2012 U.S. Elections

1356710

Comments

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    What WMDs? Where were they found, and what were they? Please tell us all.



    I never claimed they were there. I was merely listings reasons for war.



    Quote:



    How many times does it have to be said that the Bush Administration (alongside the US intelligence community) KNEW FULL WELL that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and had not been since 1991.



    That is horse shit.



    Quote:

    The information was public domain. They agreed that "Iraq's WMDs" was the way to sell the war to an already shocked-and-awed US public; all the other reasons cited in meetings were rejected as unworkable... including "protecting Israel's security" as mentioned at that UV speech by Philip Zelikow in September 2002, some 7 months before the invasion started.



    Right sammi...public domain.



    Quote:





    Oh right. This is clearly garbage. The senior personnel in the Bush Administration, especially Rumsfeld, Armitage, Cheney et al. *knew* Saddam Hussein on a personal basis from the Reagan days. They were buddybuddy when the Reagan Administration supported Saddam Hussein including chemical and biological and conventional weapons, intelligence, logistics, diplomatic support, in their war against Iran, which had done nothing, except "have the wrong government". This was the time when Saddam Hussein was doing his worst atrocities... ie with United States support.



    WTF does that have to do with anything?



    Quote:



    But, this is nothing new... the US Government (largely via its intelligence services) has a decades-long track record in overthrowing democracies all over the world, and enabling thugs all over the world.



    Saddam Hussein was a power crazed egomaniac. He was also a secularist, being only nominally Muslim.. and referred to Islamists as "zealots" and "insane".The *last* thing he would ever do, would be to endanger his position by delegating some of that power to characters who might just assassinate him when his head was turned the other way. And Islamic militant leaders hated Saddam Hussein, typically referring to him as "an infidel".



    Now hold on...are you saying that he would not tolerate terrorism of ANY kind? I never said he's hand it off to AQ, sammi. The point is we saw the risk after 9/11 occurred.



    Quote:







    There was never a true ceasefire in 1991. Targets all over Iraq - not limited to the 'no fly zone' were fair game from 1991 onwards.



    Yes, the big, bad US bombed poor Iraq for 12 years. We just couldn't stop attacking them! You should hear yourself.



    Quote:







    Good lord! A conservative suddenly starts quoting UNSC resolutions. Hey, since when were the UN considered so goddamned important? The organization quoted by so many right wingers as "trying to undermine US Sovereignty?" And while on the topic, Israel have been in violation of more UNSC Resolutions than many people have had hot dinners. At the last count, 52 violations of specific UNSC Resolutions. I guess pointing out such flagrant duplicity makes me a "Jew hater" or "Holocaust Denier"? If there was ever a rogue state.....



    Clearly UN resolutions are only supposed to apply to the US and Israel. And clearly those resolutions are the same as the ones applied to Iraq and Iran.



    Quote:



    I suppose you believe all the claptrap cooked up by the Kuwatis.. such as the stuff, broadcast at nauseam by the US corporate weasel-media about the "Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and letting them die on the cold hospital floor". People still believe this stuff... Had to quote a liberal media source there, because the conservative-oriented mainstream press has never issued corrections and rebuttals.



    Let me know where I can find that.



    Quote:





    As I mentioned before, that is the angle that the Bush team selected: it was the only one that achieved full consensus, and because it injected fear and terror into the minds of a large segment of the American public, right on the back of 9/11. The mass-broadcast lies about Iraq's "WMDs" and their "ability to strike at 45 minutes notice", was a clear example of state and media sponsored 2nd degree terrorism.



    The Bush team decided to go to war against Iraq (and Afghanistan, and up to 7 other mid east nations) in January 2001, some 8 months prior to 9/11. It was a done deal, WMDs or no WMDs.



    Prove it. Prove it with something other than "Cheney said 9/11 in the same sentence with Iraq!"
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Prove it. Prove it with something other than "Cheney said 9/11 in the same sentence with Iraq!"



    Ah, plausible deniability. The staple of the right wing mindset. Yum.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That is horse shit. Right sammi...public domain.



    After the "sensitive' documents were obtained by Cambridge University researcher Glen Rangwala on February 26, 2003, detailing the history of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear program, it certainly was public domain. I read it myself a few days after it was published. Much of this report was centered around the testimony of the late Iraqi defector Kamal Hussein (Saddam's son in law), who was in charge of Iraq's weapons programs and infrastructure.



    K. Hussein's testimony was quoted by the Bush Administration as the main source of intelligence that Iraq still possessed WMDs. Unfortunately for the US and the rest of the world, the Bush Administration cherry-picked K. Hussein's testimony, in that they only quoted the estimated quantities of chemical and biological agents that Iraq had in stock in 1990/1991, prior to and shortly after the Gulf War... and told the American people and the rest of the world that these weapons still existed in Iraq.



    What Bush Corp ignored, was that their star witness, K. Hussein categorically stated that Iraq had also destroyed all of its stocks of chemical and biological weapons. The UNSCOM inspection team had repeatedly searched every site specified in intelligence reports, and found nothing, in the weeks running up to the invasion.



    Considering that

    (1) Iraq at one point *did* possess huge stocks of WMDs, but never used any, even as a last resort, while being invaded and overwhelmed by a huge coalition in 1991....

    (2) US troops participating in the 2003 were not issued protection against chemical and biological agents by the Pentagon

    (3) the US military failed utterly to make secure the numerous Iraqi weapons dumps in the immediate wake of the invasion...



    .... it also appears that the Pentagon's brass, including Defense Sec. Rumsfeld, were also aware that there were no WMDs, or certainly usable ones, that remained in Iraq.



    And then consider... if the goal was to "disarm Iraq of its biological and chemical weapons", then the most insane way of going about it was to undertake a military invasion, incorporating a "shock and awe" bombing campaign, and a lengthy series of air assaults using smart and dumb bombs, while at the same time, there were over 150,000 US troops, and 10s of thousands of coalition forces on the ground, without any protection against against gas and/or bacterial agents, or nuclear radiation and fall out.



    If there really had been WMDs in Iraq, then one would have logically thought that those at most risk were other mid east nations surrounding that country... such as Iran, Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.... NOT the United States, 10,000 miles away. And logically, the only way of finding them would have been to allow the inspectors to finish their job... which the Bush Administration denied to them, in their haste to drop bombs.



    BushCorp was full of sh¡t. Fabricating evidence, or cherry-picking the convenient stuff is as bad as lying.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Obama campaign reverses stance, urging donations to super PAC:



    Quote:

    President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman.



    Obama campaign manager Jim Messina emailed supporters to formally endorse contributions to Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC founded by Bill Burton, a former White House deputy press secretary.

    "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm," Messina wrote on the campaign's blog. "Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC."



    The decision represents a stark reversal for Obama, who has been among the most vocal critics of these outside political spending groups since the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for the rise of super PACs.



  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Ah, plausible deniability. The staple of the right wing mindset. Yum.



    Wait...I note that saying "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same sentence doesn't show an intent to link the two, and you say it's "plausible deniability?" The burden of proof here is on you. You are the one claiming that the admin deliberately tried to confuse people into believing Iraq was responsible for 9/11. You're going to need a little more than the above to show that.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Obama to hold press conference on Super Tuesday



    Quote:

    The press conference comes just hours before polls close in 10 states deciding which Republican should face Mr. Obama in November.



    Quote:

    Mr. Obama last held a formal press conference October 6, according to records kept by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.



  • bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Nice to see PO functioning as always! I peek in from time to time but have my full of politics over here in Japan, where we are coming up on the one year mark since the quake and tsunami. Things are different here and the main national broadcaster, NHK, carries lots of live broadcasts of the diet proceedings on regular channels without need for a subscription. Yep, anybody with a TV can watch the politicians in their tragic/comedy! What a show! Can only imagine that some C-SPAN programming has been interesting recently. Was the all-male discussion of religious freedom and contraception broadcast? Half the church-going population is female but they were not represented. What a hoot!



    Then there was Rush, brought to an apology by a... a... a... woman!



    Just wondering if you guys think there will be fallout from the Rush's most recent, yet ever more interesting, foot-in-mouth outbreak last week? Did he manage to turn lots of women away from the GOP?



    How does Romney relate to Rush? Bain Capital holds a lot of interest in the radio station, doesn't it? Did George Will get it right? Or Frum?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Then there was Rush, brought to an apology by a... a... a... woman!



    Just wondering if you guys think there will be fallout from the Rush's most recent, yet ever more interesting, foot-in-mouth outbreak last week? Did he manage to turn lots of women away from the GOP?



    I've mostly ignored it because it is nothing more than a well designed wedge issue aimed at firing up single, and largely dependent women about an emotional issue. Anyone with half a brain can see that if a right is fundamental, it ought to be provided directly by the government itself and not by the Catholic Church or any other employer. There have been newspaper articles that note Walmart provides a full month of birth control for $9 a month and many county clinics provide those along with condoms at minimal cost. Basically unless you are willing to knock on their door and hand it to them for free, you are at war with someone's vagina or uterus.



    That said, there is massive hypocrisy that is also easy to expose. Bill Maher, the man who just gave Barack Obama's super-Pac a million dollar donation has called Sarah Palin both a tw*t and a c*nt. Those words are far more offensive and amazingly enough, the left isn't interested in a protest, apology or advertise boycott.



    Intersting don't you think so?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Anyone with half a brain can see that if a right is fundamental, it ought to be provided directly by the government itself and not by the Catholic Church or any other employer.



    The appropriate first question is whether it (free birth control products) is a "right" or not. This point must not be conceded without appropriate debate. This debate has been end-run. The left has jumped to the end and is begging the question on this point. I realize it is in the realm of heresy these days to say that you don't just get to declare something to be a right and then start demanding that everyone else fulfill that right to you...but that's the truth.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    The appropriate first question is whether it (free birth control products) is a "right" or not. This point must not be conceded without appropriate debate. This debate has been end-run. The left has jumped to the end and is begging the question on this point. I realize it is in the realm of heresy these days to say that you don't just get to declare something to be a right and then start demanding that everyone else fulfill that right to you...but that's the truth.



    I agree with you completely. However first they have to stop marching on churches demanding their condoms and morning after pills. After they are marching on government buildings, then they can perhaps begin to question the appropriate role of government. Right now they aren't even in the right playing field.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I agree with you completely. However first they have to stop marching on churches demanding their condoms and morning after pills. After they are marching on government buildings, then they can perhaps begin to question the appropriate role of government. Right now they aren't even in the right playing field.



    Fair point.



    Step one: Come in off the ledge.



    Step two: Let's talk like adult human-beings...which begins with you not self-righteously and unilaterally declaring things rights and demanding I pay for them for you.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    I'm really hoping that perhaps the Republicans can help themselves a bit by grabbing one of the non-Romney's for VP. Newt would clearly be a great asset and choice for that bulldog role.



    WashingtonTimes.com



    Quote:

    Panicked by Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Obama was forced off his game and repeatedly tried to respond, only making matters worse for himself. He stayed true to the Democrats? anti-energy agenda and mocked Republicans for wanting to drill for new oil. This made the president the butt of a joke for Jay Leno on ?The Tonight Show?: Democrats claim that new drilling for oil won?t help us for at least 10 years, but haven?t they been saying that now for more than 10 years?



    Mr. Obama boasts that oil production is up under his administration. True, but only because the president hasn?t yet stopped production on privately owned land. Mr. Gingrich cut right through his profound dishonesty: ?Under President Obama, because he is so anti-American-energy, we have actually had a 40 percent reduction in development of oil offshore, and we have had a 40 percent reduction in the development of oil on federal lands,? Mr. Gingrich pounced. ?So in the area he controls, production is down and the area that is hard at the free enterprise stuff where people get rich, production is up. So he is now claiming credit for the area he can?t control in order to have us think he is actually for what he opposes.?



    Mr. Gingrich reduced the once-confident ?Yes, we can!? 2008 version of Mr. Obama into the backpedaling ?It?s not my fault? 2012 version right before our eyes. A defensive Mr. Obama dissembled: ?We know there?s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight.? Wait, what about that algae?



    Newt had Barack right where he wanted him.



    ?A presidential pen could today sign approval of the Keystone pipeline. That?s 700,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today sign approval to go back to the Gulf of Mexico. That?s about 400,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today approve areas of Alaska that we know have oil.? With three signatures, Mr. Gingrich instructed the president, ?you would have 2.3 million barrels a day of additional energy in the United States. So I would say, we?re not looking for silver bullets. We?re looking for presidential leadership.? Check and checkmate.



    Why is no one else in the field hitting incredibly concise homerun's like this?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I'm really hoping that perhaps the Republicans can help themselves a bit by grabbing one of the non-Romney's for VP. Newt would clearly be a great asset and choice for that bulldog role.



    WashingtonTimes.com







    Why is no one else in the field hitting incredibly concise homerun's like this?



    And what is conveniently overlooked is the fact that a "presidential pen" should not have that much power in the first place.



    Newt as VP would drive people like me further away, as he would be one step away from the Presidency should anything happen to the President. No, thanks.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    And what is conveniently overlooked is the fact that a "presidential pen" should not have that much power in the first place.



    Newt as VP would drive people like me further away, as he would be one step away from the Presidency should anything happen to the President. No, thanks.



    What powers does the President have that you disapprove of?



    As for VP, I don't think Newt is a good idea, but for other reasons. The GOP has an image problem, particularly with younger voters and hispanics. The best choice would be Rubio. He'd pick off some of the hispanics, younger voters and staunch conservatives. I also wouldn't mind seeing Paul Ryan. Santorum is a nut job, and I don't think Paul would accept.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What powers does the President have that you disapprove of?



    Oh dear God. We don't have enough time or space. Let's just say WAY TOO MANY. The federal government has commandeered WAY TOO MANY powers for itself and the president has become way too powerful over time.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Oh dear God. We don't have enough time or space. Let's just say WAY TOO MANY. The federal government has commandeered WAY TOO MANY powers for itself and the president has become way too powerful over time.



    I don't need a comprehensive list. I'm just asking for some "big ones" that you don't like. I agree the feds have too much power...I'm just asking about the President.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I don't need a comprehensive list. I'm just asking for some "big ones" that you don't like. I agree the feds have too much power...I'm just asking about the President.



    Top of the list would be the power to wage war apparently at will now. Next on the list is the newly claimed power to order the murder or US citizens (or really anyone for that matter). I'd also add the executive orders get greatly abused and probably should be curtailed. Signing statements are also bad.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,209member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Top of the list would be the power to wage war apparently at will now.



    That's why we have the War Powers Resolution, though Obama apparently doesn't care much about that. For long operations, a congressional resolution is just as good as a declaration of war.



    Quote:

    Next on the list is the newly claimed power to order the murder or US citizens (or really anyone for that matter).



    Yeah, that's one I'm not sure about. There are arguments for and against.



    Quote:

    I'd also add the executive orders get greatly abused and probably should be curtailed.



    Examples?



    Quote:

    Signing statements are also bad.



    That I agree with completely (as in they are bad).
Sign In or Register to comment.