jknowgood
Diamond Member
At one time neither was laden at one point.
Would ANY Bush Basher care to refute these statements???
- Thread starter healthmyths
- Start date
He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.
Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....
Of Course it was! You Sheeple just Crack me Up!Bush spent nearly seven years looking for him and couldn't find him and after Obama has him killed, it was Bush's intelligence that did it? Bush and Intelligence are an oxymoron.
jknowgood
Diamond Member
You dumb ass Leon Panetta said water boarding was used in gathering the intelligence to get laden. Obama swore his administration never used water boarding. So once again, thank you president Bush.He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.
Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....
Bush spent nearly seven years looking for him and couldn't find him and after Obama has him killed, it was Bush's intelligence that did it? Bush and Intelligence are an oxymoron.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #304
He knows, it was his intelligence that what was needed to get laden. Thanks president Bush.
Has anyone called the recovering alcoholic to tell him Bin Laden is dead yet? He might still be looking on his ranch for him.....
Bush spent nearly seven years looking for him and couldn't find him and after Obama has him killed, it was Bush's intelligence that did it? Bush and Intelligence are an oxymoron.
Now for the FACTS....which of course idiots like you will NOT acknowledge because:
A) you can't read something more then 30 words..
B) If you do read you won't understand most of the below because it requires a Gunning Fog index :13.11 i.e. 1 year of college reading level! But again something obviously WAY over your head!
Tests Document Readability
But [Obama's'] administration never would have had the opportunity to do the right thing had it not been for some extraordinary work during the George W. Bush administration.
Much of that work has been denigrated by Obama as unproductive and contrary to American principles.
[Obama] He is wrong on both counts.
The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work painstakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.
In 2004, an al-Qaeda terrorist was captured trying to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq. That captured terrorist was taken to a secret CIA prison — or “black site” — where, initially, he was uncooperative. After being subjected to some “enhanced interrogation techniques” — techniques authorized by officials at the most senior levels of the U.S. government and that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel confirmed were consistent with U.S. law — the detainee became compliant. He was not one of the three al-Qaeda operatives who underwent waterboarding, the harshest of the hard measures.
Once this terrorist decided that non-cooperation was a non-starter, he told us many things — including that bin Laden had given up communicating via telephone, radio or Internet, and depended solely on a single courier who went by “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.” At the time, I was chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. The fact that bin Laden was relying on a lone courier was a revelation that told me bin Laden had given up day-to-day control of his organization. You can’t run an operation as large, complex and ambitious as al-Qaeda by communicating only every few months. It also told me that capturing him would be even harder than we had thought.
The path to Osama bin Laden s death didn t start with Obama - The Washington Post
You used that to back up this claim of yours, "After 9-11, one of Bush's first priorities was to find a way to pin it on Saddam Hussein." Even when you figured out the right State of the Union, W didn't say that. He said Hussein "could" help al Qaeda commit terrorism. He made no link to 9/11 in that statement or even claimed Hussein had helped them. He said what you did in neither speech.
RW doesn't respond to questions or provide links, he only demands them
Bush and Cheney's impatience caused the death of thousands of Americans and an untold number of Iraqis. And we are paying for the war he couldn't ever pay for, even today. The world disagreed with W and DICK, but they pushed their war agenda with lies and fabrications. Everyone knows that.
Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.
Stop trying to defend Bush and figure out who, if anyone, can defeat Hillary in 2016. That is where your priorities should be.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #308
AND stop denying the FACTS!
Bush NEVER started the Liberation of Iraq!
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq, SIGNED by CLINTON, and the Congress passed Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
What part of "Authorization for USE of Military Force Against Iraq" do YOU NOT comprehend?
The WORLD didn't disagree... Democrats who FIRST pushed for removing Saddam..all before GWB did as well as the totally biased MSM!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
Then when ABC,CBS,NBC all ran daily body counts that was REALLY supportive.
PLEASE PLEASE REFUTE this study that showed people like you and the traitors below HELPED kill those troops by calling our troops "terrorists" cold blooded killers!
Finally I don't comprehend how people don't understand that when these statements are made...they HELPED prolong the war and no one yet here including YOU
have YET refuted this Harvard study that showed when statements like the below were made, violence INCREASED in iraq!
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS 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.
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.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
NOTE: You are not that naive to think the terrorists didn't find Kerry calling OUR TROOPS terrorists absolutely EMBOLDENING???
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ....
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , JanS. 23. 2003
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???
Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "
jknowgood
Diamond Member
We couldn't afford to pay for the war? Well your guy has outspent all presidents combined. Where is your outrage?
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #310
FACTS to support your comment!
What major cataclysmic event has occurred during Obama that EQUALS the 4 gigantic events that touched EVERYONE in the USA? NOTHING to compare with
A) Dot.com bust... B) Recession... C) 9/11 3,000 deaths, worse then Pearl Harbor...D) Worst hurricane SEASONS....not just hurricanes! NOTHING of the equivalence!
Which President had the largest contributions to national debt due to deficits even after the above events???
Federal deficit falling to lowest in Obama presidency
Total deficits Obama will have $6,356,000,000,000 ($6.3 trillion)
Total Deficits BUSH had $3.294 trillion! Obama will have increased DEFICITS by 207%!!!
jknowgood
Diamond Member
You gonna send jim off to media matters for new talking points. Dang those facts! Lol
Here are the facts. The recovering alcoholic screwed us for years to come.
http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411
The main premise for the war was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these were at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. In the end, however, there were no such weapons, and Saddam’s links to al Qaeda were unproven. This robbed the invasion of legitimacy.
Bush, the Cowboy from New England, is and was an idiot.
http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411
The main premise for the war was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these were at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. In the end, however, there were no such weapons, and Saddam’s links to al Qaeda were unproven. This robbed the invasion of legitimacy.
Bush, the Cowboy from New England, is and was an idiot.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #313
But YOU are ignoring the point and FACTS!
Saddam for nearly five years let 576,000 children starve!
FACT:
The study also found steeply rising malnutrition among the young, suggesting that more children will be at risk in the coming years. The results of the survey will appear on Friday in The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Association.
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
FACT: Blix et.al. were NOT ABLE to find WMDs in the areas Iraq allowed them to search!
FACT: All Saddam had to do was AGREE AND CERTIFY with Blix et.al. that WMDS had been destroyed and
1) The sanctions would be lifted and children wouldn't starve.
2) Saddam would most likely be alive today!
ALL Saddam need do is CERTIFY WMDs destroyed.
I am going to yell because YOU ALL don't seem to comprehend !!!
SADDAM did NOT certify! Therefore if the very person who would KNOW could prevent his capture and ultimate death i.e. SADDAM why in the
f...k did he not simply agree with Blix, et.al. and CERTIFY WMDs were destroyed?
CAN YOU answer that simple question?
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #314
It really isn't a complicated question!
If Saddam wanted to save his life and 576,000 children from starvation WHY didn't he simply agree that Iraq destroyed the WMDs?
If Saddam wanted to save his life and 576,000 children from starvation WHY didn't he simply agree that Iraq destroyed the WMDs?
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #315
I am waiting for someone to answer that simple question.
There are NO other arguments involved. NO one disputes Blix et.al. said they found no WMDs.
Then as Occam's razor --The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Why would Saddam choose to be captured and hung when all he had to do was simply agree with Blix et.al. and CERTIFY the WMDs were destroyed?
Given the simple choice I can not understand why all these yelling about Bush lied,etc. is involved!
Saddam would rather die then agree the WMDs were destroyed!
THAT SIMPLE
There are NO other arguments involved. NO one disputes Blix et.al. said they found no WMDs.
Then as Occam's razor --The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Why would Saddam choose to be captured and hung when all he had to do was simply agree with Blix et.al. and CERTIFY the WMDs were destroyed?
Given the simple choice I can not understand why all these yelling about Bush lied,etc. is involved!
Saddam would rather die then agree the WMDs were destroyed!
THAT SIMPLE
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #316
By:
Tom Nichols is a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. He also taught at Dartmouth College, Georgetown University (where he also received his PhD), and other schools and lecture programs.
What follows is adapted from my 2008 book on preventive war, Eve of Destruction. Let’s be clear: if I knew this in 2006 and 2007 when the book was undergoing edits at a top university press, then it wasn’t a secret.
The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton laid out the connection between Iraq, VX weapons, and Al Qaeda in 1998, and Clinton himself provided such a strong rationale for going to war against Hussein that the far left was ape shit distressed at his turn toward war mongering.
If you really want to know why we didn’t have a major (or major enough) debate on going to war in 2003, you might consider the degree to which senior members of the Democratic Party over 15 years ago had already sold their souls to support Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric, and thus were going to have a hard time explaining why they were then retreating on their own death-to-Saddam stuff only five years later without looking nakedly partisan.
So, Clinton lied?
No. Clinton and his people, including career diplomats and intelligence officers made their best guess. But in any case, the next time you hear the claim that Bush dreamed up the Iraq-WMD-Al Qaeda connection, you can correct the record and note that it was none other than the best and the brightest working for Bill Clinton who came up with that one, not Bush or Cheney. It doesn’t mean Bush doesn’t own the war, but it does point out that there was a lot greater unanimity in the view of Saddam’s Iraq as a threat to the U.S., even before 9/11.
Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That 8217 s right Bill Clinton. The War Room
Tom Nichols is a professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor in the Harvard Extension School. He also taught at Dartmouth College, Georgetown University (where he also received his PhD), and other schools and lecture programs.
What follows is adapted from my 2008 book on preventive war, Eve of Destruction. Let’s be clear: if I knew this in 2006 and 2007 when the book was undergoing edits at a top university press, then it wasn’t a secret.
The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton laid out the connection between Iraq, VX weapons, and Al Qaeda in 1998, and Clinton himself provided such a strong rationale for going to war against Hussein that the far left was ape shit distressed at his turn toward war mongering.
If you really want to know why we didn’t have a major (or major enough) debate on going to war in 2003, you might consider the degree to which senior members of the Democratic Party over 15 years ago had already sold their souls to support Clinton’s bellicose rhetoric, and thus were going to have a hard time explaining why they were then retreating on their own death-to-Saddam stuff only five years later without looking nakedly partisan.
So, Clinton lied?
No. Clinton and his people, including career diplomats and intelligence officers made their best guess. But in any case, the next time you hear the claim that Bush dreamed up the Iraq-WMD-Al Qaeda connection, you can correct the record and note that it was none other than the best and the brightest working for Bill Clinton who came up with that one, not Bush or Cheney. It doesn’t mean Bush doesn’t own the war, but it does point out that there was a lot greater unanimity in the view of Saddam’s Iraq as a threat to the U.S., even before 9/11.
Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That 8217 s right Bill Clinton. The War Room
Last edited:
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #317
I'm waiting for the Bush Bashers to refute or will it be a cold day in hell????
These Bush bashers are like rats in a cellar. When the LIGHT of FACTS turns on they scurry and scatter afraid of the truth and the light!
These Bush bashers are like rats in a cellar. When the LIGHT of FACTS turns on they scurry and scatter afraid of the truth and the light!
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
OIL...says who?
Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq
Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News
How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.[/QUOTE]
Hey pea brain...when those plans are distributed at a White House National Security Council meeting, it is no longer a 'contingency' plan.
The White House National Security Council (NSC) is the principal forum used by the President of the United States for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and Cabinet officials and is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Educate yourself. This former George W. Bush speechwriter was fired by a right wing think tank for revealing the truth...
Waterloo
David Frum
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
healthmyths
Diamond Member
- Sep 19, 2011
- 30,097
- 11,535
- 1,400
- Thread starter
- #320
I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question:
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?
Why would Saddam resist certifying his WMDs were destroyed if it would save his control over Iraq and 100,000 starving children a year?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Small Town America is No Escape from Democrat Meddling- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 6
