Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

[Iceweasel]

This administration actually believes that dropping our defenses will stop them from hating us. In fact it will do the opposite.

That's the crux of the matter. They were trying to project the image that Obama's apology tours and appeasements defused the terrorism situation. It obviously didn't so the spin went into overdrive for the re-election effort.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No, they saw the same intel. Otherwise Bush would have been impeached and ousted. If they could have done it, they damn sure would have.

Yeah, OK. Lies are just fine with you as long as it is YOUR guys telling them.

I'm not buying GOP lies or your spin on their lies and I'm not buying into Democrats' lies or anyone else's spin on THEM.

How did you get that from what I said?

Because that's exactly what you said.

You defend and make excuses for Republican lies.
Kinda makes your complaints about Democrat lies sound like hyper-partisan rants.

You either demand honesty out of your government or you don't.
I do.
You don't.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Saddam was bluffing that he had WMD? So he moved the WMD to Syria without anyone knowing about it and then told the world that he still had WMD so that they would feel threatened by him and therefore invade?

That's a brilliant plan which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Well if Saddam wanted to move WMDs secretly out of Iraq, he had ample time to do it, through the constant debate over the United Nations' inability to back up their resolutions with consequences. Representatives of the Bush administration had been pushing the UN to put some "teeth" behind their inability to see their need for Iraq's weapons inspections compliance fulfilled. There was resistance from the UN Security Council to see any resolution backed through the use of military aggression, and for good reason as France and Russia had a lot of self interests tied in defending Saddam's defiant responses from any further action. Just how much France and Russia were profiting from Hussein was later revealed under the Oil for Food scandal. The French were supplying Iraq with French Marauders, as well as military supplies in an attempt to rebuild the nation's damaged air superiority. Do you think Saddam would welcome the chance to have his weapons stockpile discovered, or would he profit more by embarrassing the west when such weapons would (surprisingly) turn up missing? Saddam has already proven himself that he can defy the United Nations on the world stage, how far a stretch outside his character would it be to have such WMDs moved to a neighboring country? Obviously you trust this dictator to be honest and unintelligent like many of the world press and members of the. United Nations, Saddam merely had to prove which ones had the ability of being played.

France’s corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war.
By 2000, France had become Iraq’s largest supplier of military and dual-use equipment, according to a senior member of Congress who declined to be identified.
Saddam developed networks for illegal supplies to get around the U.N. arms embargo and achieve a military buildup in the years before U.S. forces launched a second assault on Iraq.
One spare-parts pipeline flowed from a French company to Al Tamoor Trading Co. in the United Arab Emirates. Tamoor then sent the parts by truck through Turkey, and into Iraq. The Iraqis obtained spare parts for their French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters through this pipeline.


French connection armed Saddam - Washington Times

 

[Truthmatters]

Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved - report ? RT USA

December 29, 2013

There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.

The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be “meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”

The report is based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack and its context.

Months of investigation “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” The Times said.

The report stresses that the attack “was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Gaddafi.”

 

[Londoner]

ObamaCare is deeply flawed, partly because, without the "Public Option", it leaves the broken Insurance Monopolies in place, and merely feeds more Americans into it. Once the numbers go up significantly, it will eventually bend the cost curve. Currently, it is starting to see participants who never had insurance. And Americans with pre-existing conditions are finding coverage options that literally did not exist prior to this legislation. Lastly, a lot of the plans that were cancelled were created by insurance companies after the law was passed, but before it was enforceable - so they exploited the gap by creating policies they knew would become defunct, but they didn't tell the people who signed up. These are things that FOX News conveniently omits because they represent the interests of mega-corporations that have captured Washington and monopolized health care. They have the most to lose because ObamaCare threatens the parasitic "administrative" layer they created between Doctor and Patient - a layer which is paid for by decreasing coverage and increasing premiums. (FYI: Reagan promised the opposite. He said that profits would be created by expanding coverage not decreasing it. For this reason we know that the market had been corrupted by bad incentives, resulting from decades of lobbying, whereby these companies no longer serve the broad base of consumers, but only the investors who profited from the rentier class that had formed over our health industry. Don't ever ask a Republican if 24 years of concentrated lobbying corrupted market outcomes. They have no answers because their news sources never talk about it. People like mudwhistle literally get 100% of their information from a propaganda machine designed to protect the status quo, which functions nothing like a competitive market.)

But here is the real problem. Obama failed to advocate for the Public Option, maybe because he knew it could never pass with 6 "Blue Dog Democrats" in the Senate, all of whom received significant election funding from the Health Insurance lobbies.

The ultimate reality is this: one of our political party's is deeply invested in its failure. The Republicans (and 5% of Dems) are deeply beholden to the Insurance industry, which has invested heavily in Washington for the purpose of creating a monopoly of rising costs and decreasing coverage. With this monopoly comes a heavy investment in rightwing media - meaning: they have literally created an information industry that seeks to bury ObamaCare under a mountain of disinformation and half truths. Every day we hear different lies.

Check these lies out, click this link below. This is what happens every day - and the OP merely brings this kind of stuff to the message board as fact. The OP is angry because he deeply trusts his party bosses and doesn't think they would ever lie to him.
Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare - Salon.com

 

[mudwhistle]

ObamaCare is deeply flawed, partly because, without the "Public Option", it leaves the broken Insurance Monopolies in place, and merely feeds more Americans into it. Once the numbers go up significantly, it will eventually bend the cost curve. Currently, it is starting to see participants who never had insurance. And Americans with pre-existing conditions are finding coverage options that literally did not exist prior to this legislation. Lastly, a lot of the plans that were cancelled were created by insurance companies after the law was passed, but before it was enforceable - so they exploited the gap by creating policies they knew would become defunct, but they didn't tell the people who signed up. These are things that FOX News conveniently omits because they represent the interests of mega-corporations that have captured Washington and monopolized health care. They have the most to lose because ObamaCare threatens the parasitic "administrative" layer they created between Doctor and Patient - a layer which is paid for by decreasing coverage and increasing premiums. (FYI: Reagan promised the opposite. He said that profits would be created by expanding coverage not decreasing it. For this reason we know that the market, because it had been corrupted by decades of lobbying, was broken and no longer serving the consumer, but only the investors who profited from the rentier class that had formed over our health industry)

But here is the real problem. Obama failed to advocate for the Public Option, maybe because he knew it could never pass with 6 "Blue Dog Democrats" in the Senate, all of whom received significant election funding from the Health Insurance lobbies.

But there is an even bigger problem. One of our political party's is deeply invested in its failure, so they have literally created an information industry around its failure. Every day we hear different lies.

Check these lies out, click this link below. This is what happens every day - and the OP merely brings this kind of stuff to the message board as fact. The OP is angry because he deeply trusts his party bosses and doesn't think they would ever lie to him.
Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare - Salon.com

Yesterday Kathleen Sebelious said she knew how many had signed up for Obamacare. But when asked how many had paid she said she didn't know.

Of course she knows, but the truth doesn't help the cause.

BTW,......

Somebody explain to me why Obama borrowed $700,000;000,000.00 from Medicare to pay for this POS if it's only gonna insure less than 6 Million folks?

 

[hangover]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved - report ? RT USA

December 29, 2013

There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.

The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be “meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”

I'd trust the investigation of CIA, recovered video surveillance, and key survivors of the attack before I'd entertain a left leaning newspaper like the New York Times.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.

Who's deceiving who?

You're deceiving yourself.

Honestly, you really believe that? Nice guys always finish first?

 

[Mojo2]

Saddam was bluffing that he had WMD? So he moved the WMD to Syria without anyone knowing about it and then told the world that he still had WMD so that they would feel threatened by him and therefore invade?

That's a brilliant plan which makes absolutely no sense at all.

KnoNoBa, you aren't supposed to take the facts and suppositions and put them together like that.

You epitomize the idea some people cite when they say that given enough time a hypothetical ape would create the complete works of Shakespeare.

You would be the ape on Day One.

But you never move to Day Two.

You are like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

Every day you seem to wake up just as stupid as you were the day before.

I'll help you out.

Start by nailing down what you can PROVE is true.

Then see how those verifiable pieces of info, facts and strong beliefs, fit together.

Then examine the big picture.

If something doesn't make sense eliminate the pieces of the puzzle which don't fit with the nailed down facts.

Here, you can bank on this, I think.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions

Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion

2008
Jan 24


That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.

"Oh, you couldn't imagine the excitement that I was feeling at that point," Piro remembers.

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - Page 4 - CBS News

 

[KNB]

Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

 

[Mojo2]

Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved - report ? RT USA

December 29, 2013

There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.

The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be “meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”

The report is based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack and its context.

Months of investigation “turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” The Times said.

The report stresses that the attack “was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Gaddafi.”

Ask your beautiful dog why this is so:

We know every detail of the President ordering the raid to kill Bin Laden. On Benghazi, we don't know what President Obama did that night.—

Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) February 03, 2014

Lindsey Graham: ?President Obama has misled the country on Benghazi? | Twitchy

 

[nodoginnafight]

Nice guys always finish first?

Nice guys don't finish last

They are just heading for a different finish line

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.

If evil didn't triumph, the democrats would have ceased to exist after the Trail of Tears - when in reality you've only gotten ever more evil since then.

 

[Mojo2]

Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

He couldn't have justified it.

And, if your bottom line assumption is true, i.e. that he was bound and determined to invade no matter what, he would have had to find a different pretext.

But, I'd say the act of PREVENTING Israel from starting WWIII or going up in a Mushroom Cloud, (not to mention all the OTHER benefits of invading) is a pretty damn good bit of statesmanship and leadership, don't you?

 

[KNB]

And Republicans would have all shot themselves after Iran-Contra, so evil isn't exclusive to Democrats or Republicans.

 

[KNB]

Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

He couldn't have justified it.

Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.

And, if your bottom line assumption is true, i.e. that he was bound and determined to invade no matter what, he would have had to find a different pretext.

The pretext changed all the time. First it was 9/11, then support for al-Qaeda, then WMD, then when all of that was shot down as rubbish, the Bush administration fell back to, "Look. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy."

But, I'd say the act of PREVENTING Israel from starting WWIII or going up in a Mushroom Cloud, (not to mention all the OTHER benefits of invading) is a pretty damn good bit of statesmanship and leadership, don't you?

What mushroom cloud? There weren't any WMD. Israel has nukes, Iraq and Iran don't.

 

[Mojo2]

BTW,......

Somebody explain to me why Obama borrowed $700,000;000,000.00 from Medicare to pay for this POS if it's only gonna insure less than 6 Million folks?

Some say he's incompetent and is weakening the USA unintentionally.

Others say he's a delivery agent of certain programs, ideologies, strategies and policies for varying secret clients who helped him along his way up. They rewarded him for some of the work he's doing, other things are close to his heart and he required no inducements.

They say he is a mole and is weakening the USA according to a planned agenda.

I say he could be BOTH inept and treasonous.

 

[Mojo2]

Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?

THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001

He couldn't have justified it.

Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times