Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/23/2006 9:33:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 9:34:49 AM EDT by ar15bubba]
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:34:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:36:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
public.andrews.amc.af.mil/jsoh/images/planes/b-52-2_large.jpg



Nice pic, we need more of that.

It is my new background
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:40:05 AM EDT
Two people who hate America and everything we stand for met? How can that be? The press who know all see all said there was no connection between Osama Bin laden and Suddam Hussein. Bush lies not the liberal press!
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:42:54 AM EDT
I'm noticing how the Left and MSM continues to 'move the goal posts'.... first we were assured, 100% certainty that whereas Al Qaeda was in every OTHER nation on earth, they definately had absolutely zero contact with Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Now we're told "aw shucks, it wasn't an OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP". Uh huh.

Tell me again, what sort of "operational relationship" did Hitler have with Imperial Japan again? So does this mean WW2 was real two wars? What does the Left say again? Oh that's right, since THEIR guy was in the whitehouse and their 'komrades' were on the defensive in Russia, it was one, single glorious struggle against the forces of fascism....

JAPAN bombs Pearl Harbor....and we declare war on Germany...

But here we go....as time goes on, more and more evidence piles up that there WAS an official relationship between AQ and Iraq.... so they'll sniff some more glue and change the definitions again to "well, since there was no OPERATIONAL link between Iraq and the 19 hijackers..... or since none were Iraqi agents.... there was no link at all...



Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:49:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
public.andrews.amc.af.mil/jsoh/images/planes/b-52-2_large.jpg



That sure is a nice way to bless our foes with wisdom.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:50:29 AM EDT
...BUT..there was NO LINK between Saddam and bin Laden.

Riiiiiiiiight.

HH
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:55:31 AM EDT
Move along... nothing to see here. Bush lied... the Democrats told me so!






- BG


Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:57:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:58:15 AM EDT
oh please! would you give it up already??? It's over, you got that? plain and simple over. Bush's ratings are in the tank, and most people are now against the war in iraq. So he sent a PFC from the army to meet with ramalama-ding-dong in the Sudan. Big whoop! still does'nt make him responsable for 9-11 or have any WMD's or what was that one assiciated with Plame? Uranium in Niger? (prnounced knee-jehr ) We are there, Bush got re-elected, yesterday he said "another president will have to decide" meaning he forsees troops in Iraq past 2008. Why are you still whining? trying to grasp at threads to prove a moot point?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:02:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
oh please! would you give it up already??? It's over, you got that? plain and simple over. Bush's ratings are in the tank, and most people are now against the war in iraq. So he sent a PFC from the army to meet with ramalama-ding-dong in the Sudan. Big whoop! still does'nt make him responsable for 9-11 or have any WMD's or what was that one assiciated with Plame? Uranium in Niger? (prnounced knee-jehr ) We are there, Bush got re-elected, yesterday he said "another president will have to decide" meaning he forsees troops in Iraq past 2008. Why are you still whining? trying to grasp at threads to prove a moot point?



Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:19:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
oh please! would you give it up already??? It's over, you got that? plain and simple over. Bush's ratings are in the tank, and most people are now against the war in iraq. So he sent a PFC from the army to meet with ramalama-ding-dong in the Sudan. Big whoop! still does'nt make him responsable for 9-11 or have any WMD's or what was that one assiciated with Plame? Uranium in Niger? (prnounced knee-jehr ) We are there, Bush got re-elected, yesterday he said "another president will have to decide" meaning he forsees troops in Iraq past 2008. Why are you still whining? trying to grasp at threads to prove a moot point?







?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:30:42 AM EDT
I never did figure out what the big deal with Bush's SOTU speech was... he said, THE BRITISH CLAIM... and then said what they claim was true. Nothing in the subsequent chatter disproved that the Brits affirmed what Bush said they affirmed.

They've stuck with their story - Iraqis did try to get Yellow cake from an African nation...it was the Left who said 'oh that must be Niger'.

I know it comes down to the ability to read and intellectual honesty - Bush didn't lie (i.e claim the Brits said something they DIDN'T SAY) nor was he 'misleading' - the claim wasn't "that they GOT uranium from an african nation" but "that they TRIED to". Big, big difference.

Just as there's a big, big difference between the left claiming Bush CLAIMED Iraq to be "an imminent threat" when in fact he repeatedly stated, and based his argument on the grounds that THEY WEREN'T BUT WE CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO BECOME AN IMMINENT THREAT.

Scheeesh. If the man's idea is wrong, fine, disagree with him. But don't put words into his mouth that change the whole thing and then call him a liar.

You can disagree, claim he's WRONG, or claim his strategy is WRONG, but you can't intellectually make the argument that he lied.

For Bush to have lied about WMD, he would have had to have known, 100% that there were none in Iraq, while the rest of the world's intelligency agencies and Saddam's own generals thought there were....

So again, it's a case of Bush being WRONG, not Bush lying. Whereas Bill Clinton knew what he did with Monica.... if a Clinton lackey, believing Bill's word for it, claimed "The President didn't have sex with that woman" this lackey wouldn't be lying... he'd just be wrong...unless he were an eyewitness of course....

But the Left either doesn't get this (so isn't "sophisticated" and "nuanced" enough to fight their way out of a wet paper bag).... or they do, and don't care - they're immorally trying to score points by making things up.

Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:36:19 AM EDT
[Lidtard w/ Finger in ears]La La Laaaaaaaa laaaaa laaaaaaa Laaaaaa LAaaaaaa LAAAA LAAAAAAAAAA{/]

Don't harsh my buzz with facts man
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:38:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
I never did figure out what the big deal with Bush's SOTU speech was... he said, THE BRITISH CLAIM... and then said what they claim was true. Nothing in the subsequent chatter disproved that the Brits affirmed what Bush said they affirmed.

They've stuck with their story - Iraqis did try to get Yellow cake from an African nation...it was the Left who said 'oh that must be Niger'.

I know it comes down to the ability to read and intellectual honesty - Bush didn't lie (i.e claim the Brits said something they DIDN'T SAY) nor was he 'misleading' - the claim wasn't "that they GOT uranium from an african nation" but "that they TRIED to". Big, big difference.

Just as there's a big, big difference between the left claiming Bush CLAIMED Iraq to be "an imminent threat" when in fact he repeatedly stated, and based his argument on the grounds that THEY WEREN'T BUT WE CAN'T ALLOW THEM TO BECOME AN IMMINENT THREAT.

Scheeesh. If the man's idea is wrong, fine, disagree with him. But don't put words into his mouth that change the whole thing and then call him a liar.

You can disagree, claim he's WRONG, or claim his strategy is WRONG, but you can't intellectually make the argument that he lied.

For Bush to have lied about WMD, he would have had to have known, 100% that there were none in Iraq, while the rest of the world's intelligency agencies and Saddam's own generals thought there were....

So again, it's a case of Bush being WRONG, not Bush lying. Whereas Bill Clinton knew what he did with Monica.... if a Clinton lackey, believing Bill's word for it, claimed "The President didn't have sex with that woman" this lackey wouldn't be lying... he'd just be wrong...unless he were an eyewitness of course....

But the Left either doesn't get this (so isn't "sophisticated" and "nuanced" enough to fight their way out of a wet paper bag).... or they do, and don't care - they're immorally trying to score points by making things up.




Sadamm bluffed, we called, he lost.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:39:59 AM EDT
Bush is making this shit up to cover up for his illegal and immoral war for oil!!

We need to ban Bush.... for the children!
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:41:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
oh please! would you give it up already??? It's over, you got that? plain and simple over. Bush's ratings are in the tank, and most people are now against the war in iraq. So he sent a PFC from the army to meet with ramalama-ding-dong in the Sudan. Big whoop! still does'nt make him responsable for 9-11 or have any WMD's or what was that one assiciated with Plame? Uranium in Niger? (prnounced knee-jehr ) We are there, Bush got re-elected, yesterday he said "another president will have to decide" meaning he forsees troops in Iraq past 2008. Why are you still whining? trying to grasp at threads to prove a moot point?



Do you thinks it funny that he isn't trying too hard to pull up his rating. Maybe because he doesn't need to since he can't be re-elected. Wait till closer to the midterms, he will pull them up to help the GOP. Look for another defeat for the party of defeat (The Dems).
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:46:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 10:47:25 AM EDT by JPC]
F.I.D.O.,,f it drive on

Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:09:21 AM EDT
Finally and from the Libtard press.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:12:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Partisan:

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
oh please! would you give it up already??? It's over, you got that? plain and simple over. Bush's ratings are in the tank, and most people are now against the war in iraq. So he sent a PFC from the army to meet with ramalama-ding-dong in the Sudan. Big whoop! still does'nt make him responsable for 9-11 or have any WMD's or what was that one assiciated with Plame? Uranium in Niger? (prnounced knee-jehr ) We are there, Bush got re-elected, yesterday he said "another president will have to decide" meaning he forsees troops in Iraq past 2008. Why are you still whining? trying to grasp at threads to prove a moot point?







?



UH, NO, Im not trolling on this one. I just dont understand the mentality of people who are STILL trying to make weak connections between Saddam and Al-queda. Look at most of my post, they end in question marks, not periods, I asked questions. Like i said before, we are already there, Bush got re-elected, he just said they are in it for the long haul (say the course Etc) So why act like it's jan 2003 and you're still trying to convince the US people we need to "go in"?????
In fact i dont even know what "the neo-cons" really want anymore. All the things we set out to do, we did. Sadaam is gone, they had 3! elections already, and 80% of the iraqis (kurds & Shia) are NOT on the side of the Insurgents. So i dont see why we are still there, or why we are actin like it's 2003? In '03 i said to myself "i can think of a bunch o f countries we could go after first before Iraq (like Iran, Saudi arabia, Pakistan etc.) And now with Iran racing to get the Bomb we might not be able to do anything because we are in Iraq. Oh, and as to thier so-called democracy which (i guess) we should be so proud of, They justy go to the polls and elect fundamentalist sharia law clerics to thier Gov't. How does that help us in any way???????
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:35:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 11:36:12 AM EDT by ar15bubba]

I just dont understand the mentality of people who are STILL trying to make weak connections between Saddam and Al-queda.


Weak?, Saddam sending intellegence agents to Sudan to meet with Bin Laden's guys to coorperate on attacking the USA? If you do not think that is important you are in left field. The Dems and MSM are trying to affect the fighting will of the American Public and the fighting men over in Iraq. Direct ties between Saddam and AlQ would be a boost to morale. Even though those brave Americans over there would do their job anyway.

Do you not know that the ALQ handbook says that the War against the west is 90% propoganda?

You are just ignorant of this I am sure, you just need to expand your knowledge about the subject.


And now with Iran racing to get the Bomb we might not be able to do anything because we are in Iraq.


We only have 132,000 people in Iraq, and we cannot do anything about Iran getting the bomb?


Oh, and as to thier so-called democracy which (i guess) we should be so proud of, They justy go to the polls and elect fundamentalist sharia law clerics to thier Gov't. How does that help us in any way???????


The so called Democracy where 70% of the people voted while under constant threat of being blown up?

The people did not elect a series of Clerics! But I wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts.

In reality you do not know what you are talking about.



Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:52:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:57:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
UH, NO, Im not trolling on this one.



Coulda fooled me.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:57:33 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:58:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
oh please! would you give it up already???



What? Do we look French to you, comrade?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 12:52:11 PM EDT




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now with Iran racing to get the Bomb we might not be able to do anything because we are in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




We only have 132,000 people in Iraq, and we cannot do anything about Iran getting the bomb?


Uh yeah, unable. In order to get going on Iran he's going to need political capital. Political capital he might not have anymore because people are weary of Iraq and weary of being "fooled again". Even if they were'nt fooled in the first place, they can still act as if they were. Getting the people involved in a third war is just too much to ask of the people right now, so Iran might slip in under the wire. TO me a nuclear Iran is 1000 X worse then a contained Sadaam ever was. "Could" we do something about Iran ? Yes. But the question is WILL WE? Or has Iraq sapped the peoples resolve to Back another Bush war??? That is why i always considered invading Iraq to be a bad move.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:04:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:18:43 PM EDT
anyone notice all the editors notes trying to discredit the memo the story is on?

TXL
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:24:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
oh please! would you give it up already??? It's over, you got that? plain and simple over. Bush's ratings are in the tank, and most people are now against the war in iraq. So he sent a PFC from the army to meet with ramalama-ding-dong in the Sudan. Big whoop! still does'nt make him responsable for 9-11 or have any WMD's or what was that one assiciated with Plame? Uranium in Niger? (prnounced knee-jehr ) We are there, Bush got re-elected, yesterday he said "another president will have to decide" meaning he forsees troops in Iraq past 2008. Why are you still whining? trying to grasp at threads to prove a moot point?



Sure, the evidence starts showing up and you think it's time to change the station. History will judge better with all the facts.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:27:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 1:27:48 PM EDT by dolanp]
I don't see what the 'I told you so' folks are rejoicing for, are you contending that Bush knew this in '03 but just never mentioned it? Hardly.

You can say you believe in the original story (some of which ended up being false) and that's fine, but you can't pretend that stuff we discovered after invading and occupying Iraq could possibly substitute for a missing reason to go there in the first place. It's almost as if you folks aren't convinced we should have gone there because you keep touting ex-post-facto justification.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 5:15:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
UH, NO, Im not trolling on this one. I just dont understand the mentality of people who are STILL trying to make weak connections between Saddam and Al-queda.

Discovering documents that link Saddam to Osama is not "making" a link.
It is revealing the truth.

Look at most of my post, they end in question marks, not periods, I asked questions. Like i said before, we are already there, Bush got re-elected, he just said they are in it for the long haul (say the course Etc) So why act like it's jan 2003 and you're still trying to convince the US people we need to "go in"?????
In fact i dont even know what "the neo-cons" really want anymore. All the things we set out to do, we did. Sadaam is gone, they had 3! elections already, and 80% of the iraqis (kurds & Shia) are NOT on the side of the Insurgents. So i dont see why we are still there, or why we are actin like it's 2003? In '03 i said to myself "i can think of a bunch o f countries we could go after first before Iraq (like Iran, Saudi arabia, Pakistan etc.) And now with Iran racing to get the Bomb we might not be able to do anything because we are in Iraq. Oh, and as to thier so-called democracy which (i guess) we should be so proud of, They justy go to the polls and elect fundamentalist sharia law clerics to thier Gov't. How does that help us in any way???????


I'm sorry you find the truth to be so upsetting.
I realize that you have become so comfortable with your "no connection whatsoever" talking points, that it will probably a news cycle for you to be issued NEW ones.
Be patient. They will soon let you know again what to say.
Top Top