or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush Cheney wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush Cheney wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 - Page 2

post #41 of 114
I'm a born, raised, and recovering Republican. Presumptuous comes with the territory. \
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #42 of 114
Anyone seen this, I'm on dial-up, not my choice.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...-senate-floor/

"Senator Dick Durbin, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee during the lead up to the war, fills us in on what was going on behind the intel scenes in 2002-2003 and how accurately it matched up with what we were being told publicly. Unfortunately for all of us, he was sworn to secrecy back then…"

Another nail or to little to late.
post #43 of 114
Ex-CIA analyst: Forged 'yellowcake' memo 'leads right back to' Cheney

"A former CIA analyst claims that falsified documents which were meant to show that Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime had been trying to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger can be traced back to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Appearing on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show, Ray McGovern who served in the CIA for twenty-seven years, said, 'the [forged] memo leads right back to the doorstep of the Vice President of the United States.'"


"MR. MINETA:...The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah."


Can we impeach this neocon old fart already?
post #44 of 114
This entire house is going to fall apart pretty quickly at this rate.

Cue the defenders...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #45 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

This entire house is going to fall apart pretty quickly at this rate.

Cue the defenders...

Oh god. Now we're going to have another debate about fonts.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #46 of 114
War was wrong. I have no question about that. I really don't think that any of this will be of interest to mainstream America, however. Elections are won or lost by the state of the economy and the price of gasoline.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #47 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

War was wrong.

Traitor. Appeaser. Hater of troops. Frenchy.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #48 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Frenchy.

Ouch.
post #49 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Ouch.

That one went too far. Sorry PD.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #50 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

NORAD was informed of hijackings at 8:40 and 8:43, with the first impact (8:46) occuring before Bush arrived at the school; another plane was on the loose. The first plane had diverted rather dramatically from its course, as had the second. Another hijacking was just being realized, and the Pentagon's alert status was elevated at 9:00. At 9:05, Andrew Card informed Bush of the second impact going so far as to say "we are under attack", thus ending all possibility in GW's mind of the first crash being an isolated incident. No, it was then a crisis that needed responding to.

And the reading continued.

I was watching CNN live when the second plane hit, and my immediate reaction at the time was that both were premeditated acts part of a larger scheme and that more of something was coming; if someone will go to the trouble to hijack two planes simultaneously and ram them into the same place, they are certainly capable of doing more. It didn't take CNN long, either, to mention that something could be afoot. Their guest Furman who was a NTSB guy, pointed to the clues: good visability, no planes usually in the area, 2 back to back crashes... and this was without the knowledge that others had about the hijackings. He specifically said: FURMAN: I don't think that this represents an accident.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.01.html

Point? Or are we just back to "Bush kept reading?"
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #51 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Anyone seen this, I'm on dial-up, not my choice.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...-senate-floor/

"Senator Dick Durbin, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee during the lead up to the war, fills us in on what was going on behind the intel scenes in 2002-2003 and how accurately it matched up with what we were being told publicly. Unfortunately for all of us, he was sworn to secrecy back then"

Another nail or to little to late.

First, that source is total crap. Second, Durbin is the one who equated US Troops with Nazi brownshirts. Third, you are a troll. Have a nice day.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #52 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, that source is total crap.

MSNBC? Or Dick Durbin? It's a video of Durbin speaking.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #53 of 114
SDW is back to attacking sources, again, when it is a primary source?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #54 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

SDW is back to attacking sources, again, when it is a primary source?

crooksandliars.com. Nice.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #55 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, that source is total crap. Second, Durbin is the one who equated US Troops with Nazi brownshirts. Third, you are a troll. Have a nice day.

I'm a troll?
You are why I joined this forum.
I'm not disappointed, you are so dependable.
post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

crooksandliars.com. Nice.

Yeah, they forged it.
So dependable.
post #57 of 114
crooksandliers provided a good link to an interesting video (possibly forged? ) .


Watch the video.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, that source is total crap. Second, Durbin is the one who equated US Troops with Nazi brownshirts. Third, you are a troll. Have a nice day.

The VIDEO source is from MSNBC moron.

Oh and screener? New members have to go through an anal probe with SDW2001 before their removal of "Troll" status...
post #59 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, that source is total crap. Second, Durbin is the one who equated US Troops with Nazi brownshirts. Third, you are a troll. Have a nice day.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The VIDEO source is from MSNBC moron.

Oh and screener? New members have to go through an anal probe with SDW2001 before their removal of "Troll" status...

Gee, shades of DELIVERANCE.
No thanks, he can call me what he wants, I ain't gonna "squeal like a pig".
post #61 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Gee, shades of DELIVERANCE.
No thanks, he can call me what he wants, I ain't gonna "squeal like a pig".

Just keep in mind that you got a real purty mouth.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, that source is total crap. Second, Durbin is the one who equated US Troops with Nazi brownshirts. Third, you are a troll. Have a nice day.

Durbin Apologizes for Remarks on Abuse

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A06

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.

Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."


Of course if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al had to apologize for their list of war crimes...
post #63 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Durbin Apologizes for Remarks on Abuse

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A06

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.

Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."


Of course if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al had to apologize for their list of war crimes...

I SWEAR TO GOD THE DAMNED DEMOCRATS DIDN'T LEARN ONE SINGLE THING FROM ALL THIS. THIS IS TYPICAL DEMOCRATIC PUSSY-NESS. STUPID DURBIN. NEVER APOLOGIZE.

Ugh. That? Right there? That's why the Dems won't simply walk away with the '08 election. They'll find a way to make themselves look weak.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #64 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Durbin Apologizes for Remarks on Abuse

I notice that Bush hasn't given a tearful apology for approving and condoning torture. I notice how some people think it's worse to call torture what it is - Nazism - than to actually approve of and commit that torture in the first place.

[edit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I SWEAR TO GOD THE DAMNED DEMOCRATS DIDN'T LEARN ONE SINGLE THING FROM ALL THIS. THIS IS TYPICAL DEMOCRATIC PUSSY-NESS. STUPID DURBIN. NEVER APOLOGIZE.

Ugh. That? Right there? That's why the Dems won't simply walk away with the '08 election. They'll find a way to make themselves look weak.

Yes, Durbin should not have apologized. You should apologize if you do something wrong. But what he said was absolutely right and not insulting to anyone except the moral degenerates who made us a country that tortures. It was one of the best speeches on the subject, and one that the entire country should have been behind.
post #65 of 114
post #66 of 114
Moreover, Durbin never "compared US troops to Nazi brown-shirts".

He said that if you simply were told about the "techniques" used at Gitmo, you would assume that you were being told about the behavior of Nazis or Stalin era Soviets or Pol Pot or some totalitarian regime.

In this, he was expressing his disgust and astonishment that America could be responsible for such behavior, given that for so long a part of our national identity had been centered on our moral superiority to regimes that imprison without charges, hold without trial, and torture.

Not so long ago, for the average American, Durbin's remarks would have been perfectly understandable and indeed broadly applauded.

Then came Bush and his army of authority loving, democracy hating sycophants. Their delight and defense of torture had an almost sexual avidity.

The offense was and is in what we were doing, not in pointing it out. That's why he should have never apologized. He should have demanded an apology from the architects of this grotesque abuse of our national will.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #67 of 114
You're exactly right (both BRussell and Adda). We now live in a world where saying "I don't think we should torture people" is something that can cause a friggin' scandal.

Ugh. I guess I shouldn't expect more from a combination of thuggery + incompetence.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #68 of 114
Does anyone care to speculate on the methods that the US used in WWII? The enemy neither acts nor thinks like you idealistic latté-sippers. If we want to survive....neither can we.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #69 of 114
Damn it, southside, if we just surrender and promise to play nice, these people will let go of that "jihad" thing and leave us alone. We must play fair, just like hijacking our airliners and killing thousands of innocent people was fair. Don't you realize that ALL of this is our fault? ALL OF IT!

You cannot possible see what the literati see over the tops of their lattes at Starbucks. I bet you voted for that criminal Bush, didn't you.... You ignorant, simplistic, jingoist winger rube.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Durbin Apologizes for Remarks on Abuse

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page A06

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday offered a tearful apology on the Senate floor for comparing the alleged abuse of prisoners by American troops to techniques used by the Nazis, the Soviets and the Khmer Rouge, as he sought to quell a frenzy of Republican-led criticism.

Durbin, the Democratic whip, acknowledged that "more than most people, a senator lives by his words" but that "occasionally words will fail us and occasionally we will fail words." Choking up, he said: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."


Of course if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al had to apologize for their list of war crimes...

Oh, he APOLOGIZED! Tearfully! Funny, I don't recall that being good enough for Trent Lott and about 1,000 other conservatives who make gaffes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I'm a troll?
You are why I joined this forum.
I'm not disappointed, you are so dependable.

If you joined a forum just to argue with me, you should consider getting a girlfriend or boyfriend or even a dog.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #72 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If you joined a forum just to argue with me, you should consider getting a girlfriend or boyfriend or even a dog.

... and while you are at it, get your dog a boyfriend or girlfriend, too.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #73 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, he APOLOGIZED! Tearfully! Funny, I don't recall that being good enough for Trent Lott and about 1,000 other conservatives who make gaffes.

And that, right there, is a huge party of why Durbin shouldn't have apologized.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Moreover, Durbin never "compared US troops to Nazi brown-shirts".

He said that if you simply were told about the "techniques" used at Gitmo, you would assume that you were being told about the behavior of Nazis or Stalin era Soviets or Pol Pot or some totalitarian regime.

In this, he was expressing his disgust and astonishment that America could be responsible for such behavior, given that for so long a part of our national identity had been centered on our moral superiority to regimes that imprison without charges, hold without trial, and torture.

Not so long ago, for the average American, Durbin's remarks would have been perfectly understandable and indeed broadly applauded.

Then came Bush and his army of authority loving, democracy hating sycophants. Their delight and defense of torture had an almost sexual avidity.

The offense was and is in what we were doing, not in pointing it out. That's why he should have never apologized. He should have demanded an apology from the architects of this grotesque abuse of our national will.

Ahh...there it is...some good old liberal nuance! See...he was only talking about the techniques being Nazi-like, not the troops and US personnel conducting them. Gotcha!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 114
This thread is a complete waste of space. Everybody in the world and their dog knows that the politicians (and the rest) with Bush were gunning for an Iraq war way back as far as 1996.

When they gave their spanky new policy document to "sort out" Middle East over to Netanyahoo. And repeatedly petitioned Clinton for action over 1996-1998.

It's part of the central plank in policy to solidify the position of Israel, so there will be no need any comprise (with any expansion/consolidation plans) or recognize any responsibility towards groups disaffected by the plan (with no powerful backers the Palestinians will be forced to relent and give up on nationhood etc). The idea being that there is no just solution and any compromise on Israels part will result in the erosion in credibility of the state itself.

Indeed as we know, in the early Bush presidency the focus was taken off the Bin Laden and Taleban groups, in order to secure the oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

9/11 provided them with a lever to drive public opinion towards an Iraq invasion...

It's well known and will be recorded in all sane (non politicized) history books reflecting on the period.

QED.
post #76 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ahh...there it is...some good old liberal nuance! See...he was only talking about the techniques being Nazi-like, not the troops and US personnel conducting them. Gotcha!

I see. So it's not possible to criticize anything that America does, because ultimately all of our actions are carried out by someone, and you when you have anything ill to say about policies and consequences you are in fact attacking that someone, especially if that someone is a member of the armed services, since that is "attacking the troops".

So when the civilian government makes torture a policy and one sees the result of that policy and professes shock and disgust, it's "attacking the troops".

It's also not possible to distinguish between specific actors and the collective notion of "troops", so that noticing bad behavior by any troop is attacking "the troops".

Gosh, I wonder why that is, because, coincidentally, it makes it difficult to criticize this war or the excesses of this war or any particular abuse of this war without being crudely vilified as a troop hater, someone who has the unmitigated gall and just poor taste to speak ill of Our Brave Men and Women In Uniform Who Are Willing To Sacrifice All For Our Way Of Life.

But that would be more liberal nuance, thank God for good old red blooded brain dead right wing talking points, and knowing that words are to be used as crude weapons, never mind simple common sense. Wait, would that be attacking the language?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #77 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ahh...there it is...some good old liberal nuance! See...he was only talking about the techniques being Nazi-like, not the troops and US personnel conducting them. Gotcha!

A CASE OF HISTORY ABUSE: BUSH, RUMSFELD AND FASCISM

"It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies, when those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and Nazism, were ridiculed and ignored," said Rumsfeld of the 1930s. "Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated, or that it was someone else's problem. ... I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism." - Donald Rumsfeld 9/1/06
post #78 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Wait, would that be attacking the language?

No, the evolution of "America the Free".
Like Bush's buddy, Putin, changing the status quo.
Only good news please.
post #79 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I see. So it's not possible to criticize anything that America does, because ultimately all of our actions are carried out by someone, and you when you have anything ill to say about policies and consequences you are in fact attacking that someone, especially if that someone is a member of the armed services, since that is "attacking the troops".

So when the civilian government makes torture a policy and one sees the result of that policy and professes shock and disgust, it's "attacking the troops".

It's also not possible to distinguish between specific actors and the collective notion of "troops", so that noticing bad behavior by any troop is attacking "the troops".

Gosh, I wonder why that is, because, coincidentally, it makes it difficult to criticize this war or the excesses of this war or any particular abuse of this war without being crudely vilified as a troop hater, someone who has the unmitigated gall and just poor taste to speak ill of Our Brave Men and Women In Uniform Who Are Willing To Sacrifice All For Our Way Of Life.

But that would be more liberal nuance, thank God for good old red blooded brain dead right wing talking points, and knowing that words are to be used as crude weapons, never mind simple common sense. Wait, would that be attacking the language?

Here's what I don't get: "We don't torture," right? So if anyone is caught torturing, they are criminals who should be (and have been) tried and convicted. If that's the case, then why is it wrong for Durbin to criticize, even harshly, American personnel who torture? SDW isn't saying that we shouldn't criticize American troops who engage in criminal activity, is he?
post #80 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Here's what I don't get: "We don't torture," right? So if anyone is caught torturing, they are criminals who should be (and have been) tried and convicted. If that's the case, then why is it wrong for Durbin to criticize, even harshly, American personnel who torture? SDW isn't saying that we shouldn't criticize American troops who engage in criminal activity, is he?

Actually, American troops who engage in criminal activity tarnish the good name of the troops, which makes them look weak and invites attack by both terrorists and democrats. The only way for the troops to not look weak is for Republicans to attack democrats.

Silly man.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush Cheney wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11