- Thread starter
- #101
Wounded warriors
- Thread starter eddiew
- Start date
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
The senate passed it with the help of the Dims, some key players too. We know who the president was. You've proven you are retarded.
Ladies and Gentleman this is not about who done it, its about Wounded Vets. Why is it that the liberal mouth pieces always detract from the issue and expect someone else to flip the bill and assume responsibility. These individuals stood in harms way to preserve or life liberty and way of life, for everyone, regardless of their political persuasion at the request of those we elected to lead the nation.
- Thread starter
- #105
Is it so hard for you to admit how ONE sided that vote was? Even a repub idiot should admit to that fact
OVERWHELMINGLY one sided
- Thread starter
- #106
well didn't the material say only 60% goes to vets?? If not I suggest you get new material
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
The major Dims voted for it, that's the point. Retard.
That statement is dead wrong...
Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?
But Redfish talks 100% bullshit is a statistic that should be looked at... Another RW proven liar..
- Thread starter
- #109
major minor they all get one vote ,,,,,,,,,,
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,905
- 1,940
- Banned
- #110
Infidel Bloggers Alliance: Wounded Warrior Project CEO Confirms Organization Is Anti-Gun and Anti-Knife
It looks to be anti gun, if so they are not worth the time of day...
It looks to be anti gun, if so they are not worth the time of day...
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
To support your argument that President Bush acted alone, you really have to prove the following:
1) That the Clinton administration never believed the WMDs existed, and that those findings he utilized were fabricated with the intent to mislead the American people.
2) That Saddam was in fact in compliance with the UN weapons inspectors, and not a threat.
3) That Nancy Pelosi, who later would become speaker under Bush, was lying when she stated:
"Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"
4) That the weapons inspectors were negligent or fabricated their findings when they concluded the following:
"UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."
5) Disprove the evidence provided to the UN by Hussein Kamal, son-inlaw of Saddam and organizer of Iraq's WMD program, confirming a stockpile of weapons to UNSCOM. A stockpile that included:
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.
(this among other damning evidence you never read from President Clinton's own speech)
SOURCE LINK :
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.Iraq/
Take notice that the source comes from CNN and not FoxNews.
Unless your responses are stating that CNN, along with the Clinton administration, is in a conspiracy with the republicans to fabricate a case for an attack on Iraq? There really comes a time when you just have to face the facts, unless you care to discredit each and every one of these points in your next reply?
There is just no fcats provided that President Bush, or the republicans acted aloneness this. NONE at all.
Move on Eddiew, no one here is buying your conspiracy theory delusions. Just you.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #112
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.
MORE PERSPECTIVES
JAMES POULOSRand Paul was the only Republican to have a good debate
SHIKHA DALMIAFlint water victims can't sue the government. That's another crime.
And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.
And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)
Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.
The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.
This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.
MORE PERSPECTIVES
Rand Paul was the only Republican to have a good debate
Flint water victims can't sue the government. That's another crime.
And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.
And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)
Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.
The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.
This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.
Read my reply, either you can provide specific facts to what I provided or you can't ... I'm not entertaining conspiracy theory propaganda opinion blogs. Your post contains no credible researched facts. You're boring me .
Last edited:
Muhammed
Diamond Member
Actually we were at war in Iraq before GWB took office. GWB inherited the war from Clinton.
- Thread starter
- #115
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.
MORE PERSPECTIVES
Rand Paul was the only Republican to have a good debate
Flint water victims can't sue the government. That's another crime.
And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.
And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)
Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.
The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.
This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.
Read my reply, either you can provide specific facts to what I provided or you can't ... I'm not entertaining conspiracy theory propaganda opinion blogs. Your post contains no credible researched facts. You're boring me .
1000's dead caused by a half a man a republican pos gwb and I bore you??? Go worship the garbage and make excuse for the murderers I won't try to penetrate your thick skull again
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Oh look! It's a Trump Talking Point *****.
Oh Look! It's LoneLaugher Loser we laugh at! So we trade insults...that is probably what happens in Congress and nobody listens to one another.
One good point is that many anti Trump people claim he's a flip flopping Liberal. Maybe he really is and it's not just that he has changed his mind. Would it be better to have a firm Conservative President or man who understand the Liberal?
Maybe we need someone who can see both sides of an issue. Sanders doesn't have a background of any conservative viewpoints that I am aware of and it would be hard for him to reach across the aisle. We need someone in Congress and the Executive branch that listens to both viewpoints and can work a compromise.
LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
You have that now.
We are approaching an election where all of the players will be changing. Choice - Staunch Liberal without any conservative values or A "Conservative" who was known for leaning to the left in earlier years. Which one could likely make agreements with Congress?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Former Obama Campaign Managers Warn Democratic Party Is a Mess- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 2
-
Zone1 Traditional Catholic 'German Barbarian Bootcamp'- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
A solution to the growing number of unemployable Americans
- Started by GuyOnInternet
- Replies: 6
