Trump right GWB was President when 9/11 occurred...and so FDR was President at Pearl Harbor

[Camp]

FDR's brother isn't running for President and didn't make the claim that his brother "kept us safe" during his presidency.

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

 

[Kobie]

FDR's brother isn't running for President and didn't make the claim that his brother "kept us safe" during his presidency.

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

"Blaming them for all sorts of crimes"? You mean things that actually happened that you'd prefer we didn't talk about?

Do not try to conflate W's short-lived sky-high approval rating with approval of the war in Iraq. That kind of dishonesty ain't gonna fly.

 

[Kobie]

FDR's brother isn't running for President and didn't make the claim that his brother "kept us safe" during his presidency.

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

 

[jillian]

Trump recently was blasted for stating:
Donald Trump says he's not blaming George W. Bush for 9/11, but he claims that if he'd been president, the attacks never would have happened.

poor wackjob.

 

[jillian]

FDR's brother isn't running for President and didn't make the claim that his brother "kept us safe" during his presidency.

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

"Blaming them for all sorts of crimes"? You mean things that actually happened that you'd prefer we didn't talk about?

Do not try to conflate W's short-lived sky-high approval rating with approval of the war in Iraq. That kind of dishonesty ain't gonna fly.

but it's never been anything but insane, deranged and dishonest.

 

[healthmyths]

FDR's brother isn't running for President and didn't make the claim that his brother "kept us safe" during his presidency.

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

 

[Kobie]

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

All that "study" shows is a slight correlation between insurgent activity and access to Western press. Gee, insurgents were more active in high-population areas with more access to media. Who knew?

And of course, you once again conflate criticism of ordered actions with criticism of the troops themselves, rather than the brass who issued those orders. Color me shocked.

 

[Kobie]

How is the "3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nukes" line a "fact"? Hypotheticals are not facts.

 

[healthmyths]

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

All that "study" shows is a slight correlation between insurgent activity and access to Western press. Gee, insurgents were more active in high-population areas with more access to media. Who knew?

And of course, you once again conflate criticism of ordered actions with criticism of the troops themselves, rather than the brass who issued those orders. Color me shocked.

The insurgents don't care about "conflation"!!! They took those words and YES most LIKELY conflated!
So why be so stupid and make statements that CAN BE CONFLATED? CAN BE USED by the barbarians?

Either these guys that made them were so stupid NOT to realize OR worse THEY KNEW these words would be used to CONFLATE and blow out of
proportion. Thanks to the MSM this "CONFLATION" provided the "emboldenment” !
What would have happened if WWII politicians responded along party lines as these traitors did?

 

[BlindBoo]

Where were you when 9/11 occurred? Where were you when the Anthrax attacks occurred?
While I wasn't anywhere near either event I can tell you I was very pleased GWB was President and it was re-assuring GWB knew how to keep most Americans from anxiety about the USA safety.

Jesus, you really did swallow the kool aid.

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

Couldn't help but bring up these disingenuous out of context and incomplete quotes again huh? I sure the the terrorist you support appreciate all your hard work for their cause.

 

[Camp]

Well what would you expect GWB to do? Say like Obama..."Oh those guys were the JV team"!

Or should he put the country on entire WAR footing as FDR did with price controls,etc. the whole high level anxiety attack Americans had after WWII?
Exactly what would YOU do different then GWB?
He told the bad guys we were coming after them. He gave Saddam a year to get ready.
90% of Americans were very pleased with GWB. Then idiots like you and your MSM biased people started attacking our troops. Blaming them for all sorts of crimes.
No wonder then Americans began to wonder. Wow. Tell a big enough lie often enough and it will become a fact.

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

All that "study" shows is a slight correlation between insurgent activity and access to Western press. Gee, insurgents were more active in high-population areas with more access to media. Who knew?

And of course, you once again conflate criticism of ordered actions with criticism of the troops themselves, rather than the brass who issued those orders. Color me shocked.

The insurgents don't care about "conflation"!!! They took those words and YES most LIKELY conflated!
So why be so stupid and make statements that CAN BE CONFLATED? CAN BE USED by the barbarians?

Either these guys that made them were so stupid NOT to realize OR worse THEY KNEW these words would be used to CONFLATE and blow out of
proportion. Thanks to the MSM this "CONFLATION" provided the "emboldenment” !
What would have happened if WWII politicians responded along party lines as these traitors did?

We learned all that crap in the study you are using during Vietnam. It was a major part of the NVA strategy. The solution would be to halt the constitutional right of free press and keep the public in the dark about what is going on with the war they are paying for and supporting by voting for specific politicians. Which do you recommend, suspending the constitution or embracing it? Sounds like you would suspend it.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump recently was blasted for stating:
Donald Trump says he's not blaming George W. Bush for 9/11, but he claims that if he'd been president, the attacks never would have happened.

In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," the real estate mogul said that since he's "extremely, extremely tough on immigration" the attackers wouldn't have been in position to commandeer U.S. flights.

"So there's a good chance that those people would not have been in our country," Trump said.

He took another shot at Jeb Bush for claiming that Bush's brother, the 43rd president, kept the nation safe.

"I'm not blaming George Bush," Trump said. "But I don't want Jeb Bush to say, 'My brother kept us safe,' because September 11 was one of the worst days in the history of this country."

And while I support almost all Trump comments and his election, I think Trump is wrong on GWB and more so on Trump opposing the Liberation of Iraq.
I would ask Trump wasn't FDR president during Pearl Harbor and it's been said FDR KNEW in Jan 1941 there was a pending attack!
A good case can be made that the US government knew of Japan's plans, or should have. There were certainly indications.

On January 27, 1941, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo told the third secretary in the US embassy that he had learnt from intelligence sources that the Japanese had a war plan which involved an attack on Pearl Harbor. On 10 July, the US military attaché in Tokyo reported that the Japanese Navy were secretly practicing airborne torpedoattacks on targets moored in Ariake Bay-a bay that resembles Pearl Harbor. The US military attaché in Mexico also reported that the Japanese were building midget submarines which would be towed to Hawaii for an attack on Pearl Harbor.

A top British agent, codenamed 'Tricycle,' told the FBI that the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor, but his information was dismissed. And a Korean agent told American broadcaster Eric Severeid that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. The agent repeated his story to a US Senator who alerted the State Department, US Army and Navy intelligence, and President Roosevelt personally.

American intelligence had broken all the Japanese codes. On 24 September 1941, a message from Japanese Naval Intelligence headquarters in Tokyo to the Japanese consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. It requested the exact locations of all US Navy ships in Pearl Harbor. Such detailed information would only be required if the Japanese were planning an attack on the ships at their moorings. In November, another message was intercepted ordering more drills involving attacks on capital ships at anchor in preparation to 'ambush and completely destroy the US enemy.' The only American fleet within reach was at Pearl Harbor.

On 25 November, a radio message from Admiral Yamamoto ( Yamamoto, Isoruko) ordering the Japanese task force to attack the US fleet in Hawaii was intercepted. US Intelligence was understaffed and it is not known whether this message was decoded at the time. However, that same day, the US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, noted in his diary:
Essential Pearl Harbor

So to Trump a converted from Democrat to GOP I ask him shouldn't FDR be clearly identified as he
did GWB?
Further I'd ask Trump was he opposed to Liberation of Europe, i.e. WWII?

I'd also ask Trump if he'd heard of the 1991 Cease Fire?

Finally I'd truly want to know if Trump had any inkling of the irresponsible statements made by Democrats that added to the death toll in Iraq of both soldiers and Iraqis?
Statements that Harvard study showed prolonged the terrorists giving them credibility when our politicians called our troops Terrorists. Said our troops killed civilians. That our troops were cold blooded killers.
These statements according to the Harvard study shows they helped the terrorists.
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!

And 40 years from now they will teach kids all the mistakes that gw's intelligence team made.

Being warned, taking NORAD off line, etc. Almost like they wanted it to happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When did FDR's brother get in the race?

 

[Stephanie]

what's two faced funny: is these people (left/lib/dems) said Trump was a joke, only entertainment. not a serious candidate and blaaa bla blaa

but he mentions Bush and 9/11 and all of sudden he is someone they all take his word as if he's the EXPERT and jumps on it as if it means anything. we are in the here and now .
and ole Hillary is testifying in a couple days. and we are all waiting with baited breath to see her finally pay her dues for Ambassador Stevens

you can only shake your head at these people and laugh

But everyone knows Obama and Hillary are the fault of Benghazi and for lying and trying to cover it up with nonsense lies like it due to some video by an American citizen. so I hope to see Obama go down with Hillary

 

[Kobie]

what's two faced funny: is these people (left/lib/dems) said Trump was a joke, only entertainment. not a serious candidate and blaaa bla blaa

but he mentions Bush and 9/11 and all of sudden he is someone they all take his word as if he's the EXPERT and jumps on it as if it means anything. we are in the hear and now and ole Hillary is testifying in a couple days. and we are all waiting with baited breath to see her finally pay her dues for Ambassador Stevens

you can only shake your head at these people and laugh

I haven't seen anyone claim Trump is an expert on anything. But have fun arguing against the liberals in your head who do.

 

[healthmyths]

Bull shit. The public never turned on the troops. The other stuff is crap also, but your claim that the public attacked the troops is an offensive lie that propagates a falsehood against our troops and the support and gratitude that the public showed them.

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

All that "study" shows is a slight correlation between insurgent activity and access to Western press. Gee, insurgents were more active in high-population areas with more access to media. Who knew?

And of course, you once again conflate criticism of ordered actions with criticism of the troops themselves, rather than the brass who issued those orders. Color me shocked.

The insurgents don't care about "conflation"!!! They took those words and YES most LIKELY conflated!
So why be so stupid and make statements that CAN BE CONFLATED? CAN BE USED by the barbarians?

Either these guys that made them were so stupid NOT to realize OR worse THEY KNEW these words would be used to CONFLATE and blow out of
proportion. Thanks to the MSM this "CONFLATION" provided the "emboldenment” !
What would have happened if WWII politicians responded along party lines as these traitors did?

We learned all that crap in the study you are using during Vietnam. It was a major part of the NVA strategy. The solution would be to halt the constitutional right of free press and keep the public in the dark about what is going on with the war they are paying for and supporting by voting for specific politicians. Which do you recommend, suspending the constitution or embracing it? Sounds like you would suspend it.

NO the solution would be what USE to be called the "water's edge" Policy when Truman was President.
Here an history lesson for you!
In the spring of 1948, Arthur Vandenberg was a powerful Republican senator from Michigan with ambitions of unseating a vulnerable Democratic president, Harry Truman, in November of that year.

Vandenberg had considerable influence as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a moment when the U.S. was reordering a beleaguered world still emerging from the ashes of World War II.

Working closely with the Truman administration, he proposed and won overwhelming Senate approval for his Vandenberg Resolution, which called for the U.S. to pursue collective security arrangements, a move that helped set the stage for the establishment of NATO a year later.

Vandenberg dropped out of the presidential race a few months later. Still, his bipartisan spirit on foreign policy and national security endured and was encapsulated in his most memorable line: "We must stop politics at the water's edge."

With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats have heeded Vandenberg's words for generations. Congress has consistently deferred to presidential prerogative when it comes to foreign policy.
Taking U.S. Politics Beyond 'The Water's Edge'

But it STARTED in Vietnam when Kerry came and testified in 1973..
They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
John Kerry Then: Hear Kerry's Historic 1971 Testimony Against the Vietnam War | Democracy Now!

And you people applauded that! While US troops were targeted by the bad guys YOU guys cheered that testimony!
Just as you guys cheered again Kerry, Murtha, etc... when they said about our troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

So much for the "water's edge"!!! You idiots put political gain before the lives of US troops !
There is NO argument with that! WHAT gain did Kerry have in 1973 to make a story that was the EXCEPTION! NOT ALL US troops did that!
BUT idiots like you and todays idiots take these EXCEPTIONS and blow so out of proportion! Did you know just 11 soldiers were responsible for Abu Ghraib?
Did you know ONE soldier was found guilty for what Murtha branded the entire military as "cold blood" killers!!!
That is the problem! Everyone of you take the exception situation and make it the rule thanks to the MSM's old adage if it bleeds it leads and if the GOP does it
FRONT PAGE headlines!

YOU guys won't believe the above because you are so brain washed. Hopefully there are more and more people recognizing the MSM for their extreme bias
and hatred of America which you guys also have!
More and More Americans are understanding that the MSM and traitors like you really hate America and want to see it destroyed!
Why else would you and the above idiots TELL the bad guys "American troops are cold blooded killers"! Why would you encourage that conflation?

 

[Camp]

This is what they do. Questioning the war and its rationale = slandering the troops. I've been here a day and I feel like I've stepped directly into 2004.

Hey why I would I make the statement if I DIDN"T have proof that these traitorous statements prolonged the conflict?
HERE IS THE STUDY!!!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.

Now THESE STATEMENTS are what the above study clearly shows... attacks increased when statements like these were made:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", (So wouldn't the insurgent barbarians find this statement helpful in recruiting?"Hey we have USA on the Run"!!!)
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” (I'm a barbarian and say SEE even their politicians admit USA are cold blooded killers"!
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

All these above and MORE statements then blown up and exaggerated around the MSM and how we then see this further killing of troops.
I don't understand why you people hated American troops so much you wanted to see more killed?
And why was it a probably in our troops being there to save lives? Are you people against saving lives?
FACT: If saddam was still in power today there would have been over 3 million children starved because Saddam would NOT simply agree and certify there were no
WMDs?
Do you people understand that Saddam would still be in power 3 million children would starve and Iraq would have nuclear bombs.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.
He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

All that "study" shows is a slight correlation between insurgent activity and access to Western press. Gee, insurgents were more active in high-population areas with more access to media. Who knew?

And of course, you once again conflate criticism of ordered actions with criticism of the troops themselves, rather than the brass who issued those orders. Color me shocked.

The insurgents don't care about "conflation"!!! They took those words and YES most LIKELY conflated!
So why be so stupid and make statements that CAN BE CONFLATED? CAN BE USED by the barbarians?

Either these guys that made them were so stupid NOT to realize OR worse THEY KNEW these words would be used to CONFLATE and blow out of
proportion. Thanks to the MSM this "CONFLATION" provided the "emboldenment” !
What would have happened if WWII politicians responded along party lines as these traitors did?

We learned all that crap in the study you are using during Vietnam. It was a major part of the NVA strategy. The solution would be to halt the constitutional right of free press and keep the public in the dark about what is going on with the war they are paying for and supporting by voting for specific politicians. Which do you recommend, suspending the constitution or embracing it? Sounds like you would suspend it.

NO the solution would be what USE to be called the "water's edge" Policy when Truman was President.
Here an history lesson for you!
In the spring of 1948, Arthur Vandenberg was a powerful Republican senator from Michigan with ambitions of unseating a vulnerable Democratic president, Harry Truman, in November of that year.

Vandenberg had considerable influence as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a moment when the U.S. was reordering a beleaguered world still emerging from the ashes of World War II.

Working closely with the Truman administration, he proposed and won overwhelming Senate approval for his Vandenberg Resolution, which called for the U.S. to pursue collective security arrangements, a move that helped set the stage for the establishment of NATO a year later.

Vandenberg dropped out of the presidential race a few months later. Still, his bipartisan spirit on foreign policy and national security endured and was encapsulated in his most memorable line: "We must stop politics at the water's edge."

With few exceptions, Republicans and Democrats have heeded Vandenberg's words for generations. Congress has consistently deferred to presidential prerogative when it comes to foreign policy.
Taking U.S. Politics Beyond 'The Water's Edge'

But it STARTED in Vietnam when Kerry came and testified in 1973..
They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
John Kerry Then: Hear Kerry's Historic 1971 Testimony Against the Vietnam War | Democracy Now!

And you people applauded that! While US troops were targeted by the bad guys YOU guys cheered that testimony!
Just as you guys cheered again Kerry, Murtha, etc... when they said about our troops!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Kerry calling our troops TERRORISTS!!!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

So much for the "water's edge"!!! You idiots put political gain before the lives of US troops !
There is NO argument with that! WHAT gain did Kerry have in 1973 to make a story that was the EXCEPTION! NOT ALL US troops did that!
BUT idiots like you and todays idiots take these EXCEPTIONS and blow so out of proportion! Did you know just 11 soldiers were responsible for Abu Ghraib?
Did you know ONE soldier was found guilty for what Murtha branded the entire military as "cold blood" killers!!!
That is the problem! Everyone of you take the exception situation and make it the rule thanks to the MSM's old adage if it bleeds it leads and if the GOP does it
FRONT PAGE headlines!

YOU guys won't believe the above because you are so brain washed. Hopefully there are more and more people recognizing the MSM for their extreme bias
and hatred of America which you guys also have!
More and More Americans are understanding that the MSM and traitors like you really hate America and want to see it destroyed!
Why else would you and the above idiots TELL the bad guys "American troops are cold blooded killers"! Why would you encourage that conflation?

You have lots of emotion, anger and imagination, but very little if any empirical knowledge. Horrible things happen in war and soldiers do horrible things. Doesn't matter what country they are from or fighting for. If you want to believe because the soldiers are American these things don't happen you have every right to live in your fantasy world.