Erik Erikson's RED STATE disinvites Trump after "blood" comments about Megyn Kelly

[JoeB131]

This isn't the issue you guys want to run an election on, you will lose.

You want to run on Scott Walkers doctrine "steel in the enemy face" from day one...you are a seriously mixed up creep...you a punk...you want to pretend you are not a Gooper but you are one....

I've been pretty straight forward about being a moderate Republican who is distressed the religious nuts have taken over his party.

But every once in a while, I encounter a liberal like you who reminds me why Democrats can't be trusted with the national security stuff because you tend to **** it up.

Now, you keep avoiding the point, that Obama ran on a "Peace" Platform and instead has given us 7 more years of war, spying, and all the things you guys said you were against. So it has to make me wonder if you were really against those things, or you were just against Republicans doing them.

I give Obama Credit in that things haven't gotten worse on his watch... but they haven't gotten better, either.

 

[JoeB131]

He's a pervert womanizer. Who knows how many women he's raped? Unlike Bill Cosby, we'll likely never know. He's too well-protected. So **** em.

The thing is, the women accusing him all had serious credibility problems.

Juanita Broderick swore in an affadavit that she never had sex with Clinton, and then claimed she was raped. Was she lying then or is she lying now?

Kathleen Willey had so little credibility that Ken Starr's successor, Charles Ray, said nothing she said could be believed.

So these are your two best case arguments for "Clinton is a rapist."

Then you have Paula Jones, who now admits that the right wing groups that backed her suit and left her hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt were just using her. Not a lot of credibility there.

 

[JoeB131]

Similarly.... the fact that someone as corrupt and evil as Hilliary Clinton, who has lied non-stop since the early 90s, and has been involved in nearly every single scandal for the last 30 years, even has a shot at being president..... suggests we, the American public, love liars. We do! The public votes for liars constantly. And most of you, unless you are truly more stupid than forest gump, know that they are a lying, and you still vote for them.

Okay, Andy, I usually don't talk to you because you are a crazy person who needs to be medicated.

Here's the thing. THe people who care about these scandals are 1) a very, very small part of the population and 2) weren't ever going to vote for a Democrat even if they nominated Jesus H. Christ.

There's only so much time you waste on people who are going to be against you, anyway.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This isn't the issue you guys want to run an election on, you will lose.

You want to run on Scott Walkers doctrine "steel in the enemy face" from day one...you are a seriously mixed up creep...you a punk...you want to pretend you are not a Gooper but you are one....

I've been pretty straight forward about being a moderate Republican who is distressed the religious nuts have taken over his party.

But every once in a while, I encounter a liberal like you who reminds me why Democrats can't be trusted with the national security stuff because you tend to **** it up.

Now, you keep avoiding the point, that Obama ran on a "Peace" Platform and instead has given us 7 more years of war, spying, and all the things you guys said you were against. So it has to make me wonder if you were really against those things, or you were just against Republicans doing them.

I give Obama Credit in that things haven't gotten worse on his watch... but they haven't gotten better, either.

Obama was handed two ongoing wars ....he ended both imperfectly but ended them...I certainly have problems with our Behavior in Syria, Libya and the Ukraine....Its the usual brutal US policy of the last fifty years HOWEVER to look to the Republicans for a change from war like Policies is SIMPLY STUPID...your Main Moron Scott Walker says its war from day one ......

 

[JoeB131]

Obama was handed two ongoing wars ....he ended both imperfectly but ended them...

Uh, no, we are still fighting in both places. And we are now involved in Syria to boot.

I certainly have problems with our Behavior in Syria, Libya and the Ukraine....

But that's the point. You guys talk a lot of smack about how we need to have peace and not get involved, and you turn around and get us hip deep into these problems, just like the Republicans do. Just less competently.

.Its the usual brutal US policy of the last fifty years HOWEVER to look to the Republicans for a change from war like Policies is SIMPLY STUPID

No, stupid would be letting someone who doesn't have the backbone to enforce our interests in. This is probably why I became a Republican to start with, because Jimmy Carter was so incredibly feckless.

Bush mucked this up enough to make me reconsider, but Obama is not covering himself in glory here.

your Main Moron Scott Walker says its war from day one ......

Did he actually say that, or is that something you read on the Democratic Underground? Since I don't think Obama's wars in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan are going to be over when the Next President comes around, someone is going to have to deal with them.

 

[Andylusion]

Bush/Cheney did not lie to congress. The investigation led by democrats, found that they had not lied. You are the one lying now.

Everyone knows they lied. That you are still hanging on to the lie just shows how out of touch you really are. The one that turned out to be worthless was Bush himself....no wonder he's considered one of the worst US Presidents.



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

Which proves nothing. First, this is according to Salon. When you compare that to other sources of information.....

CNN.com - Woodward Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk - Apr 19 2004

Clearly one of the two accounts must be lying.

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
​

So which is it? Why are your sources correct, while other sources are lying?

National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, based on the information they had at the time, clearly showed they did.

Moreover, the "Report on the US Intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq", completed July 7th 2004, led by John Rockefeller, said conclusively that the claims made were in fact supported by the information at the time.

If Bush lied, then everyone, including all the Democrats lied. You had your chance to prove he lied, and you failed. Total fail.

So with all due respect, you can keep your biased left-wing conspiracy web sites, with the unsupported stories. You had your chance. You failed. It was 'put up or shut up' time when they investigated it, and you couldn't put up. So all you whiners out there really should shut up. You have nothing to say on the matter, and your investigations that proved us right, are the end of your story.

 

[Andylusion]

Similarly.... the fact that someone as corrupt and evil as Hilliary Clinton, who has lied non-stop since the early 90s, and has been involved in nearly every single scandal for the last 30 years, even has a shot at being president..... suggests we, the American public, love liars. We do! The public votes for liars constantly. And most of you, unless you are truly more stupid than forest gump, know that they are a lying, and you still vote for them.

Okay, Andy, I usually don't talk to you because you are a crazy person who needs to be medicated.

Here's the thing. THe people who care about these scandals are 1) a very, very small part of the population and 2) weren't ever going to vote for a Democrat even if they nominated Jesus H. Christ.

There's only so much time you waste on people who are going to be against you, anyway.

Funny how every single time anyone disagrees with a leftist, they are suddenly "a crazy person who needs medicated". I can't even begin to count the number of non-liberals, on here who have been accused of being crazy and needing medication by some leftist. It's like the default response. "You disagree? You must be crazy. Get pills!"

Yes, my whole point was that the people on the left don't care how slimy, or scandal ridden their candidates are. They can take money from Buddhist monks, shake down people for money from the VP office, they can take money from Chinese front companies for missile technology, they can magically make $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures, they can sell oil leases on Federal land to Occidental Petroleum which the VP has stock in, FBI records mishandled by a professional dirt digger, trump up false charges against innocent people working in the travel office, being involved with Jim Guy Tucker, and the Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm billing records, which were subpoenaed, declared missing, and then magically appeared in the white house, and under tests by the FBI, found the fingerprints of none other than Hilliary Clinton on the papers.......

And the left.... doesn't care.

That's not even the full list of scandals surrounding the Clintons. That's just a few select highlights.

Back in the 90s, in 1996 in fact, the election campaign was going on, I was talking with such a Clinton supporter. After discussing it back and forth, I asked him "but you do know he's lying, right?" He said yes. He knew he was lying completely, but he still thought he was doing ok as president.

If Satan himself were to run as president, and the Anti-Christ ran as VP, I am absolutely convinced that most on the left would vote for the ticket unquestioningly. As long as the economy is good.... hey, the 'father of lies' is doing a good job..... right? That's all that matters....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Funny how every single time anyone disagrees with a leftist, they are suddenly "a crazy person who needs medicated."'

No, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with anyone, it has to do with the fact that you and most others on the right say ridiculous, crazy things that would indicate some sort of mental impairment, such as the unfounded idiocy of referring to HRC as “corrupt and evil.”

 

[Mertex]

Bush/Cheney did not lie to congress. The investigation led by democrats, found that they had not lied. You are the one lying now.

Everyone knows they lied. That you are still hanging on to the lie just shows how out of touch you really are. The one that turned out to be worthless was Bush himself....no wonder he's considered one of the worst US Presidents.



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

Which proves nothing. First, this is according to Salon. When you compare that to other sources of information.....

CNN.com - Woodward Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk - Apr 19 2004

Clearly one of the two accounts must be lying.

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
​

So which is it? Why are your sources correct, while other sources are lying?

National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, based on the information they had at the time, clearly showed they did.

Moreover, the "Report on the US Intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq", completed July 7th 2004, led by John Rockefeller, said conclusively that the claims made were in fact supported by the information at the time.

If Bush lied, then everyone, including all the Democrats lied. You had your chance to prove he lied, and you failed. Total fail.

So with all due respect, you can keep your biased left-wing conspiracy web sites, with the unsupported stories. You had your chance. You failed. It was 'put up or shut up' time when they investigated it, and you couldn't put up. So all you whiners out there really should shut up. You have nothing to say on the matter, and your investigations that proved us right, are the end of your story.

Okay....so you didn't like Salon......well then, how about this one:


Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?

The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News

As for the CIA informing Bush, Chris Matthews gets CIA former Deputy Director to admit that Bush/Cheney didn't tell the truth regarding WMDs.

 

[Andylusion]

'Funny how every single time anyone disagrees with a leftist, they are suddenly "a crazy person who needs medicated."'

No, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with anyone, it has to do with the fact that you and most others on the right say ridiculous, crazy things that would indicate some sort of mental impairment, such as the unfounded idiocy of referring to HRC as “corrupt and evil.”

Most of us, think the same thing about the left, who claims Hilliary isn't evil and corrupt, when the evidence contradicting you is endless.

 

[Andylusion]

Bush/Cheney did not lie to congress. The investigation led by democrats, found that they had not lied. You are the one lying now.

Everyone knows they lied. That you are still hanging on to the lie just shows how out of touch you really are. The one that turned out to be worthless was Bush himself....no wonder he's considered one of the worst US Presidents.



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

Which proves nothing. First, this is according to Salon. When you compare that to other sources of information.....

CNN.com - Woodward Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk - Apr 19 2004

Clearly one of the two accounts must be lying.

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
​

So which is it? Why are your sources correct, while other sources are lying?

National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, based on the information they had at the time, clearly showed they did.

Moreover, the "Report on the US Intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq", completed July 7th 2004, led by John Rockefeller, said conclusively that the claims made were in fact supported by the information at the time.

If Bush lied, then everyone, including all the Democrats lied. You had your chance to prove he lied, and you failed. Total fail.

So with all due respect, you can keep your biased left-wing conspiracy web sites, with the unsupported stories. You had your chance. You failed. It was 'put up or shut up' time when they investigated it, and you couldn't put up. So all you whiners out there really should shut up. You have nothing to say on the matter, and your investigations that proved us right, are the end of your story.

Okay....so you didn't like Salon......well then, how about this one:


Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?

The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News

As for the CIA informing Bush, Chris Matthews gets CIA former Deputy Director to admit that Bush/Cheney didn't tell the truth regarding WMDs.

You still are not grasping the point.

First, we've been over this missing WMDs already.

Inside the Ring Syria Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Washington Times

The U.S.-Russia agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons is reigniting a controversy over the 2003 covert operation by Russian special operations forces to remove Iraqi weapons — including chemical arms — and move them to Syria and Lebanon prior to the Iraq War.
John A. Shaw, a former Pentagon official who first disclosed the Iraqi-Russian collaboration to The Washington Times, said the agreement brokered by Moscow could resolve unanswered questions about the arms transfers.​

We already know that Russian special forces were deployed to Iraq, to remove WMDs prior to the invasion. It's a fact.

However, let us even assume for the moment that this didn't happen.

Still don't disprove the point. Because, the chemical and biological weapons found, were not supposed to exist. Saddam was required to destroy those weapons, according to the ceasefire agreement, and UN resolutions.

So even then, that was proof that Bush and Cheney were right. Saddam did have WMD, and he was in violation of UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement.

But let's even suggest that those weapons didn't exist.

Even if Saddam had no WMD, chemical or otherwise at all..... He *STILL* was in violation of the UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement. He violated both constantly throughout the 1990s.

He was required.... not an option, not an idea.... but required to allow free and open access to military sites to verify the destruction of his military arsenal, by UN inspections. He did not do this.

So all that other crap.... doesn't matter. Not important. He didn't follow the agreement, and thus was in violation, and therefore we were completely justified and right to engage in military action.

This is like driving the speed limit. But I'm not drunk. Doesn't matter. But I have a license. Doesn't matter. But I have no points, and my driving record is clean. Doesn't matter. But I haven't broken any other laws, and I'm a model citizen.

None of that matter. You were driving too fast. You were over the speed limit. Just because you didn't break any 'other' laws, doesn't mean you can ignore the speed limit.

Similarly, if all the rest of what I just pointed out was not true.... he still violated the UN resolutions. That ALONE justifies military action.

LASTLY......

You are still ignoring that regardless of what was found, or what was not found, or what was moved, or not moved....... That still doesn't mean Bush / Cheney *lied*. They didn't lie. Everything they said, was backed by the intelligence we had at the time, according to the Rockefeller report.

You had your chance to prove they lied, and you proved the opposite. You proved they were telling the truth, as it was known at the time. You fail. Period. Game over. Checkmate. Nothing you ever post... .nothing... will ever change the conclusion of the investigation into the statements made by the administration prior to the war, which found they were all supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

Fin!

 

[nat4900]

Bush/Cheney did not lie to congress. The investigation led by democrats, found that they had not lied. You are the one lying now.

Everyone knows they lied. That you are still hanging on to the lie just shows how out of touch you really are. The one that turned out to be worthless was Bush himself....no wonder he's considered one of the worst US Presidents.



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

Which proves nothing. First, this is according to Salon. When you compare that to other sources of information.....

CNN.com - Woodward Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk - Apr 19 2004

Clearly one of the two accounts must be lying.

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
​

So which is it? Why are your sources correct, while other sources are lying?

National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, based on the information they had at the time, clearly showed they did.

Moreover, the "Report on the US Intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq", completed July 7th 2004, led by John Rockefeller, said conclusively that the claims made were in fact supported by the information at the time.

If Bush lied, then everyone, including all the Democrats lied. You had your chance to prove he lied, and you failed. Total fail.

So with all due respect, you can keep your biased left-wing conspiracy web sites, with the unsupported stories. You had your chance. You failed. It was 'put up or shut up' time when they investigated it, and you couldn't put up. So all you whiners out there really should shut up. You have nothing to say on the matter, and your investigations that proved us right, are the end of your story.

Okay....so you didn't like Salon......well then, how about this one:


Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?

The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News

As for the CIA informing Bush, Chris Matthews gets CIA former Deputy Director to admit that Bush/Cheney didn't tell the truth regarding WMDs.

Basically, my friend, right wingers (in trying to appease their own guilty consciences) are blaming just as much those who believed LIES, as those who LIED in the first place.

 

[nat4900]

Research it out, right wingers....it'd be worth it....

 

[Mertex]

Bush/Cheney did not lie to congress. The investigation led by democrats, found that they had not lied. You are the one lying now.

Everyone knows they lied. That you are still hanging on to the lie just shows how out of touch you really are. The one that turned out to be worthless was Bush himself....no wonder he's considered one of the worst US Presidents.



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

Which proves nothing. First, this is according to Salon. When you compare that to other sources of information.....

CNN.com - Woodward Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk - Apr 19 2004

Clearly one of the two accounts must be lying.

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
​

So which is it? Why are your sources correct, while other sources are lying?

National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, based on the information they had at the time, clearly showed they did.

Moreover, the "Report on the US Intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq", completed July 7th 2004, led by John Rockefeller, said conclusively that the claims made were in fact supported by the information at the time.

If Bush lied, then everyone, including all the Democrats lied. You had your chance to prove he lied, and you failed. Total fail.

So with all due respect, you can keep your biased left-wing conspiracy web sites, with the unsupported stories. You had your chance. You failed. It was 'put up or shut up' time when they investigated it, and you couldn't put up. So all you whiners out there really should shut up. You have nothing to say on the matter, and your investigations that proved us right, are the end of your story.

Okay....so you didn't like Salon......well then, how about this one:


Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?

The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News

As for the CIA informing Bush, Chris Matthews gets CIA former Deputy Director to admit that Bush/Cheney didn't tell the truth regarding WMDs.

You still are not grasping the point.

First, we've been over this missing WMDs already.

Inside the Ring Syria Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Washington Times

The U.S.-Russia agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons is reigniting a controversy over the 2003 covert operation by Russian special operations forces to remove Iraqi weapons — including chemical arms — and move them to Syria and Lebanon prior to the Iraq War.
John A. Shaw, a former Pentagon official who first disclosed the Iraqi-Russian collaboration to The Washington Times, said the agreement brokered by Moscow could resolve unanswered questions about the arms transfers.​

We already know that Russian special forces were deployed to Iraq, to remove WMDs prior to the invasion. It's a fact.

However, let us even assume for the moment that this didn't happen.

Still don't disprove the point. Because, the chemical and biological weapons found, were not supposed to exist. Saddam was required to destroy those weapons, according to the ceasefire agreement, and UN resolutions.

So even then, that was proof that Bush and Cheney were right. Saddam did have WMD, and he was in violation of UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement.

But let's even suggest that those weapons didn't exist.

Even if Saddam had no WMD, chemical or otherwise at all..... He *STILL* was in violation of the UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement. He violated both constantly throughout the 1990s.

He was required.... not an option, not an idea.... but required to allow free and open access to military sites to verify the destruction of his military arsenal, by UN inspections. He did not do this.

So all that other crap.... doesn't matter. Not important. He didn't follow the agreement, and thus was in violation, and therefore we were completely justified and right to engage in military action.

This is like driving the speed limit. But I'm not drunk. Doesn't matter. But I have a license. Doesn't matter. But I have no points, and my driving record is clean. Doesn't matter. But I haven't broken any other laws, and I'm a model citizen.

None of that matter. You were driving too fast. You were over the speed limit. Just because you didn't break any 'other' laws, doesn't mean you can ignore the speed limit.

Similarly, if all the rest of what I just pointed out was not true.... he still violated the UN resolutions. That ALONE justifies military action.

LASTLY......

You are still ignoring that regardless of what was found, or what was not found, or what was moved, or not moved....... That still doesn't mean Bush / Cheney *lied*. They didn't lie. Everything they said, was backed by the intelligence we had at the time, according to the Rockefeller report.

You had your chance to prove they lied, and you proved the opposite. You proved they were telling the truth, as it was known at the time. You fail. Period. Game over. Checkmate. Nothing you ever post... .nothing... will ever change the conclusion of the investigation into the statements made by the administration prior to the war, which found they were all supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

Fin!

No, you don't get the point. It's right there on the video, CIA admits that Bush/Cheney lied. False means "not true". CIA told them one thing....they gave a "False" presentation of what Morell gave them....in other words, they lied.


MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.
Bush CIA Deputy Director Admits We Were Lied Into Iraq War


It's obvious that you and other dishonest conservatives will never agree with the facts. You will come up with more and more lies to cover up the original lie.

End of Story.

 

[Mertex]

'Funny how every single time anyone disagrees with a leftist, they are suddenly "a crazy person who needs medicated."'

No, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with anyone, it has to do with the fact that you and most others on the right say ridiculous, crazy things that would indicate some sort of mental impairment, such as the unfounded idiocy of referring to HRC as “corrupt and evil.”

Most of us, think the same thing about the left, who claims Hilliary isn't evil and corrupt, when the evidence contradicting you is endless.

Evil and corrupt? None of the allegations from the right have ever been proven.....if she was corrupt she would have been charged....the right wing is on a tirade trying to destroy her because they know that none of the clowns on the clown train has a chance against her, not even the chief clown, Trump, who is taking you all for a wild ride.

 

[nat4900]

Evil and corrupt? None of the allegations from the right have ever been proven.....if she was corrupt she would have been charged....the right wing is on a tirade trying to destroy her because they know that none of the clowns on the clown train has a chance against her, not even the chief clown, Trump, who is taking you all for a wild ride.

In the extremely remote chance that Trump were to sit in the oval office, I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" when an aide tells Trump that the president can't do such and such without congressional approval, as Trump may have previously made decisions as a CEO.....

 

[Andylusion]

'Funny how every single time anyone disagrees with a leftist, they are suddenly "a crazy person who needs medicated."'

No, it has nothing to do with disagreeing with anyone, it has to do with the fact that you and most others on the right say ridiculous, crazy things that would indicate some sort of mental impairment, such as the unfounded idiocy of referring to HRC as “corrupt and evil.”

Most of us, think the same thing about the left, who claims Hilliary isn't evil and corrupt, when the evidence contradicting you is endless.

Evil and corrupt? None of the allegations from the right have ever been proven.....if she was corrupt she would have been charged....the right wing is on a tirade trying to destroy her because they know that none of the clowns on the clown train has a chance against her, not even the chief clown, Trump, who is taking you all for a wild ride.

No, that's not true. We know that's not true because Clinton was charged, and you people let him off the hook for it. Why bother charging Hillary, when we've already seen that you don't give a crap if someone commits felonies in office?

I guarantee, that if Bush had lost, and Al Gore had won the election, and had in fact lied, as you claim Bush has.... you'd be supporting him. You'd be telling us how great he was at dealing with Saddam. No question in my mind. You people love liars and law breakers. That's your whole party, just about.

 

[Andylusion]

Bush/Cheney did not lie to congress. The investigation led by democrats, found that they had not lied. You are the one lying now.

Everyone knows they lied. That you are still hanging on to the lie just shows how out of touch you really are. The one that turned out to be worthless was Bush himself....no wonder he's considered one of the worst US Presidents.



On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

Which proves nothing. First, this is according to Salon. When you compare that to other sources of information.....

CNN.com - Woodward Tenet told Bush WMD case a slam dunk - Apr 19 2004

Clearly one of the two accounts must be lying.

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
​

So which is it? Why are your sources correct, while other sources are lying?

National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, based on the information they had at the time, clearly showed they did.

Moreover, the "Report on the US Intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq", completed July 7th 2004, led by John Rockefeller, said conclusively that the claims made were in fact supported by the information at the time.

If Bush lied, then everyone, including all the Democrats lied. You had your chance to prove he lied, and you failed. Total fail.

So with all due respect, you can keep your biased left-wing conspiracy web sites, with the unsupported stories. You had your chance. You failed. It was 'put up or shut up' time when they investigated it, and you couldn't put up. So all you whiners out there really should shut up. You have nothing to say on the matter, and your investigations that proved us right, are the end of your story.

Okay....so you didn't like Salon......well then, how about this one:


Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush?

The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

“Conservatives may hope to exploit the New York Timesreport, but the article references pre-1991 weapons,” wrote Steve Benen on the MaddowBlog. “Everything Republicans said in the lead up to the 2003 invasion is still wrong. Indeed, a little common sense is in order – if U.S. troops had found WMD stockpiles, the Bush/Cheney administration would have said so. Indeed, they were desperate to do exactly that.”
New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News

As for the CIA informing Bush, Chris Matthews gets CIA former Deputy Director to admit that Bush/Cheney didn't tell the truth regarding WMDs.

You still are not grasping the point.

First, we've been over this missing WMDs already.

Inside the Ring Syria Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Washington Times

The U.S.-Russia agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons is reigniting a controversy over the 2003 covert operation by Russian special operations forces to remove Iraqi weapons — including chemical arms — and move them to Syria and Lebanon prior to the Iraq War.
John A. Shaw, a former Pentagon official who first disclosed the Iraqi-Russian collaboration to The Washington Times, said the agreement brokered by Moscow could resolve unanswered questions about the arms transfers.​

We already know that Russian special forces were deployed to Iraq, to remove WMDs prior to the invasion. It's a fact.

However, let us even assume for the moment that this didn't happen.

Still don't disprove the point. Because, the chemical and biological weapons found, were not supposed to exist. Saddam was required to destroy those weapons, according to the ceasefire agreement, and UN resolutions.

So even then, that was proof that Bush and Cheney were right. Saddam did have WMD, and he was in violation of UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement.

But let's even suggest that those weapons didn't exist.

Even if Saddam had no WMD, chemical or otherwise at all..... He *STILL* was in violation of the UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement. He violated both constantly throughout the 1990s.

He was required.... not an option, not an idea.... but required to allow free and open access to military sites to verify the destruction of his military arsenal, by UN inspections. He did not do this.

So all that other crap.... doesn't matter. Not important. He didn't follow the agreement, and thus was in violation, and therefore we were completely justified and right to engage in military action.

This is like driving the speed limit. But I'm not drunk. Doesn't matter. But I have a license. Doesn't matter. But I have no points, and my driving record is clean. Doesn't matter. But I haven't broken any other laws, and I'm a model citizen.

None of that matter. You were driving too fast. You were over the speed limit. Just because you didn't break any 'other' laws, doesn't mean you can ignore the speed limit.

Similarly, if all the rest of what I just pointed out was not true.... he still violated the UN resolutions. That ALONE justifies military action.

LASTLY......

You are still ignoring that regardless of what was found, or what was not found, or what was moved, or not moved....... That still doesn't mean Bush / Cheney *lied*. They didn't lie. Everything they said, was backed by the intelligence we had at the time, according to the Rockefeller report.

You had your chance to prove they lied, and you proved the opposite. You proved they were telling the truth, as it was known at the time. You fail. Period. Game over. Checkmate. Nothing you ever post... .nothing... will ever change the conclusion of the investigation into the statements made by the administration prior to the war, which found they were all supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

Fin!

No, you don't get the point. It's right there on the video, CIA admits that Bush/Cheney lied. False means "not true". CIA told them one thing....they gave a "False" presentation of what Morell gave them....in other words, they lied.


MATTHEWS: So you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they're selling the war, using your stuff, saying you made that case when you didn't. So they're using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly, as you just admitted.

MORELL: Look, I'm just telling you—

MATTHEWS: You just admitted it.

MORELL: I'm just telling you what we said—

MATTHEWS: They gave a false presentation of what you said to them.

MORELL: On some aspects. On some aspects.
Bush CIA Deputy Director Admits We Were Lied Into Iraq War


It's obvious that you and other dishonest conservatives will never agree with the facts. You will come up with more and more lies to cover up the original lie.

End of Story.

Nothing you just posted, contradicted one single thing that I posted. Fail.

Moreover, you didn't read the entire transcript.

Fmr. CIA Deputy Director grilled on Iraq War MSNBC

Watch the video.... he says over and over....

"The intelligence community was telling the POTUS that Saddam had WMD".

"Here's what we said, we said he has chemical weapons, we said he has biological weapons production capability, and we said he is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program"

Which is exactly what Cheney said. You people split hairs, to try and make out that he said something he didn't.

Cheney - "We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Reconstituted nuclear weapons. Can you "reconstitute" a nuclear weapons? No you can not. It's not possible. You can build a nuclear weapon. You can acquire a nuclear weapon. But after destroying a nuclear weapons, you can't just "reconstitute it".

Anyone who denies that, is just showing their ignorance of nuclear technology.

Moreover, if they had somehow "reconstituted" a nuclear weapons, then the claim that Saddam is "devoted to trying to acquire a nuclear weapon", makes no logical sense. Why would anyone be trying to get something he already has?

Obviously, Cheney was trying to relay the statement he was given by the CIA, that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program. Only the most idiotic of dimwits, can't figure that out. Or... a leftist looking to make up a strawman to attack.

Regardless of the statement by Cheney... the fact remains that the CIA said he did have WMDs, and was attempting to get more.

In short, your own link proves EXACTLY what I was saying all along. You fail again. Please continue. This is fun using your own links to make you look dumb.

 

[paulitician]

He's a pervert womanizer. Who knows how many women he's raped? Unlike Bill Cosby, we'll likely never know. He's too well-protected. So **** em.

Are all conservatives liars like you, or are you their liar-in-chief? You're going to explode with all that anger inside of you based on erroneous information that you've gathered from who knows where......maybe Rush Limbaugh or Faux News, but I seriously doubt they would make such bizarre accusations that everyone knows are not true. You obviously live in a very small bubble.

Yes we know, he's definitely not a pervert womanizer sicko. His good buddy Jeffrey Epstein says so too. It's just a 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.'

 

[paulitician]

He's a pervert womanizer. Who knows how many women he's raped? Unlike Bill Cosby, we'll likely never know. He's too well-protected. So **** em.

The thing is, the women accusing him all had serious credibility problems.

Juanita Broderick swore in an affadavit that she never had sex with Clinton, and then claimed she was raped. Was she lying then or is she lying now?

Kathleen Willey had so little credibility that Ken Starr's successor, Charles Ray, said nothing she said could be believed.

So these are your two best case arguments for "Clinton is a rapist."

Then you have Paula Jones, who now admits that the right wing groups that backed her suit and left her hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt were just using her. Not a lot of credibility there.

He's a pervert degenerate who hung around with other pervert degenerates. We'll never really know how many women him and good buddies like Jeffrey Epstein abused. Too much power & money involved. He won't pay the way Bill Cosby will. And that's very sad for the women who suffered so much.