called 'The Smirking Chimp' as a valid source is questionable. Rebutting this 'evidence' is a column by Christopher Hitchens, a highly respected author in Slate.com, and neither Hitchens or Slate can be accused of having a RW bias.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168642/ </div></div>

Good catch.

And Snoopy ... if we all know why he lied, why can't you explain why he lied?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?

Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions. <span style="color: #3333FF">To leftists, dembots, O-cultists, and Obamatrons ... this means view the facts with an open mind.</span> ...

Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.</span>

The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak—his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally—<span style='font-size: 11pt'>was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began</span> to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that).

In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time),<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.
The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.
</span>

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim? ...

The judge refused to let the jury hear from a memory expert and would not admit much of the evidence about Libby's extremely heavy workload on matters of pressing national security. An amazing collection of testimonials has been prepared, from all points of the political compass, regarding particularly Libby's concern about inadequate troop levels in Iraq and his work in strengthening the country's defense against bio-warfare terrorism. It seems to some legal observers that the judge's exclusion of some of this exculpatory evidence was a payback for Libby's decision not to take the stand, which is his constitutionally protected right. ...</div></div>

FACTS ... they are such stubborn things.

LWW

Qtec
11-26-2010, 07:26 AM
Not even handcuffs.

Q

eg8r
11-26-2010, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By definitions 1, 2, and 4 he did not. By definition 3 he did, and if that is the legal standard then everyone in America can be jailed.

</div></div>LOL, you crack me up. You will do anything you can to prove you are right even when your proof doesn't help the case at all.

eg8r

eg8r
11-26-2010, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">without trying to belabor the point about Libby, using David Corn in a publication called 'The Smirking Chimp' as a valid source is questionable.</div></div>So tell me what is your issue with q's source? The fact that it is David Corn, and he did something in the past you don't agree with, or is it because he titled it the "smirking chimp? If the latter then your name calling of the current President would nullify yourself in all instances.

eg8r

eg8r
11-26-2010, 11:37 AM
LOL, you guys crack me up. When the judge tosses a lefty in jail you don't care what kind of evidence is used, but when a righty is tossed in jail you start caring about the evidence.

eg8r

LWW
11-26-2010, 12:17 PM
Oh please.

I've never called for Libby to receive anything but justice.

The jury in that case spoke as well. I disagree with them, but that's our system.

LWW

Sev
11-26-2010, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's about time.

Convicted for money laundering. I heard it said he could serve life??? That didn't make sense? Can you get life, for money laundering?

Anyway, it does my heart good to see one crook get what he had coming.

I wonder if he'll be shaking he ass around when they lock him up, LOL....I'd imagine he'd get more action in jail for doing that, than he did on dancing with the stars.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G. </div></div>

Delay should do the right thing and put a gun in his mouth and save the tax payers some money.

Sev
11-26-2010, 05:09 PM
Also hoping Rangel will take a dive out a window.

sack316
11-27-2010, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can you get life, for money laundering?
</div></div>

Confirmed, money laundering technically can carry a punishment of up to life in prison!

But all word in this case seems to be that at worst he will get a few years in prison... and some believe he may even get as little as probation because "conviction itself is severe punishment for someone who once ascended to the No. 2 post in the House of Representatives" according to Barry Pollack.

The judge has a wide range to work with here, anything from probation to life. I'd think the charges would have a little more definitive punishment tied to them, but I guess not. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-27-2010, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">not a rebuttal of Corn but a rebuttal of sourcing, since you claim lww's post was without evidence. Because you can find a column that supports your position does not make it evidence. When the judge was obviously biased and disallowed exculpatory evidence, you cannot take conviction at face value. </div></div>


The special Prosecutor, made it very clear, Libby took the fall, for Cheney.

They had the news story, the op-ed, written by Joe Wilson, "What I Didn't Find In Africa" straight from Libbu's papers, with written suggestions, from Cheney, written on the margin, of how to go forward...with the White House defense, and attacks against Wilson, to discredit him, and his trip to Niger....

All of Washington D.C. knew that rove and NOvak had been friends for decades. Often seen out lunching together. Rove confirmed it, for Novak, before he wrote the story that exposed Valarie Plame. Rove admits, saying, I've heard that too, whenn Novak said he had heard that Joe Wilson's wife, Valarie Plame, worked at the CIA.

After the trial, his wife was heard saying to him, "We're going to F. them."
the Prosecutor made a statement, after the sentencing, that a cloud remained over the Vice President's office....and other statements, indicating that Libby had taken the fall.

He was convicted of five counts, BY A FEDERAL GRAND JURY, among them, lying to Federal officers, and Obstruction of Justice.

All of the particulars of the story, indicate there was a coordinated effort by the White House, to get back at Joe Wilson, for his revelations which proved that the White House was lying to the country about Saddam tryng to get Yellow Cake from Niger.

There were also links between Michael Ledeen, and the thugs in Italy, known for trumping up fake intelligence for countries around the world, that broke into the Niger Embassy, to steal the official lettehead, and stamp, on which the fake memo, which Bush used in his SOTU Address, included fake intel about Saddam trying to get Yellow Cake, from Niger, which the British had already told him, was not something to be used, because follow up had proven it to be false.

(Also, the British Memo, that stated very clearly that Bush was fixing the intel, to the policy to invade Iraq.)

The sixteen words, were then redacted from the statement, made in the SOTU Address, upon threats from the CIA, that they would not join into the lie, and Joe Wilson's op-ed. CIA had told Bush not to use it, he used it anyway, then he had to take it out, and take it all back. PROOF HE WAS LYING.

Bottom line, they created lie after lie, to push the country into a war.

It's all very clear, and all very easy to follow.

End result, they outed a covert CIA Agent, Treason, Libby's conviction, with fingers pointed directly at Cheney, by the Special Prosecutor.

You have to be slightly ill, or in complete denial, to deny this very well documented situation of a crooked White House, abusing their power, obstructing justice, and lying to the Congress, and to the country, taking us into an un-necessary War, for WMD, which they made up, and which were never found, when they were being told there was no immediate threat, from Saddam, all along, by the experts, like Richard Clarke, for example, and which dozens of CIA, and Generals, resigned over, because they did not want to take part in lying the country into a war. TREASON.

Denial is not a rebuttal against massive evidence.

G.

Qtec
11-28-2010, 04:42 AM
Good post G.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>EVEN BEFORE the invasion,</span> you and I and others like us who examined the evidence objectively said "these claims from the Govt are wrong or at least exaggerated."

After we have been PROVED to be right, the RW,ers here just can't admit it.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-28-2010, 08:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good post G.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>EVEN BEFORE the invasion,</span> you and I and others like us who examined the evidence objectively said "these claims from the Govt are wrong or at least exaggerated."

After we have been PROVED to be right, the RW,ers here just can't admit it.

Q </div></div>

Yes, you are right, they can't admit anything. Can't even admit to their pattern of attacking, stalking, revving up others here, and then notifying the moderator when they get what they want, getting another leftie, banned, AGAIN.

Cowards are Bullies, and that is the way they work.

There were dozens of books, by insiders, who all told the same story about the Bush Administration.

Richard Clarke, our former Counter Terrorist Czar, tells the same story, in his book, about how Bush jammed his finger into Clarkes' chest, telling him to "Find" evidence linking Saddam to 9/11. Clarke stated the implications were clear. He is only one of many, who all told the same story about the Bush Administration, thier lies, and their denials. These were respected people, many of tyem no partisan, like Clarke, who had worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, and voted for Reagan, AND Bush One, BTW.

Cheney sent several dozen young graduates, (called "Bushies" by the administration,) who arrived in Washington D.C., from Falwell's university, to the basement of the CIA, to cherry pick outdated information about Saddam's capabilities, and include the old info in their Madison Avenue styled BS Intelligence Esimate, presented to the congress, and now these uninformed RWers, use that same false information, as documentation for their ridiculous posts!!!! What a crock!

You'd have to be a total idiot, to look back over the many clips of the Bush/Cheney statements and actions, and still try to deny what they obviously did.

But then, that is exactly what we're dealing with here, people who think that their denials, hold any weight, in spite of massive evidence to the contrary.

As you and I posted information from the statements included in books written by insiders, and respected investigative journalists, like David Corn, and Michael Issakoff, who wrote and spoke out about the law breaking, Treason and deciet of the administration, they all attacke us, and passed it all off as just some flunky trying to sell a book. Bah Bah Bah....

Three years later, a number of ex CIA, retired generals, Pentagon officials, all writing the same story of lies, intimidation, and disaster from incompetence, the story of massive TREASON, on many levels. Patreaus, AND Powell, now both state, clearly, waterboardig is torture. The evidence, was destroyed.

These twits on here are all a complete waste of time. Ignorance is bliss. The number of books which have documented the lies and failures and incompetence of the Bush Administration, and the massive corruption of the last Republican majority, and the results of their failed policies, could fill a library, but the sheep, ignorant beyond belief, went right back into the booth, and put them in control of the House! Unbelievable! Is there any wonder that a twit like Palin, is their hero????

How many died, because Bush lied? How much better off would we be if Bush had just gone to Afghanistan, gotten bin Laden, and come home?

Ya think we could have handled an economic crash, a whole lot better, if Bush hadn't been borrowing us into a debt pit for eight years? who made out on the mess? Clearly, corporations linked to the Bush Family and Cheney, and Rice....


It's always the same, with the Republicans. They mess up the whole country, then when the Dems have to clean it up, Dems end up paying for the huge mess created by Republicans in the voting booth.

Look at the Delay story. RW judges protected him from being prosecuted for his illegal Redistricting, in Texas, for years.

The Republican Party, and the RW activist Supreme Court, have destroyed our country.


G.

sack316
11-28-2010, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

EVEN BEFORE the invasion,[/size] you and I and others like us who examined the evidence objectively said "these claims from the Govt are wrong or at least exaggerated."

</div></div>

I realize it was long ago, but reading back over posts from that time frame, this statement simply isn't true.

Q--- you weren't even here "EVEN BEFORE" the invasion

And Gayle, while hoping for a peaceful resolution, wound up supporting the war at one time. Mostly for the removal and punishment of Sadaam for his crimes against humanity. But also was open to the fact of the possibilities of WMDs, including the French selling supplies to Iraq for building them.

You can say we were lied into it, you can say the wool was pulled over our eyes... but to say you exposed such things prior to the invasion simply isn't true. It didn't take long to start questioning, though, I will admit.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-28-2010, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

EVEN BEFORE the invasion,[/size] you and I and others like us who examined the evidence objectively said "these claims from the Govt are wrong or at least exaggerated."

</div></div>

I realize it was long ago, but reading back over posts from that time frame, this statement simply isn't true.

Q--- you weren't even here "EVEN BEFORE" the invasion

And Gayle, while hoping for a peaceful resolution, wound up supporting the war at one time. Mostly for the removal and punishment of Sadaam for his crimes against humanity. But also was open to the fact of the possibilities of WMDs, including the French selling supplies to Iraq for building them.

You can say we were lied into it, you can say the wool was pulled over our eyes... but to say you exposed such things prior to the invasion simply isn't true. It didn't take long to start questioning, though, I will admit.

Sack </div></div>

I don't think you can say that I "wound up" supporting the war, Sack, I didn't "wind up" supporting the war, at all. Both Q and I, were against the invasion, and Q
WAS here.

Let's say this much, Sack. I recall that both Q and I were saying that the President should give the inspectors another three months, as they asked him to do. I distinctly remember writing, "What's another three months, why the rush?"

It was Bush's big rush, and the obvious deceit by Bush and Cheney, and Rice, all fomenting fear, threatening Mushroom Clouds, lies about the aluminum tubes, and what they were for, that began to point to the fact that they were ALL lying, and I can say that was true for both myself, and Q, and others from the left, here on the forum.

In the very, very early reports, my position was to avoid war, War, only as a last resort. While I'm sure I may have expressed early on, disdain for Saddam's treatment of his people, I was never cheering on an Invasion of Iraq, and if at all, only moderate on the subject, in the very beginning of any mention of it, and surely not after several months had passed, as lies were exposed.

So I really don't see how it could be said, that I "wound up" supporting the invasion of Iraq. That simply is not true.
neither for myself, nor for Q, nor for any of the left on this forum.


From the getgo, my position was to give the inspectors the time they asked for...to complete their search, not to go off half cocked, and commit Shock and Awe!

Very early on, when the lies first started up, I may have thought Bush was telling the American People, the truth. That was so, for a very brief time, as for most of the country, including myself, we were still grieving for those lost on 9/11, the very emotion which Bush et al, sought to exploit.

I can admit, it never occured to me at the outset, the lengths they would go to in an organized fashion, to lie us into a war and invasion of Iraq, which IS BTW TREASON.

The main reason why I first thought the threat may have been real, was because Powell seemed to support their lies. He now says his appearance before the U.N. is a black mark, on his career.

When Bush was spinning his lies, none of us, including the Congress, knew to what degree the administration had gone to skew the intelligence. That didn't last long. We were very soon aware of his deceit.

As soon as whistle blowers began to speak out, and documentation mounted, and it became obvious, and evident, to those of us on the left, that he was trying to lie us into a war and invasion of Iraq, and to those of us on the left, on this site, and elsewhere, it was clearly treason. During our outrage, the Administration, and those righties on this site, accused us of being antiAmerican, and being for the terrorists. Terrorist Lovers, we were called.

The right, continued to deny the evidence, and defend Bush's lies, and incompetence, as most of them either continue to do to this day, or deny that they did so in the past.

Neither Q, nor I, Jack, Hondo, Dick, Martin, none of us on the left, saw the intelligence that President Bush saw, any more than any of our Representatives in the Congress did, but The sixteen words, exposed as lies, in the SOTU Address, followed by Joe Wilson's NYT op-ed, and the outing of Plame, all of us realized what was going on, by then, and as the lies in the SOTU were exposed, which happened before the invasion, BTW, we began to speak out against the invasion.

As I recall, that did it for me, and for Q, and the rest of we lefties, who truly never were for a rush to invade, in the first place...

So IMO, you're wrong. Q and I and others, on the left, were against the invasion, before it occured. And, Q was here at the time.

Richard Clarke, who was among the first to speak out, with his book, "Against All Enemies" completely exposed the massive, organized plot, to lie the country into the Iraq Invasion, by using FEAR, and cherry picking the evidence.... the right on this forum, attacked us, when we pointed these things out.

They defended Bush vigorously, including his spending and running up deficits. They defended every single law he broke, including breaking the Geneva Conventions, and torturing people, and then lying about the results of the torture. They even denied the fidings of our own sixteen National Intelligence Agencies' NSE, national Security Estimate....which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush's policies, emboldened our enemies, al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea, all, and gave al Qaeda the strength to franchise around the world. Reproting any and all of this, on this forum, resulted in vicious attacks, from the right.

Ed, for example, who thinks people should read Sarah Palin's book, stated over and over, that all of these investigative authors, and former intelligence experts, former generals, including even Clarke, were people just trying to make a buck, trying to sell books.

To this day, he refuses to admit that Valarie Plame, was anything more than... "Just a Secretary" the same erroneous claim made by the administration, and Steve, wrote, that the Deficits didn't matter, a day or so after Cheney made the statement on M. T. Press, while his boy Bush was running them up, that was what he wrote, "the deficits don't matter."

As for myself, I was never a Bush fan. I had read, "The Rise Of The Vulcans" and thought that the worst thing that could happen to our country, was the damned Bush oil cartel, running the White House, and said so all along.

I never thought he was an honest person, and he is still lying to this day, and the right, is still defending him, to this day.


Apparently, they are too stupid to understand the simple principle, of...

"Under the conditions prevailing" as they are determined to compare spending to divert a depression, to Bush's spending for the hell of it, and borrowing to payy for all of it.


Nor will they attempt to see or consider the vast difference between a president who chose to lie the country into an incredibly expensive war, while cutting taxes, expanding governmnet, and increasing debts by a multi trillion dollar prescription drug program, NONE OF WHICH HE PAID FOR, and the effort and success by the President who had to inherit all of the Bush F-ups!!!!

A president inheriting a country in pretty good shape, after Bill Clinton, and one inheriting a country on the brink of a greater depression, than ever before, tryng to stop job hemmoraging averaging over 750,000 a month, trying to honorably end two F-ed up wars, trying to keep as many teachers, policemen, and firemen, at work, and maintain peace in the nation, while still handling a foreign threat, made worse by the previous administration.


IOW, they still deny that Bush spent the money to bail out the banks, and Bush promoted and launched the auto bail out, yet they continue to place those debts, and those of two wars, totally under President Obama's column, just as they put the war debts, and national oil disaster, under his column, neither of which, is at all fair, given the collapse, both wars, Bush's deregulatory policies, his neglect of warnings about 9/11, and the Wall St. Crash, all were Bush's fault, happened under Bush's watch, and resulted from Bush's failed oversight, and his economic policies.

Bush had eight months, to prevent 9/11...eight months! He did not do one single thing, NOTHING, to prevent it! NOTHING!

Perhaps, you are unaware of the date of the invasion, which was in March, of 2003. Q, was here long before then...Neither of us "wound up" supporting the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. ONLY the right, did that. And they refuse to admit, to this day, there were no WMD in Iraq, and no terrorists in Iraq, no connections to al Qaeda, until Bush invaded Iraq, illegally, on lies. bush, Cheney rice and Rumsfeld, rove and Libby, are all TREASONISTS! Those are the FACTS.

G.

Qtec
11-28-2010, 08:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I realize it was long ago, but reading back over posts from that time frame, this statement simply isn't true.

Q--- you weren't even here "EVEN BEFORE" the invasion </div></div>

Oh yes I was. Ask eg8r.

Q

sack316
11-28-2010, 09:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Perhaps, you are unaware of the date of the invasion, which was in March, of 2003. Q, was here long before then...</div></div>

Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03.


As to the rest:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 3-24-03</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator.

I didn't want George Bush for president, either, and didn't vote for him.

<u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>But now, now that I have observed the many other facts that have come to light during the last month, I must say, that our country is doing the right thing, and that if we do not face this tyrant now, we will just have to face him later when he is better prepared to cause havoc to us and to the rest of the world.</span></u>

I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !</div></div>

Now as I said, you were also hoping to find a peaceful resolution before the invasion. When that didn't happen, you supported the invasion for humanitarian purposes... and acknowledged the prospect of WMDs.

You can say you (we) were all duped... that's perfectly fine. But you cannot say you were "always" against it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-28-2010, 09:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Perhaps, you are unaware of the date of the invasion, which was in March, of 2003. Q, was here long before then...</div></div>

Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03.


As to the rest:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 3-24-03</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator.

I didn't want George Bush for president, either, and didn't vote for him.

<u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>But now, now that I have observed the many other facts that have come to light during the last month, I must say, that our country is doing the right thing, and that if we do not face this tyrant now, we will just have to face him later when he is better prepared to cause havoc to us and to the rest of the world.</span></u>

I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !</div></div>

Now as I said, you were also hoping to find a peaceful resolution before the invasion. When that didn't happen, you supported the invasion for humanitarian purposes... and acknowledged the prospect of WMDs.

You can say you (we) were all duped... that's perfectly fine. But you cannot say you were "always" against it.

Sack
</div></div>

I didn't say I was always against it, Sack. I have admitted that I was duped, many times before. They duped me, along with the rest of the country....and some of the world.

The bottom line is that they lied to all of us. Why isn't THAT what is important to you? Do you deny that the Bush Administration cherry picked evidence and intelligence, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq? do you deny, they lied us into invading Iraq, with fear mongering about Mushroom Clouds, after they were told, Iraq was not a threat?

Do you deny that they broke the Geneva conventions?

Do you deny that the Supreme Court threw away one hundred years of legal precedence, when they appointed George Bush, and threw out Florida's votes?

Do you deny Bush broke the FISA laws, when they spied illegally on Americans?

Do you deny that the FBI, has stated, that Bush lies when he says that lives were saved through his illegal torturing of prisoners?

Do you deny that there was a criminal, organized White House campaign, to attack and destroy Joe wilson's credibility, for exposing their lies, and that they (Rove) told reporters that in affect, Wilson's wife's CIA career, was Fair Game?

Why do you spend so much time, trying to convict me, instead of addressing the fact that you seem quite willing.... just as much as the other righties around here, to give the Bush Administration a bye, for every illegal activity, every lie, every policy failure, which they committed, including TREASON?

BTW, Q and I. and our fellow lefties, on the CCB, WERE right, and the right, WAS wrong, about a slew of issues which they denied, for years.

That's the bottom line. Slice it up any way you like, cherry pick through the archives, if you like, that is still the bottom line. We were onto Bush, and his lies, long before the right ever saw the light, and in fact, most of you STILL do not see the light, on Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, they were all criminally incompetent, and they ALL LIED, which is TREASON, when lying to the Congress, and the country, and particularly about the necessity of WAR.

Hence, if this government of ours if F-ed up, you can thank Bush and Cheney, because they destroyed it, totally.

G.

LWW
11-29-2010, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you deny that they broke the Geneva conventions? <span style="color: #333399">I do.</span>

Do you deny that the Supreme Court threw away one hundred years of legal precedence, when they appointed George Bush, and threw out Florida's votes? <span style="color: #333399">I do.</span>

Do you deny Bush broke the FISA laws, when they spied illegally on Americans? <span style="color: #333399">I do.</span>

Do you deny that the FBI, has stated, that Bush lies when he says that lives were saved through his illegal torturing of prisoners? <span style="color: #333399">I do.</span>

Do you deny that there was a criminal, organized White House campaign, to attack and destroy Joe wilson's credibility, for exposing their lies, and that they (Rove) told reporters that in affect, Wilson's wife's CIA career, was Fair Game? <span style="color: #333399">I do.</span>

G.
</div></div>

Can you support any of these ridiculous claims with a cogent fact based argument?

What's that?

You can't?

I already knew that.

LWW

Qtec
11-29-2010, 06:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03 </div></div>

I'm disappointed Sack. You don't believe me? This site has gone down a number of times. records have been lost and sometimes you have to re register.

I was in New York and met up with nAz in 2002 who I met through the CBB, remember him? Wendy?

Q

LWW
11-29-2010, 06:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Perhaps, you are unaware of the date of the invasion, which was in March, of 2003. Q, was here long before then...</div></div>

Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03.


As to the rest:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 3-24-03</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator.

I didn't want George Bush for president, either, and didn't vote for him.

<u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>But now, now that I have observed the many other facts that have come to light during the last month, I must say, that our country is doing the right thing, and that if we do not face this tyrant now, we will just have to face him later when he is better prepared to cause havoc to us and to the rest of the world.</span></u>

I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !</div></div>

Now as I said, you were also hoping to find a peaceful resolution before the invasion. When that didn't happen, you supported the invasion for humanitarian purposes... and acknowledged the prospect of WMDs.

You can say you (we) were all duped... that's perfectly fine. But you cannot say you were "always" against it.

Sack
</div></div>

That's when the party was telling her ... as they did throughout the 1990's ... that Saddam was a madman.

Now they tell her to forget all of their statements and believe it was Bush in a series of Clinton/Clinton/Pelosi/Kennedy/Reid/Rockefeller/Gore/Kerry masks that were making all of these statements.

Now, if dear leader acknowledges that Saddamite Hussinsein ... just as wikileaks says ... had WMD she will again sing the praises of the democrooks and blame Bush for stalling from 2001 until 2003 to invade Iraq.

I seriously suspect that Orwell knew one of Gee's ancestors.

LWW

Qtec
11-29-2010, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's when the party was telling her ... as they did throughout the 1990's ... that Saddam was a madman. </div></div>

Not a madman, a dictator.

Although just about everyone in the entire world criticised Saddam, it was GW that advocated invasion, the others didn't.

Quagmire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I)

Q

Gayle in MD
11-29-2010, 07:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03 </div></div>

I'm disappointed Sack. You don't believe me? This site has gone down a number of times. records have been lost and sometimes you have to re register.

I was in New York and met up with nAz in 2002 who I met through the CBB, remember him? Wendy?

Q </div></div>

You've been here since way before 9/11....

llotter
11-29-2010, 09:12 AM
Just to touch back on the original thread title, I see now that even that LW rag the Washington Post editorialized about he travesty of justice that the Delay conviction represents.

Have a look:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112803921.html

eg8r
11-29-2010, 09:36 AM
Sure, q has been here quite a while.

eg8r

eg8r
11-29-2010, 09:42 AM
I agree. If I remember correctly q even tried for a while to see if his conspiracy theories about the US Gov being behind 9/11 would stick. Everyone basically gave him the proverbial finger and he quit.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-29-2010, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Perhaps, you are unaware of the date of the invasion, which was in March, of 2003. Q, was here long before then...</div></div>

Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03.


As to the rest:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 3-24-03</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator.

I didn't want George Bush for president, either, and didn't vote for him.

<u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>But now, now that I have observed the many other facts that have come to light during the last month, I must say, that our country is doing the right thing, and that if we do not face this tyrant now, we will just have to face him later when he is better prepared to cause havoc to us and to the rest of the world.</span></u>

I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !</div></div>

Now as I said, you were also hoping to find a peaceful resolution before the invasion. When that didn't happen, you supported the invasion for humanitarian purposes... and acknowledged the prospect of WMDs.

You can say you (we) were all duped... that's perfectly fine. But you cannot say you were "always" against it.

Sack
</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">I think you should realize, that my opinion developed, as time went on.

BEFORE the invasion, I was clearly against invading Iraq, so while you can take one post out of context, Sack, by the time invading Iraq, became a real possibility, I was against it, as the fololowing shows, in this post of mine, dated Jan., 03. months before the invasion.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">#57372 - 31/01/03 10:05 AM Re: Tax cuts for the rich ?
Gayle in MD Gayle in MD
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 20/02/02
Posts: 12882
Loc: Maryland OK, it's obvious that you are a die hard republican, and that your ability to judge circumstances from a non partisan point of view is completely overshadowed by that. Although we have gotten off the subject here to some degree, all the things we are discussing come back to the point that we all pay taxes, and we start to groan when those in power do not represent our wishes in the way they spend our tax dollars. IMHO, the greatest waste I have ever observed so far in my lifetime was when I watched the republicans waste millions and millions of dollars investigating what Clinton did with his cigar! Every poll at that time showed that the American people didn't care what had happened, but just look at what they wasted. And as usual, it was all for NOTHING!!

No one has ever been able to prove that Iraq gave money to the terrorists.

While I totally agree that Saddam should be done away with, I think that we have come to a time when the prospect of war is just too devasting to the world to justify. Killing innocent people is wrong. Are we not intelligent enough to settle our disputes in other ways? If not, then shame of us! When you and your family are suffering with small pox, you may change your mind about war.

I listened to Bush, swearing over and over that he would get Bin Laden. What happened to that?

You seem to think that others who have a different point of view from yours, are thinking only from an emotional point of view. I ask you, are we to decide the future of our children without emotion? May I say that doing what is right, is more important than being right. There are principles in the universe, and the principles work. It doesn't matter if you believe in them or not, they are still working in your life and mine. Money is power, and power corrupts. The days of might makes right are gone. This planet must be our first concern. If we are to set an example of compassion to the rest of the world, we must find other ways to achieve our goals without nuclear weapons.

I grew up hearing about Hiroshima. Looking at the pictures of war. Hiroshima, Korea, Vietnam, little children, suffering, burned beyond belief. You sound very unaffected by the results of engaging in war? How old are you anyway??? I used to run every morning with my neighbor's young Japanese daughter-in-law. I listened to her stories of her family in Japan, and what the atomic bomb did to her country, the suffering of her relatives, the cancer that followed, the little children born deformed for years and years after. Your damn right I got emotional, and emotion is what we need a little more of these days if you ask me.

Bottom line in all this, your heroes, the Bushes, blew it. They didn't seize the moment. They waited too long. War isn't just something that happens "Over there" any longer. War is something that human kind can no longer afford my friend. We owe it to future generations to rise above the former historical methods of solving our disputes. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>If we can't do that, the world is doomed. If we continue a habit of responding to the misdeeds of a few sick maniacs by causing suffering and destruction to innocent millions, what does that make us, I ask you?
Gayle in Md.</span>

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I was against the invasion of Iraq, well before it took place. During that time, the neocons on here were all for it.

Most in our intelligence field, including five former Secretaries of State, from BOTH POLITICal PARTIES, have stated that invading Iraq, was the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

I recall that Q had the same opinion as mine. bin Laden, and al Qaeda, should have been our focus. Saddam, could have been taken care of in many other ways, which did not require invading the country. The invasion, was about oil, period. Who gained? Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Exxon....all else lost...our country, and the Iraqis, lost the most....al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, gained. Bad decision all around.

I'm glad we mo longer have a Preaidentk who goes by his gut. I'm just as srue, that I won't agree with all of his decisions, but the difference, is that I won't defend him, when I think he's going the wrong way.

Right now, I think we should get the hell out of Afghanistan, as soon as possible. I do not think you can force people with guns and bombs, to change their entire way of life. It didn't work in Ira, and it won't work in Afghanistan, either.

We had an opportunity to smash al Qaeda. Bush blew it. The world was behind it, and behind us, at the time.

Bush destroyed our creidbility.

No president in my lifetime, has been as corrupt, as incompetent, as deceitful or as disgusting, all around, as
Bush, who still refuses to take responsibility for his massive failures.

G.

G. </span>

sack316
11-29-2010, 01:04 PM
My dear, I did say you were against it before you were for it. That you were hoping for a peaceful resolution. That you were hoping the admin would give Powell and the investigators time before proceeding with the conflict. I know you, and know that you are always against war for any reason other than a last resort when all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Sack

sack316
11-29-2010, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03 </div></div>

I'm disappointed Sack. You don't believe me? This site has gone down a number of times. records have been lost and sometimes you have to re register.

I was in New York and met up with nAz in 2002 who I met through the CBB, remember him? Wendy?

Q </div></div>

Oh I believe you, as I said I just wasn't aware if you were here prior to that time.

Yes I remember Naz, 9BG (Wendy), CC, SPetty, KarateMom and the whole gang from back in the day. I don't recall you from that early time frame, and apologies for not remembering you pre-2003. I've been through at least 3 (that I recall) crashes and have never had to re-register personally. Only Deeman when we regularly forgets his PW do I know of that has had to /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

At any rate, apologies if I was mistaken. All I had to go on is what I could see.

Sack

LWW
11-29-2010, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's when the party was telling her ... as they did throughout the 1990's ... that Saddam was a madman. </div></div>

Not a madman, a dictator.

Although just about everyone in the entire world criticised Saddam, it was GW that advocated invasion, the others didn't.

Quagmire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I)

Q </div></div>

Actually quite a few nations did ... and anyone who thinks Saddamite Hussinsein wasn't a madman has no clue.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-29-2010, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My dear, I did say you were against it before you were for it. That you were hoping for a peaceful resolution. That you were hoping the admin would give Powell and the investigators time before proceeding with the conflict. I know you, and know that you are always against war for any reason other than a last resort when all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Sack </div></div>

My opinion was that bin Laden, and al Qaeda, should have remained our top priority, not Iraq, and surely not with boots on the ground.

Bush F-ed up everything.

We're still paying for it.

G.

Qtec
11-30-2010, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually quite a few nations did ... <span style='font-size: 17pt'>and anyone who thinks Saddamite Hussinsein wasn't a madman has no clue.
</span>
LWW </div></div>

You got me.............. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>Not.</span>

http://www.daanspeak.com/SaddamRumsfeld.jpg

I have to say it........'Oh My!' /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

llotter
11-30-2010, 08:58 AM
You are making a silly point. We attempt to deal with bad or questionable people and attempt to influence their behavior but that is not always successful and maybe even seldom successful.

Qtec
12-01-2010, 02:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We attempt to deal with bad or questionable people </div></div>

Sure, but a madman?

Chavez is a madman. Saddam was your usual run of the mill, ruthless, paranoid evil dictator.


Q

LWW
12-01-2010, 04:32 AM
So, a man who:

- Has a copy of the Quran written in his own blood.
- Invades Iran.
- Invades Kuwait.
- Invades Saudi Arabia.
- Violate 16 UN resolutions.
- Uses poison gas on his own people.
- Orders the murder of countless Iraqis.
- Paid families to use their children as homicide bombers.
- Ordered the hijacking of the Achille Lauro.
- Attempted to assassinate a POTUS.

Isn't a madman?

LWW

Qtec
12-01-2010, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has a copy of the Quran written in his own blood. </div></div>

Oh please!

Got a link...........LOL

Q

LWW
12-01-2010, 05:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has a copy of the Quran written in his own blood. </div></div>

Oh please!

Got a link...........LOL

Q </div></div>

When will you ever learn?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Saddam has Koran written in his blood</span></u>
By David Blair in Baghdad 12:01AM GMT 14 Dec 2002

Decorated with intricate designs, the delicate Arabic script of the Koran seemed to have been written in red ink.

In fact, a skilled artist <span style='font-size: 14pt'>copied the 605 pages of the holy book using Saddam Hussein's blood.</span> The Iraqi dictator donated three pints over two years and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>this, mixed with chemicals, was used for every verse.</span></div></div>
Snoopy crashes ... again. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1416155/Saddam-has-Koran-written-in-his-blood.html)

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

LWW

Qtec
12-01-2010, 06:11 AM
I have my doubts.

Where is it ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saddam has Koran written in his blood
By David Blair in Baghdad 12:01AM GMT 14 Dec 2002

Decorated with intricate designs, the delicate Arabic script of the Koran seemed to have been written in red ink.

In fact, a skilled artist copied the 605 pages of the holy book using Saddam Hussein's blood. The Iraqi dictator donated three pints over two years and this, mixed with chemicals, was used for every verse.

The resulting Koran was laid out in the Mother Of All Battles mosque in Baghdad, built to commemorate Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and his subsequent defeat at the hands of the United States and Britain. </div></div>

Could be true but the author goes on........

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mosque boasts eight minarets. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Four are designed to resemble the barrels of AK-47 assault rifles</span> and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>four are in the shape of Scud missiles</span>. A hexagonal marble building in which the blood-written Koran is on display is crowned with its own minaret - <span style='font-size: 26pt'>of the Scud variety</span>. </div></div>


Oh dear. All objectivity is gone.

Q

LWW
12-01-2010, 06:39 AM
What difference does that make ... other than to bolster my claim Saddamite Hussinsein was a madman?

I stated he had a copy of the Koran written in his own blood.

You didn't believe it.

I documented it.

You tried to change the subject instead of deciding to man up and admit you were wrong ... again.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 07:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Perhaps, you are unaware of the date of the invasion, which was in March, of 2003. Q, was here long before then...</div></div>

Qtec
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 7547
Loc: the Netherlands

Perhaps he was a lurker, perhaps we posted under some other name I am not aware of. But otherwise, May of '03 is not "long before" March of '03.


As to the rest:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 3-24-03</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator.

I didn't want George Bush for president, either, and didn't vote for him.

<u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>But now, now that I have observed the many other facts that have come to light during the last month, I must say, that our country is doing the right thing, and that if we do not face this tyrant now, we will just have to face him later when he is better prepared to cause havoc to us and to the rest of the world.</span></u>

I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !</div></div>

Now as I said, you were also hoping to find a peaceful resolution before the invasion. When that didn't happen, you supported the invasion for humanitarian purposes... and acknowledged the prospect of WMDs.

You can say you (we) were all duped... that's perfectly fine. But you cannot say you were "always" against it.

Sack
</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>You are totally incorrect. don't know if you're willing to admit it, probably not?

Here is why your accusation, is totally wrong. From your own quote, of my words, which apparently, you chose to ignore....</span> </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns,</span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">And obviously, those hidden intentions, have b een since proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. We now have seen the maps, produced long before they even began to lie to us, and commit treason, slicing up the oil fields in Iraq. We have proof that their immediate plan, wihtin hours of 9/11, was to use 9/11, in their massive deceit campaign, to invade, illegally.

It makes no difference at all, what Saddam was. The world is full of dictators, who persecute their people, many of them are and were far worse then Saddam, and I recall asking, at that time, "....are we going to invade and occupy every country in the world, with a cruel dictator???"

This may be your greatest stretch, so far, Sack....I did not ever wind up supporting the Iraqi invasion...NEVER, and my previous pasted links to my own quotes on this matter, above, prove it.

".....the Iraq War was about oil."
Republican Alan Greenspan

</span>


<span style="color: #990000">Bump? What say you, Sack? Think this might reduce your M.O. of taking thhings out of context?</span>

Stretch
12-01-2010, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What difference does that make ... other than to bolster my claim Saddamite Hussinsein was a madman?

I stated he had a copy of the Koran written in his own blood.

You didn't believe it.

I documented it.

You tried to change the subject instead of deciding to man up and admit you were wrong ... again.

LWW </div></div>

No, that's your MO. Q has often stood corrected. You on the other hand remain blissfully unaware of the conduct required to be a mature adult. Your constant posturing at being some pseudo intillectual is tiresome and comic at best. You've been measured, weighed, and found wanting. St.

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What difference does that make ... other than to bolster my claim Saddamite Hussinsein was a madman?

I stated he had a copy of the Koran written in his own blood.

You didn't believe it.

I documented it.

You tried to change the subject instead of deciding to man up and admit you were wrong ... again.

LWW </div></div>

No, that's your MO. Q has often stood corrected. You on the other hand remain blissfully unaware of the conduct required to be a mature adult. Your constant posturing at being some pseudo intillectual is tiresome and comic at best. You've been measured, weighed, and found wanting. St. </div></div>

Found wanting, incorrect, and boring.

Anyone who would believe this BS story, from Saddam, about the Koran, written in his blood, is really out there.

Amazing the amount of twisting some do in their efforts to try to make what they think, is a point!

On the one hand, they say Saddam was a dictator madman, and a liar, while at the same time, they subscribe to this ridiculous lie, promoted by lyig dictator Saddam himself, and witnessed by those whose heads he would have cut off, if they didn't support this absurd lie that he had the Koran written in his blood!

BWA HA HA HA...this is surely one for the books. No documentation. No rationale. No point!

The usual....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

sack316
12-01-2010, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 11-28-10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't say I was always against it, Sack...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 12-1-10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did not ever wind up supporting the Iraqi invasion...NEVER,

Bump? What say you, Sack? </div></div>

What says Sack now? Sack says now you can't seem to consistently recall your own stance over a three day period... much less 8+years ago.

Of course I'm sure the next response will be:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FUTURE Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> saying I wasn't always against it isn't the same as saying I was never for it. You're chery picking again, Sack. Taking my own words and using them to contradict my own words is not fair, not fair at all</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Think this might reduce your M.O. of taking thhings out of context?</div></div>

Coming from someone who takes statements from a comedic fundraising dinner and uses them as serious quotations, your charge of lack of context means nothing to me.

Sack

LWW
12-01-2010, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who would believe this BS story, from Saddam, about the Koran, written in his blood, is really out there.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Grade A Bravo Sierra sweetie.

The story isn't "FROM SADDAM" ... it's from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Blair is an award winning writer who has won numerous awards and exposed the treachery of Robert Mugabe and George Galloway as well as Saddam al Husayn al Tikriti.

The Daily Telegraph has been one of the UK's leading papers since 1855.

You have truly sunk to new depths, along with Snoopy and Stretchandfetchit, in defending Saddamite Hussinsein as a non madman.

LWW

LWW
12-01-2010, 11:28 AM
For those who choose to bury their collectivist heads in the burning sands ... the BBC reported the same story:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Saddam Hussein has taken delivery of a copy of the Koran written using his own blood.
Iraqi TV and newspapers reported that the Iraqi leader had the volume produced in thanks to God for bringing him safely through many "conspiracies and dangers" in his long political career.


Saddam Hussein examines the special-edition holy book
"My life has been full of dangers in which I should have lost a lot of blood...but since I have bled only a little, I asked somebody to write God's words with my blood in gratitude," President Saddam Hussein said in a letter published in the official media. </div></div>
OH DEAR! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/941490.stm) The Beeb must be really out there.

LWW

LWW
12-01-2010, 11:31 AM
For those who choose to bury their collectivist heads in the burning sands ... CBS News reported the same story:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan reports, it is a Muslim house of prayer, but it also stands as Saddam's monument to war.

Four of its minarets resemble the barrels of Kalashnikov rifles. Another four look like Scud missiles, and the similarities are not a mistake.

It's called the mosque of the "Mother of all Battles." Saddam Hussein watched it rise from the day the ground was broken on his birthday.

He spared no expense. The reflecting pool rings the dome in the shape of the Arab world. In the middle there is a monument of Saddam's thumbprint with his initials set in gold.

But it is what is beneath one towering minaret that speaks the most of Saddam's passion for immortalizing himself.

Behind an ornate door in an inner sanctum are 650 pages of the Holy Koran, said to be penned in Saddam's own blood.</div></div>
OH MY! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/17/eveningnews/main537051.shtml) According to Gee we can no longer trust CBS News.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 11-28-10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't say I was always against it, Sack...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD 12-1-10</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I did not ever wind up supporting the Iraqi invasion...NEVER,

Bump? What say you, Sack? </div></div>

What says Sack now? Sack says now you can't seem to consistently recall your own stance over a three day period... much less 8+years ago.

Of course I'm sure the next response will be:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: FUTURE Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> saying I wasn't always against it isn't the same as saying I was never for it. You're chery picking again, Sack. Taking my own words and using them to contradict my own words is not fair, not fair at all</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Think this might reduce your M.O. of taking thhings out of context?</div></div>

Coming from someone who takes statements from a comedic fundraising dinner and uses them as serious quotations, your charge of lack of context means nothing to me.

Sack </div></div>
<span style="color: #990000">From your original quote... </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns,

</div></div>

You're the one who brought up this outdated statement, and made it into some kind of new accusation, against Q, and I, and I am simply asking you, why you have twisted my own statements, to suit yourself?

And additionally, asking you why you completely neglected this quote above, which to most reasonable people, would indicate, that I never, in fact, wound up approving of, nor ever approved of invading Iraq, on Bush's lies, and even before I was sure that he lied,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns,

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Obviously, I knew it was in him to lie about it...or I wouldn't have written the above...</span><span style="color: #990000">according to your own highlighted misconsctued post, and inaccurate translation and false accusation.</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Coming from someone who takes statements from a comedic fundraising dinner and uses them as serious quotations, your charge of lack of context means nothing to me.

</div></div>

I<span style="color: #990000"> have no idea what your talking about here, but I'll be happy to address it, if you can make it clear enough to be addressed.</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What says Sack now? Sack says now you can't seem to consistently recall your own stance over a three day period... much less 8+years ago.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Another convolution on your part. Are you so eager to attack, Yet ignore what I wrote, in advance, which you can clearly see in your own original quote, of my words, that I included stipulations, which in fact, it tunred out later, my concerns that Bush was lying about the reason for the invasion, were clearly right on target...</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns,

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Hence, your entire point, is not a point, after all. AND I never approved of Bush invading Iraq....under the conditions prevailing..... prevailoing conditions, which I obviously anticipated, but which were hidden from the public, at the time of my written material, quoted by none other than you.</span>
G.

LWW
12-01-2010, 11:37 AM
For those who choose to bury their collectivist heads in the burning sands ... MSNBC News reported the same story:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was through this romantic haze that I saw Saddam, who I believe also fancied himself a natural heir to Iraq’s grandiose rulers. He rebuilt the ruins of Babylon and stamped his initials on every brick. He commissioned a Koran handwritten in his own blood. Saddam’s word was law.</div></div>

OH NO! ETTU MSNBC! (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24892574/ns/today-books/)

When will they learn, when will they ever learn.

LWW

sack316
12-01-2010, 11:44 AM
lol, how do you say I misquoted you... when the evidence you use to say I misquoted you came from where I quoted you??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

And to use another wayback quote:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we still have to get that maniac out of there in order to give the people of Iraq the opportunity for freedom and democracy, and protect them from him. </div></div>

This would have been done how? Asking nicely? Or forcibly removing him? Answer honestly.


And the part you did not know what I was talking about was the "some people call you elitists, I call you my base" quote you used.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lol, how do you say I misquoted you... when the evidence you use to say I misquoted you came from where I quoted you??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns,

</div></div>
<span style="color: #990000">
Apparently you can't remember your original accusation, from three days ago?</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

And to use another wayback quote:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we still have to get that maniac out of there in order to give the people of Iraq the opportunity for freedom and democracy, and protect them from him. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> Clearly, that would have been the only reputable or responsible cause for invading. Clearly, my excerpt from your original quote, proves that I was leary of Bush's statements to justify an invasion. Clearly, given my stipulation, I was not approvoing of invading, at all, since we now know, that the Iraqi people, were not the reason for the invasion, at all, and we know that I stiuplated, no support, for going in for any other reason.</span>

This would have been done how? Asking nicely? Or forcibly removing him? Answer honestly.

<span style="color: #990000">
Do you actually think the United States has never endeavored to remove a dictator, in any other way, save invasion of the country?

Pahleeeze!

Also, not that you will want to accept this, but during that same period, I also stated that if we were going to invade any country, it should be Darfur...where an actual genocide was going on. I wrote other posts as well, stating that Bush shouldn't even talk about WMD, but any invasion, should be clearly for humanitarian purposes. Also said that invading Middle East Copuntries, was reckless policy. There were a range of statements I made way back then...apparently, those didn't serve your pusposes?</span>

And the part you did not know what I was talking about was the "some people call you elitists, I call you my base" quote you used.
[color:#99000I think he meant what he was saying. I think there was a great deal of truth in Bush's statement....and it remains to be true for the entire Republican party, to this day, as well....I've also posted a link before, to that very clip, showing where he was when he said it....no intent on my part, to decieve anyone....[/color]

Sack </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
12-01-2010, 12:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This would have been done how? Asking nicely? Or forcibly removing him? Answer honestly. </div></div>


Do you actually think the United States has never endeavored to remove a dictator, in any other way, save invasion of the country?

Pahleeeze! </div></div>

If I may borrow from you one of your favorite terms "situation prevailing"? Under the situation prevailing, do you think there was any way to remove him from power, other than by force?

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-01-2010, 01:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This would have been done how? Asking nicely? Or forcibly removing him? Answer honestly. </div></div>


Do you actually think the United States has never endeavored to remove a dictator, in any other way, save invasion of the country?

Pahleeeze! </div></div>

If I may borrow from you one of your favorite terms "situation prevailing"? Under the situation prevailing, do you think there was any way to remove him from power, other than by force?

Sack </div></div>

Well, frankly, Sack, I don't think he should have been the focus, at all, in the first place, while there was a raging genocide going on in Darfer. I also think our focus should have remained on Afghanitan, and smashing al Qaeda, and getting bin Laden.

But the United States has been involved in regmime change, a number of times, through other efforts, a number of times, without any invasions.

I'm sure you ae aware of that.

The first thing we should have done, if regime change had been our desire, is secretly arm the Kurds.

Also I'm sure since there were many in that arena, who would perform suicide attacks, in order to secure money for their families, we could have located enough of them to wipe out Saddam and his entire family.

Look what we did long ago, Inj Chile...

There are ways, ways which would have been far less devastating to our country, and in which allies would have engaged with us to get him, and his family, out.

I really don't think it would have been that difficult, so many hated him.

But, as I say, the real purpose was the oil fields, and the contracts for the American Oil and energy industry, so in that instance, obviously, simply removing saddam, would not have sufficed, for the Bush Administration.

IMO, stealing the resources of another country, is not an appropriate cause for which to send our kids in to die and be maimed. Surely it is an act of the worst kind of filth I can imagine, to send them in to line the pockets of corporations with profits. That just makes me sick.


As you know, I believe that nobody wins, in wars. In the case of Iraq, the only winners will be the American Oil and Energy corporations. That country is now totally trashed. So many dead and horribly crippled, and injured, hundreds of thousands, some calculate millions upon millions, of refugees.

Iraqis were pleading with us to get out of there within a year of the invasion. Seventy percent of them, IIRC, asking us to get out.

If you can find the time, this movie, "The Shock Doctrine" which I have found, Shocking, lol, but, honestly, it would give you a lot of info on what can be done, and has been done, historically, to remove dictatorial regimes, not all of it a pretty sight, admittedly, but it does expose a lot of tactics for just that, without any occupations, lots of which I wasn't aware.

They are still killing one another off in Iraq.

It was a huge mistake, IMO.

G.

LWW
12-02-2010, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone who would believe this BS story, from Saddam, about the Koran, written in his blood, is really out there.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif </div></div>

Grade A Bravo Sierra sweetie.

The story isn't "FROM SADDAM" ... it's from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Blair is an award winning writer who has won numerous awards and exposed the treachery of Robert Mugabe and George Galloway as well as Saddam al Husayn al Tikriti.

The Daily Telegraph has been one of the UK's leading papers since 1855.

You have truly sunk to new depths, along with Snoopy and Stretchandfetchit, in defending Saddamite Hussinsein as a non madman.

LWW </div></div>

Bump so Snoopy and Gee can apologize to Mr Blair, the Daily Relegraph, and El Dub Dub.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-04-2010, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">without trying to belabor the point about Libby, using David Corn in a publication called 'The Smirking Chimp' as a valid source is questionable. Rebutting this 'evidence' is a column by Christopher Hitchens, a highly respected author in Slate.com, and neither Hitchens or Slate can be accused of having a RW bias.

http://www.slate.com/id/2168642/ </div></div>

BULL! DELAY WAS A CROOK!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tom DeLay



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23rd Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives
In office
January 3, 2003 – September 28, 2005
Speaker Dennis Hastert
Whip Roy Blunt
Preceded by Dick Armey
Succeeded by Roy Blunt (Interim)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21st Republican Whip of the United States House of Representatives
In office
1995–2003
Preceded by Newt Gingrich
Succeeded by Roy Blunt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of House
Republican Conference
In office
1993–1995
Preceded by Vin Weber
Succeeded by Barbara Vucanovich

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Texas's 22nd congressional district
In office
January 3, 1985 – June 9, 2006 (resigned)
Preceded by Ron Paul
Succeeded by Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member of the Texas House of Representatives,
21st District (Sugar Land)
In office
1979–1983
Preceded by Joe A. Hubenak
Succeeded by Mark Stiles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member of the Texas
House of Representatives,
26th District (Sugar Land)
In office
1983–1985
Preceded by Jack R. Hawkins
Succeeded by Jim Tallas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Born April 8, 1947 (1947-04-08) (age 63)
Laredo, Texas
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Christine Furrh DeLay
Residence Sugar Land, Texas
Alma mater University of Houston
Profession Small business owner,
Pest control
Religion Baptist
Thomas Dale "Tom" DeLay (pronounced /dəˈleɪ/; born April 8, 1947) is a former member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1984 until 2006. He was Republican Party (GOP) House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005, when he resigned because of criminal money laundering charges in a campaign finance investigation for which he was convicted on November 24, 2010.[1]

Tom DeLay began his career as a politician in 1978 when he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives. In 1985, he became a born-again Christian. In 1988, after just a few years in the U.S. House, Tom DeLay was appointed Deputy Minority Whip. In 1994 he helped Newt Gingrich effect the Republican Revolution, which gave the Republicans the victory in the 1994 midterm election and swept Democrats from power in both houses of Congress, putting Republicans in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. In 1995, he was elected House Majority Whip.

With the Republicans in control of both chambers in Congress, Tom DeLay, along with Gingrich and conservative activist Grover Norquist, helped start the K Street Project, an effort to advance Republican ideals. Tom DeLay was elected House Majority Leader after the 2002 midterm elections. In the eyes of some Democrats, he was renowned for his enforcement of party discipline and retribution against those who did not support the legislative agenda of President George W. Bush. On policy issues, not just political strategy and tactics, DeLay was known as one of Capitol Hill's fiercest, staunchest conservatives during his years in Congress, earning very high marks from conservative interest groups (e.g., business, gun rights, pro-life) and very low marks from liberal ones (e.g., civil liberties, labor unions, environmental protection).

Since leaving Congress, DeLay has co-authored (with Stephen Mansfield) a political memoir, No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight, founded a strategic conservative political consulting firm, First Principles, LLC, and competed on the ninth season of Dancing with the Stars, until stress fractures in his feet caused him to withdraw. DeLay made political news when he became perhaps the most famous Republican yet to promote the "birther" conspiracy theory about President Barack Obama. DeLay also remains involved in foster care, as he and his wife have founded a "Christ-centered" foster community called "Rio Bend", near Richmond, Texas. The DeLays formerly fostered three teenage boys, and have one grown daughter of their own, Danielle, a professional dancer.

Contents [hide]
1 Early life and education
2 Personal life
3 Early private sector career
4 Political career
4.1 Local politics
4.2 Early Congressional career
4.3 Majority Whip
4.4 Majority Leader
4.4.1 Legislative and electoral methods
5 Controversies
5.1 Money laundering convictions
5.2 Contributions from Russian oil executives
5.3 The K Street Project
5.4 Cuban cigar photo
5.5 Misuse of federal investigative agencies
5.6 Terri Schiavo
5.7 Settlement in civil suit
5.8 Jack Abramoff scandal
6 Political positions
6.1 Domestic policy
6.2 Foreign policy
7 Electoral history
7.1 Investigation of Texas fundraising and indictments
7.2 2006 campaign
8 Life after Congress
8.1 Blog and book
8.2 Dancing with the Stars
8.2.1 Sara Evans campaign and controversy in Season Three
8.2.2 Participation in Season Nine
8.3 Discussion of "birther" conspiracy theory
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links


[edit] Early life and education
DeLay was born in Laredo, Texas. He spent most of his childhood in Venezuela due to his father's work in the petroleum and natural gas industry.[2] He attended Calallen High School in Corpus Christi, Texas where he both played football and was the lead dancer in school productions.[3] He attended Baylor University for two years, majoring in pre-med, but was expelled for drinking and painting Baylor school colors on a building at rival Texas A&M University.[2] The Washington Post reported that DeLay obtained student deferments from military service while in college and that he received a high draft lottery number in 1969 which ensured that he would not be drafted for the Vietnam War. DeLay graduated from the University of Houston in 1970 with a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in biology.[2]

[edit] Personal life
DeLay married Christine Furrh, whom he had known since high school, in 1967. In 1972, the DeLays had a daughter, Danielle, who is now a professional dancer.[4]

During his time in the Texas Legislature, DeLay struggled with alcoholism and gained a reputation as a playboy, earning the nickname "Hot Tub Tom". By the time of his election to Congress in 1984 he was drinking "eight, ten, twelve martinis a night at receptions and fundraisers."[5] However, in 1985 DeLay became a born-again Christian, and later gave up hard liquor. Of the Rev. Ken Wilde, an evangelical minister from Idaho who founded the National Prayer Center in Washington, D.C., which houses volunteers who come to the capital to pray for the nation's leaders, DeLay said, "This is the man who really saved me. When I was going through my troubles, it was Ken who really stepped up." Of his conversion, DeLay said, "I had put my needs first . . . I was on the throne, not God. I had pushed God from His throne." In criticizing Newt Gingrich for secretly having an affair with a staffer while Gingrich, as House Speaker, was simultaneously impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, DeLay said, "I don’t think that Newt could set a high moral standard, a high moral tone, during that moment.... You can’t do that if you’re keeping secrets about your own adulterous affairs." Differentiating between Gingrich's adultery and his own admitted adultery, DeLay said, "I was no longer committing adultery by that time, the impeachment trial. There’s a big difference.... I had returned to Christ and repented my sins by that time.[6]

DeLay declined to comment on a 1999 report in The New Yorker that he was estranged from much of his family, including his mother and one of his brothers.[7] As of 2001, DeLay had not spoken to his younger brother, Randy, a Houston lobbyist, since 1996, when a complaint to the House Ethics Committee prompted Tom DeLay to state that he cut his brother off in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.[5]

In 1994, Christine DeLay began volunteering as a court-appointed special advocate for abused and neglected children in foster care, and soon thereafter, the DeLays became foster parents to three teenage boys. In 2005, Christine and Tom DeLay founded Rio Bend, a "Christ-centered" foster care community in Richmond, Texas,[8] that cares for abused and neglected children "as an answer to problems they felt plagued the current foster care system," according to the Rio Bend website, which continues, "The DeLays developed Rio Bend’s vision based on Christine’s time spent as a special advocate, as well as their experiences together as therapeutic foster parents."[8]

In August 2009, it was reported that they own two Bichon frisé dogs named Bailey and Taylor.[3]

[edit] Early private sector career
After graduating from college, DeLay spent three years at pesticide-maker Redwood Chemical[2] and then purchased Albo Pest Control which DeLay grew into a large and successful business. This work was the source for his nickname, "the Exterminator." In the eleven years DeLay ran the company, the Internal Revenue Service imposed three tax liens on him for failure to pay payroll and income taxes.[5] The United States Environmental Protection Agency's ban on Mirex, a pesticide that was used in extermination work, led DeLay to oppose government regulation of businesses, a belief that he has carried with him throughout his political career.[9]

[edit] Political career
[edit] Local politics
In 1978, DeLay won the election for an open seat in the Texas House of Representatives. He was the first Republican to represent Fort Bend County in the state House.

DeLay ran for Congress in 1984 from the 22nd District, after fellow Republican Ron Paul decided to run in the Republican primary for the 1984 U.S. Senate race instead of for reelection (Paul subsequently returned to Congress from a neighboring district). He easily won a crowded six-way primary with 53 percent of the vote, and cruised to election in November. DeLay was one of six freshmen Republican congressmen elected from Texas in 1984 known as the Texas Six Pack. He was reelected 10 times, never facing substantive opposition in what had become a solidly Republican district.

[edit] Early Congressional career
As a member of the Republican minority in the 1980s, DeLay made a name for himself by criticizing the National Endowment for the Arts and the Environmental Protection Agency. During his first term in Congress, DeLay was appointed to the Republican Committee on Committees, which assigned representatives to House committees, and in his second term, he was appointed to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, a position that he retained until his election as Majority Leader in 2003. He was reappointed to the committee in 2006 after leaving his position as Majority Leader. He also served for a time as chairman of a group of conservative House Republicans known as the Republican Study Committee, and as Secretary of the House Republican Conference.

DeLay was appointed as a deputy Republican whip in 1988.

[edit] Majority Whip
When the Republican Party gained control of the House in 1995 following the 1994 election, or so-called "Republican Revolution", DeLay was elected Majority Whip against the wishes of House Speaker-elect Newt Gingrich.

DeLay was not always on good terms with Gingrich or Dick Armey, the House Majority Leader from 1995 to 2003, and he reportedly considered them uncommitted to Christian values. In 1997 DeLay unsuccessfully tried to remove Gingrich from his position as Speaker. Nevertheless, in the heyday of the 104th Congress (1995–1997), DeLay described the Republican leadership as a triumvirate of Gingrich, "the visionary"; Armey, "the policy wonk"; and himself, "the ditch digger who makes it all happen".[10]

As Majority Whip, DeLay earned the nickname "The Hammer" for his enforcement of party discipline in close votes and his reputation for wreaking political vengeance on opponents. DeLay has expressed a liking for his nickname, pointing out that the hammer is one of a carpenter's most valuable tools.[11] In the 104th Congress, DeLay successfully whipped 300 out of 303 bills.[12]

In 1998, DeLay worked to ensure that the House vote on impeaching President Bill Clinton was successful.[5] DeLay rejected efforts to censure Clinton, who, DeLay said, had lied under oath.[13] DeLay believed that the U.S. Constitution allowed the House to punish the president only through impeachment. He called on Clinton to resign and personally compelled enough House members to vote to approve two articles of impeachment.[13][14] The American public, however, soured on the Republican drive for impeachment, and Republicans paid the price at the polls during the 1998 congressional "midterm" election, as the GOP sustained a net loss of five seats to Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Newt Gingrich, whose approval as Speaker, both in the Congress and in the public eye, had already greatly suffered due to his polarizing political style and a formal House reprimand and $300,000 fine for political ethics violations, was widely blamed for the political failure of impeachment and the House losses by Republicans in the 1998 midterms and during the 1996 general election as well. Facing the second major attempt in as many years by House Republicans, including DeLay, to oust him as Speaker, Gingrich announced he would resign from Congress. Following Gingrich's announcement, Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston of Louisiana became the presumptive Speaker-elect until December 1998, when, during House debate over its still-ongoing impeachment proceedings, he admitted to extramarital affairs himself and withdrew his name from consideration as Speaker. Armey was out of the running after fending off a bruising challenge to his majority leader's post from Steve Largent of Oklahoma, and DeLay, as the third-ranking House Republican, appeared to have the inside track to the Speakership. However DeLay decided that he would be "too nuclear" to lead the closely divided House that had resulted from the Republican House losses in 1996 and 1998. So instead DeLay proposed his chief vote-counter, Chief Deputy Whip Dennis Hastert, as a compromise candidate, since Hastert had very good relations on both sides of the aisle. As Congress reconvened in January 1999, Hastert was elected House Speaker, and DeLay was reelected House Majority Whip.[15]

[edit] Majority Leader
After serving as his party's Whip for eight years, DeLay was elected Majority Leader upon the retirement of Dick Armey in 2003. His tenure as Majority Leader was marked by strong Republican party discipline and by parliamentary and redistricting efforts to preserve Republican control of the House.

After being indicted on September 28, 2005, DeLay stepped down from his position as Majority Leader. He was the first congressional leader ever to be indicted.[16] Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri took over as acting leader.[17] On January 7, 2006, after weeks of growing pressure from Republican colleagues, and particularly from Reps. Charlie Bass and Jeff Flake,[18] who wanted to avoid being associated with DeLay's legal issues in an election year, DeLay announced that he would not seek to regain his position as Majority Leader.

[edit] Legislative and electoral methods
DeLay was known to "primary" Republicans who resisted his votes (i.e., to threaten to endorse and to support a Republican primary challenge to the disobedient representative),[19] and, like many of his predecessors in Congress, used promises of future committee chairmanships to bargain for support among the rank-and-file members of the party.[citation needed]

Employing a method known as "catch and release," DeLay allowed centrist or moderately conservative Republicans to take turns voting against controversial bills. If a representative said that a bill was unpopular in his district, then DeLay would ask him to vote for it only if his vote were necessary for passage; if his vote were not needed, then the representative would be able to vote against the party without reprisal.[citation needed]

In the 108th Congress, a preliminary Medicare vote passed 216-215, a vote on Head Start passed 217-216, a vote on school vouchers for Washington, D.C. passed 209-208, and "Fast track", usually called "trade promotion authority", passed by one vote as well. Both political supporters and opponents remarked on DeLay's ability to sway the votes of his party, a method DeLay described as "growing the vote".

DeLay was also noted for involving lobbyists in the process of passing House bills. One lobbyist said, "I've had members pull me aside and ask me to talk to another member of Congress about a bill or amendment, but I've never been asked to work on a bill — at least like they are asking us to whip bills now."[20]

DeLay's ability to raise money gave him additional influence. During the 2004 election cycle, DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC was one of the top contributors to Republican congressional candidates, contributing over $980,000 in total.[21] Partly as a result of DeLay's management abilities, the House Republican caucus under him displayed unprecedented, sustained party cohesion.[22]

On September 30, 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay because he "offered to endorse Representative [Nick] Smith's son in exchange for Representative Smith's vote in favor of the Medicare bill."[23]

[edit] Controversies
[edit] Money laundering convictions
On October 3, 2005, a Travis County, Texas, Grand Jury indicted Tom DeLay on a felony conspiracy charge to move $190,000 in corporate donations to Republican candidates in the Texas State Legislature in 2002.[24] On October 20, 2005, Tom DeLay turned himself in to the Harris County Sheriff Office, one day after an arrest warrant was issued.[24] He was released after posting a $10,000 bond.[25] On November 24, 2010, DeLay was found guilty by a jury in Austin (Travis County), Texas, of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.[26] The court tentatively set sentencing for December 20, 2010.[26] DeLay's lead attorney has said that he will appeal the convictions.[27] As a convicted felon Delay would never again be eligible to run for public office in Texas nor would he be able to vote in Texas until he completes any sentence, including probation and parole.[28]

[edit] Contributions from Russian oil executives
In December 2005, the Washington Post reported that, in 1998, a group of Russian oil executives had given money to a nonprofit advocacy group run by a former DeLay staffer and funded by clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, in an attempt to influence DeLay's vote on an International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy.[29] Associates of DeLay advisor Ed Buckham, the founder of the U.S. Family Network, said that executives from the oil firm Naftasib had offered a donation of $1,000,000 to be delivered to a Washington, D.C.-area airport in order to secure DeLay's support. On June 25, 1998, the U.S. Family Network received a $1 million check via money transferred through the London law firm James & Sarch Co. This payment was the largest single entry on U.S. Family Network's donor list. The original source of the donation was not recorded.[30] DeLay denied that the payment had influenced his vote. Naftasib denied that it had made the payment and that it had ever been represented by James & Sarch Co. The now-dissolved law firm's former partners declined to comment due to "confidentiality requirements".

[edit] The K Street Project
See also: K Street Project
DeLay's involvement with the lobbying industry included a pointed effort on the part of the Republican Party to parlay the Congressional majority into dominance of K Street, the lobbying district of Washington, D.C. DeLay, Senator Rick Santorum, and Grover Norquist launched a campaign in 1995 encouraging lobbying firms to retain only Republican officials in top positions. Firms that had Democrats in positions of authority, DeLay suggested, would not be granted the ear of majority party members.

In 1999, DeLay was privately reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee after he pulled an intellectual property rights bill off the House floor when the Electronics Industries Alliance hired a former Democratic Congressman, Dave McCurdy.[31]

Firms initially responded to the campaign, but it waned during 2004, when the possibility of Senator John Kerry's winning the presidency gave lobbying firms some incentive to hire Democrats.[32]

[edit] Cuban cigar photo
DeLay has long been a strong critic of Cuban leader Fidel Castro's regime, which DeLay has called a "thugocracy", and a supporter of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. However, in April 2005, Time Magazine published a photo from a government-funded July 2003 trip to Israel, in which DeLay is seen smoking a Cuban cigar.[33] The consumption or purchase of Cuban cigars is illegal in the United States (but was, at the time, legal for U.S. citizens abroad). Since September 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department's enforcement of the law has been toughened to forbid consumption (smoking) or purchase of Cuban cigars by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world.[34]

[edit] Misuse of federal investigative agencies
During the Texas redistricting warrant controversy, several Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives went to Oklahoma to prevent the House from establishing a quorum of members, thereby preventing the House from acting on any legislation, including a proposed redistricting plan. Although not a member of the Texas legislature, DeLay became involved, by contacting several federal agencies in order to determine the location of the missing legislators. DeLay's staff contacted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for assistance in tracking down a plane that one of the legislators was flying to Oklahoma, an action that the FAA believed to be a result of safety concerns about the aircraft.[35] A review by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that a total of thirteen FAA employees spent more than eight hours searching for the airplane.[36] Members of DeLay's staff asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to arrest the missing Democrats. The FBI dismissed Delay's and his staff's request as "wacko".[35] DeLay also contacted United States Marshal and United States Attorney's offices in Texas, as well as the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, an agency that deals with smuggling and terrorism.[37]

U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) requested an investigation into DeLay's involvement in the requests, and asked that any White House involvement be reported. The House Ethics Committee admonished DeLay for improper use of FAA resources, and for involving federal agencies in a matter that should have been resolved by Texas authorities.[38]

[edit] Terri Schiavo
See also: Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case
DeLay called the Terri Schiavo case "one of my proudest moments in Congress."[6] DeLay made headlines for his role in helping lead federal intervention in the matter. On Palm Sunday weekend in March 2005, several days after the brain-damaged Florida woman's feeding tube was disconnected for the third time, the House met in emergency session to pass a bill allowing Schiavo's parents to petition a federal judge to review the removal of the feeding tube. DeLay called the removal of the feeding tube "an act of barbarism." DeLay faced accusations of hypocrisy from critics when the Los Angeles Times revealed that he had consented to ending life support for his father, who had been in a comatose state because of a debilitating accident in 1988.[39]

DeLay was accused of endorsing violence in the wake of a series of high-profile violent crimes and death threats against judges when he said, "The men responsible [for Terri Schiavo's death] will have to answer to their behavior." DeLay's comments came soon after the February 28, 2005, homicide of the mother and husband of Chicago Judge Joan Lefkow, and the March 11, 2005, killing of Atlanta Judge Rowland Barnes. DeLay's opponents accused him of rationalizing violence against judges when their decisions were unpopular with the public. Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, said that DeLay's comments were "irresponsible and could be seen by some as justifying inexcusable conduct against our courts."[40] DeLay publicly apologized for the remark after being accused of threatening the Supreme Court.

[edit] Settlement in civil suit
In early 1999, The New Republic picked up a story, first reported by Houston-area alternative weeklies, alleging that DeLay had committed perjury during a civil lawsuit brought against him by a former business partner in 1994.

The plaintiff in that suit, Robert Blankenship, charged that DeLay and a third partner in Albo Pest Control had breached the partnership agreement by trying to force him out of the business without buying him out. Blankenship filed suit, charging DeLay and the other partner with breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, wrongful termination, and loss of corporate expectancy. While being deposed in that suit, DeLay claimed that he did not think that he was an officer or director of Albo and that he believed that he had resigned two or three years previously.[5] However, his congressional disclosure forms, including one filed subsequent to the deposition, stated that he was either president or chairman of the company between 1985 and 1994. Blankenship also alleged that Albo money had been spent on DeLay's congressional campaigns, in violation of federal and state law.

DeLay and Blankenship settled for an undisclosed sum. Blankenship's attorney said that had he known about the congressional disclosure forms, he would have referred the case to the Harris County district attorney's office for a perjury prosecution. DeLay has never been charged with a crime in connection with this case.[citation needed]

[edit] Jack Abramoff scandal
See also: Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal
DeLay was the target of the Justice Department investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's actions. Abramoff allegedly provided DeLay with trips, gifts, and political donations in exchange for favors to Abramoff's lobbying clients, which included the government of the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Internet gambling services, and several Native American tribes.[41] Two of DeLay's former political aides, Tony Rudy and Michael Scanlon, as well as Abramoff himself, pleaded guilty in 2006 to charges relating to the investigation. Political columnist Robert Novak reported that Abramoff "has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors."[42]

According to ABC's 20/20 television program, Abramoff lobbied DeLay to stop legislation banning sex shops and sweatshops that forced employees to have abortions in the Northern Mariana Islands when Abramoff accompanied DeLay on a 1997 trip to the U.S. commonwealth. While on the trip, DeLay promised not to put the bill on the legislative calendar.[43]

In 2000, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a worker reform bill to extend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to the workers in the Northern Mariana Islands. DeLay, then the House Republican Whip, stopped the House from considering the bill.[44] DeLay later blocked a fact-finding mission planned by Rep. Peter Hoekstra by threatening him with the loss of his subcommittee chairmanship.[43]

DeLay received gifts from Abramoff, including paid golfing holidays to Scotland, concert tickets, and the use of Abramoff's private skyboxes for fundraisers. In May 2000, ARMPAC received the free use of one of Abramoff's private skyboxes to host a political fundraiser. At the time, campaign finance laws did not require the use of the skybox, valued at several thousand dollars, to be disclosed or for Abramoff to be reimbursed for its use.[45]

Later that month, the DeLays, Rudy, another aide, and Abramoff took a trip to London and Scotland. Abramoff paid for the airfare for the trip, and lobbyist Ed Buckham paid for expenses at a hotel at St. Andrews golf course in Scotland.[46] Abramoff was reimbursed by The National Center for Public Policy Research, the nonprofit organization that arranged the trip. On the day that the trip began, The National Center received large donations from two of Abramoff's clients, internet lottery service eLottery, Inc., and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Both organizations denied that they had intended to pay for DeLay's trip.[47] House rules forbid members to accept travel expenses from lobbyists, and require that members inquire into the sources of funds that nonprofits use to pay for trips. DeLay denied knowing that lobbyists had paid for travel expenses. In July 2000, DeLay voted against a bill that would have restricted Internet gambling. Both eLottery and the Choctaws opposed the bill.[47] Rudy, who was then DeLay's deputy chief of staff, doomed the bill by engineering a parliamentary maneuver that required a two-thirds majority vote, rather than a simple majority, in order for the bill to pass. Rudy's actions on behalf of Abramoff's clients during this time were mentioned in Abramoff's guilty plea in January 2006.[48]

In January 2006, The Associated Press reported that in 2001, DeLay co-signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft calling for the closure of a casino owned by the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. Two weeks earlier, the Choctaws had donated $1,000 to DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC). A DeLay spokesman denied that the donations had influenced DeLay's actions.[49] Currently, and at the time of the letter, casinos or other private gambling establishments are illegal in Texas, even on Indian reservations.[50]

Scanlon, who became Abramoff's lobbying partner, pleaded guilty in November 2005 to conspiracy charges.[51] Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy charges on January 3, 2006, and agreed to cooperate with the government's investigation. His cooperation may have forced DeLay to abandon his efforts to return to his position as House Majority Leader,[48] a decision that DeLay announced only a few days after Abramoff's plea bargain. Rudy pleaded guilty on March 31, 2006, to illegally acting on Abramoff's behalf in exchange for gifts.[52]

Abramoff referred clients to Ed Buckham's Alexander Strategy Group (ASG), a lobbying firm. In addition, Abramoff clients gave more than $1.5 million to Buckham's U.S. Family Network, which then paid ASG more than $1 million.[53]

From 1998 to 2002, ASG paid Christine DeLay a monthly salary averaging between $3,200 and $3,400. DeLay's attorney, Richard Cullen, initially said the payments were for telephone calls she made periodically to the offices of certain members of Congress seeking the names of their favorite charities, and that she then forwarded that information to Buckham, along with some information about those charities. In early June 2006, Cullen said the payments were also for general political consulting she provided to her husband. In all, Christine DeLay was paid about $115,000 directly by ASG, and got another $25,000 via money put into a retirement account by the firm.[54] Her work with ASG has been the subject of an inquiry by the Department of Justice.[41][55]

In August, 2010, the government ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay's lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen. A state case continued in Texas.[56] DeLay was tried October 26 in Austin, Texas, on charges of money laundering.[57] On November 24, a Texas jury convicted DeLay of money laundering and conspiracy to money launder. He faces prison time of anywhere from two to 20 years for conspiracy and five to 99 years or life for money laundering.[58][59]

[edit] Political positions
[edit] Domestic policy
DeLay was rated a 2.77 out of 100 by the Progressive Punch website for his votes regarding corporate subsidies, government checks on corporate power, human rights and civil liberties, labor rights and environmental policy.[60]

On economic policy, DeLay was rated 95 out of 100 by Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax group, and 95 to 100 by the United States Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business lobby. He received the lowest possible score of 0% from the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest organization of labor unions.[61]

On environmental policy, he earned ratings of zero from the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. He has been a fervent critic of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which he has called the "Gestapo of government".[62]

In the politics of guns, DeLay firmly came down on the side of gun owners rights, loosening gun control laws and opposing stricter controls. He received a grade of "A+" from the National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation's largest pro-gun rights lobby.[5][63]

The American Civil Liberties Union measured that his voting history aligned with their civil liberties platform 0% of the time.[64]

On the issue of immigration, DeLay received the highest possible score of 100% from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an organization that seeks to restrict immigration, both legal and illegal.[65]

On the issue of abortion, DeLay is "pro-life".[5] In 2005, he voted 100% in line with the views of the National Right to Life Committee and 0% with the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League.[66]

In the 1990s, in keeping with his opposition to environmental regulation, DeLay criticized proposals to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which lead to the depletion of the ozone layer. In 1995, DeLay introduced a bill to revoke the CFC ban and to repeal provisions of the Clean Air Act dealing with stratospheric ozone, arguing that the science underlying the ban was debatable.

DeLay opposes the teaching of evolution. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, he entered into the congressional record a statement saying that shootings happened in part "because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup of mud."[67]

In 2001, DeLay defied President George W. Bush when DeLay refused to increase the Earned Income Credit (EIC) tax credit during the congressional battle over Bush's tax cuts for people making between $10,500 and $26,625 a year; when reporters asked DeLay about what he would do about increasing the EIC, DeLay simply stated, "[It] ain't going to happen." When Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer reiterated the president's desire for a low-income tax cut, DeLay retorted, "The last time I checked they [the executive branch] don't have a vote."[68]

In 2003, DeLay blamed Senate Democrats and what he called "BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) environmentalists" for blocking legislative solutions to problems such as the 2003 North America blackout.[69]

DeLay maintained public silence on Houston's 2003 METRORail light rail initiative, though in the past, he had opposed expanding light rail to Houston. Public filings later showed that DeLay had his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC) and his congressional campaign committee sent money to Texans for True Mobility, an organization that advocated against the initiative. The proposal passed by a slim margin.[70] Despite his earlier opposition, following the passage of the initiative, DeLay helped to obtain funding for the light rail program.[71]

In 2004, the House Ethics Committee unanimously admonished DeLay for his actions related to a 2002 energy bill. A Committee memo stated that DeLay "created the appearance that donors were being provided with special access to Representative DeLay regarding the then-pending energy legislation."[72]

In 2005, DeLay, acting against the president's wishes, initiated the "safe harbor" provision for MTBE in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, together with Rep. Joe Barton.[73] This provision would have retroactively protected the makers of the gasoline additive from lawsuits. The provision was dropped from the final bill.

DeLay supported the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Critics of this law argued that it unduly favors creditors over consumers, and noted that the credit card industry spent millions of dollars lobbying in support of the act.[74]

[edit] Foreign policy
DeLay has been a strong supporter of the State of Israel, saying, "The Republican leadership, especially that leadership in the House, has made pro-Israel policy a fundamental component of our foreign policy agenda and it drives the Democrat [sic] leadership crazy — because they just can’t figure out why we do it!"[75] In a 2002 speech, DeLay promised to "use every tool at my disposal to ensure that the Republican Conference, and the House of Representatives, continues to preserve and strengthen America's alliance with the State of Israel."[76]

On a 2003 trip to Israel, DeLay toured the nation and addressed members of the Knesset. His opposition to land concessions is so strong that Aryeh Eldad, the deputy of Israel's conservative National Union party, remarked, "As I shook his hand, I told Tom DeLay that until I heard him speak, I thought I was farthest to the right in the Knesset."[77] Former Mossad chief Danny Yatom said "The Likud is nothing compared to this guy."[78]

In 2005, in a snub to the Bush administration, DeLay was the "driving force behind the rejection of direct aid" to the Palestinian Authority. The deal was "brokered" by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In the wake of the legislation, some Jewish leaders expressed concern "about the degree to which the Texas Republican, an evangelical Christian who opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, will go to undercut American and Israeli attempts to achieve a two-state solution."[79]

DeLay has long been a strong critic of Cuban leader Fidel Castro's regime, which DeLay has called a "thugocracy", and a supporter of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba.