# "Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax"



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

> _By David Corn_
> 
> An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book, *finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war*.
> 
> ...



"Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax" | Mother Jones


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

> But there's more. So much more. The film highlights a Pentagon document declassified two years ago. This memo notes that in November 2001shortly after the 9/11 attacksSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks to review plans for the "decapitation" of the Iraqi government. The two men reviewed how a war against Saddam could be triggered; that list included a "dispute over WMD inspections." It's evidence that the administration was seeking a pretense for war.
> 
> The yellowcake uranium supposedly bought by Saddam in Niger, the aluminum tubes supposedly used to process uranium into weapons-grade material, the supposed connection between Saddam and Osama bin Ladenthe documentary features intelligence analysts and experts who at the time were saying and warning that the intelligence on these topics was wrong or uncertain. Yet administration officials kept using lousy and inconclusive intelligence to push the case for war.
> 
> ...



From the OP link.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

Don't miss the premiere of 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' hosted by Rachel Maddow, Feb. 18 at 9pm E.T./6pm P.T.

I'll be watching...


----------



## rdean (Feb 17, 2013)

We all kinda knew it already.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

rdean said:


> We all kinda knew it already.



Yeah, but it's good to be reminded of such a stupid atrocity so it isn't repeated.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 17, 2013)

rdean said:


> We all kinda knew it already.







Yeah, this is like, some extremely old news.  If they reveal in some startlingly obvious way that the war has been privatized and is still going on?  Well, then it would be interesting.  I'd sure like to know about the accountability of all the private contractors to the American Public, but sadly, there is none.

Most people think the conflict there is over, but it isn't.  It is just at a very low level.  Added to that, we have reinserted troops in the Northern Provinces ever since there has been trouble in Syria.  The whole damn place is a mess, but it isn't covered in the press.  Are deaths in the largest private contract army on earth still considered American deaths?  Or are those just private fatalities, "the cost of doing business?"



> Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.
> 
> 
> According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.
> ...


http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/09/277127/3000-us-troops-secretly-return-to-iraq/

No, the U.S. is not leaving Iraq

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/no_the_u_s_is_not_leaving_iraq/




A private military contractor gestures to colleagues flying overhead in a helicopter as they secure the scene of a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad.(Credit: AP)


> In a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., Wednesday, President Obama declared that the war in Iraq is over.
> 
> Ive come to speak to you about the end of the war in Iraq, he told gathered troops. Over the last few months, the final work of leaving Iraq has been done. Dozens of bases with American names that housed thousands of American troops have been closed down or turned over to the Iraqis.  Thousands of tons of equipment have been packed up and shipped out. Tomorrow, the colors of United States Forces-Iraq  the colors you fought under  will be formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad.
> 
> ...





> So in your estimation, is the war actually over?
> 
> Its going to shift into a more sotto voce form. Its going to be a lot subtler. But it most certainly is continuing. Just because we dont have a U.S. troop presence anymore or a formal U.S. chain of command anymore, does not mean that the war is over.



Sooooo, the question remains.  If the whole thing is a hoax, why does the current administration continue on with this belligerent policy?!?!  Why do we force our national interests and crush the Iraqi people under the boot-heel of suppression of neo- imperialism?  Oh yeah, that's right, b/c there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties when they get down to discussing policy at the Pratt House in New York.  

Morality and Human Rights don't mean shit.  Only global conquest and plunder matter.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

One must remember that Saddam and Iran hated each other - but thanks to Bush's clusterfuck - Iraq and Iran are now buddies.  In that respect, I understand Obama's continued concern...


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 17, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> One must remember that Saddam and Iran hated each other - but thanks to Bush's clusterfuck - Iraq and Iran are now buddies.  In that respect, I understand Obama's continued concern...


I don't, please explain it to me if you will.  What do you a think would happen if we pulled everything out?

We have no business being there.

Here, let as listen to the sage and wise consul of our dear leader George Washington, shall we?



> Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it. It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
> 
> In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
> 
> ...



Excerpted from George Washington's Farewell Address
17 September 1796
"_Beware of Foreign Entanglements_"
http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

George Washington would be lost in today's world.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 17, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> George Washington would be lost in today's world.


At least he knows how to read.  I think you are the one who is lost.  Apparently all you know how to do is watch TV and listen to the radio, eh mate?

Ever even take a class in political science or political philosophy?  I am thinking probably not.  That is why you would think that a man who has read Locke, Berkly, Hume, Smith and all of the Great Social Political philosophers that our nation was founded on, you so blithely brush aside.

The only excuse for your ignorance is sloth.  Your cavalier attitude toward your ignorance is disheartening.  I see we have no more to discuss.  A pre-conditioned mind incapable of independent thought is not worth my time.  If all you have in response to reasoned research and qualified arguments are snarky nonsensical quips, your positions don't hold any water.

It's time to come to terms with the fact that the only reason you like your brand of soft drink is the advertising, not the flavor.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

Personal attacks won't prove your point - whatever it is...


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 17, 2013)

Truly yesterdays news.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 17, 2013)

Truly yesterdays news?  The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 17, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Truly yesterdays news?  The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.



The subject is truly old news just politically motivated clap trap by Maddow and MSDNC put out in a vain attempt to somehow distract people from the still near 8% unemployment, rapidly rising gas prices, and the sequester and budget battles coming in the next couple of weeks sorry.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 17, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Truly yesterdays news?  The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.
> ...


*Don't forget about those phantom WMDs.*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMx3hEykxJQ]Dick Cheney "George Bush Selling the Iraq War" - YouTube[/ame]

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETqX3DRtZtU]60 Minutes: George W. Bush Sought to -Find A Way- to Invade Iraq - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-D1jCZ31Uw]EXPOSED: Bush Planned on Invading Iraq Before 9/11-Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 17, 2013)

Mr. Shaman said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



B.D.S declared a epidemic among the looney left by C.D.C lol.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 17, 2013)

Iraq had no WMD's and Afghanistan now has 80% of the global Heroin Trade.

Hint: That's why we're there.

Wave that Flag! Thank a Soldier for his "service".


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> Truly yesterdays news.


....For *SOME* folks....

*





*




*


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Iraq had no WMD's and *Afghanistan now has 80% of the global Heroin Trade.*


When *Lil' Dumbya screws-UP*.....



> ....*he doesn't MESS-AROUND**!!!!!*


----------



## NoNukes (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Personal attacks won't prove your point - whatever it is...



I think his point is that he took a political science class during his year at the community college.


----------



## NoNukes (Feb 18, 2013)

Mad Scientist said:


> Iraq had no WMD's and Afghanistan now has 80% of the global Heroin Trade.
> 
> Hint: That's why we're there.
> 
> Wave that Flag! Thank a Soldier for his "service".



They do not appear to be doing much about the heroin trade. The Vietnam War dealt with who was going to control the heroin trade in the Golden Triangle. Why is the United States so involved with the heroin trade?


----------



## Indofred (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > We all kinda knew it already.
> ...



Not good enough.
A war crimes trial for those concerned has to be the way forwards, perhaps even treason considering they killed so many Americans.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq had no WMD's and Afghanistan now has 80% of the global Heroin Trade.
> ...



*This** sounds like a question for*.....



> ....*Ollie North**!!!!!*


----------



## Franticfrank (Feb 18, 2013)

I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.


----------



## editec (Feb 18, 2013)

Plenty of blame to go around and plenty of people to pin it on, kiddies.

Do remember the following:

House of Represetatives

*82* (40%) of 208* Democratic Representatives voted for *the resolution.

*6* (<3%) of 223 *Republican Representatives voted against *the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).

The *only Independent* Representative* voted against* the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) *did not vote* on the resolution.

*21 of 50 Democratic senators* *voted against* the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

*1* (2%) of 49 *Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).* 

*The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)*


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > George Washington would be lost in today's world.
> ...



So you start out with this lofty diatribe about being trite..then you post a trite image.

 Good stuff.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

Indofred said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Nothing the Bush administration did was treasonous.

Criminal, yes..but not treasonous.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

editec said:


> Plenty of blame to go around and plenty of people to pin it on, kiddies.
> 
> Do remember the following:
> 
> ...



No there isn't.

Congress voted on the resolution after being lied too and threatened.

You could get away with calling them cowardly. But the blame and fault are entirely with the Bush administration. Bush was the driver of this.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

Franticfrank said:


> I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.



It would be a disaster to put any American President on trial in the Hague.

No American should support that.


----------



## Franticfrank (Feb 18, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Franticfrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.
> ...



I agree it would be disastrous but at least it would teach future generations a lesson. What Bush did can't be repeated in the future.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

Franticfrank said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Franticfrank said:
> ...



No it wouldn't.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 18, 2013)

dont let people rewrite this history.

The republican party is hard at work trying to make people forget what a republican government looks like.

The Bush admin is what you get when you vote republican.


----------



## Indofred (Feb 18, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...





> trea·son
> /&#712;tr&#275;z&#601;n/
> Noun
> The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.





> be·tray
> /bi&#712;tr&#257;/
> Verb
> Be disloyal to: "he betrayed them".
> Be disloyal to (one's country, organization, or ideology) by acting in the interests of an enemy.



I wonder if selling American lives for profit could be considered, betrayal.
In my humble opinion, he did exactly that and it cost a lot of lives.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 18, 2013)

And the Obama administration is what we got when people voted for Obama
And the Clinton administration is what we got when people voted for Clinton
And the Carter administration is what we got when people voted for Carter....

I think that's what happens when we vote for a president.It sort of works out that way.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

Indofred said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



No he absolutely did not. Bush truly believed in what he was doing. I can't say that about the folks he surrounded himself with..but Bush himself?

He did all the wrong things for the right reasons. He truly thought that Saddam Hussien was a huge threat. Bush is..and was a patriotic American.

It doesn't do anyone any good framing him in any other way than that.

Good people with good intentions CAN do bad things.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 18, 2013)

Mother Jones
Enough said.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

Rozman said:


> And the Obama administration is what we got when people voted for Obama
> And the Clinton administration is what we got when people voted for Clinton
> And the Carter administration is what we got when people voted for Carter....
> 
> I think that's what happens when we vote for a president.It sort of works out that way.



True dat!


----------



## editec (Feb 18, 2013)

It's going to take more than an heroic POTUS to fix the mess the MASTERS have made of this nation.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 18, 2013)

Its easy enough to fix.

raise taxes back to a sane level for the people who gained the most by trashing our system.

Then cut out any waste and fraud you can.

Then stick with it instead of allowing republicans like we have now from getting back in office to unblaence the budget and lie us into wars while distrying our economy.


The wealthy do best in a boom and bust economic market.

They want things chaotic.


It frees up the money in the economy on a regular basis.

STABILITY is what helps the rest of us.


Its a constant battle and some fools help the very people who want their lives a constant chaos because they live in fear and that makes them easy to play


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 18, 2013)

MSNBC and Rachel Maddow..

Yeppers two very "Unbiased" sources.

Makes me want to just run out and "watch" this show....


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 18, 2013)

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


take some time and look at this historical list of the recessions in this country.

how many 

the time inbetween them

Duration

historic referances to the differing events.


It becomes clear that the people with money like it this way.


Boom and bust is good for people with a shit load of money.

Make money coming and going.


Make money in a booming market?

of course they do.


Pick up great bargains in a bust period.

Oh hells yeah they do.


Your distruction is their gain.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 18, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> MSNBC and Rachel Maddow..
> 
> Yeppers two very "Unbiased" sources.
> 
> Makes me want to just run out and "watch" this show....



You should.

No doubt..she is biased. But her research is impeccable.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

editec said:


> Plenty of blame to go around and plenty of people to pin it on, kiddies.



*YEP!!!!*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejph4LBdmmc]WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

Indofred said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



That would have been *The DICK; Cheney*.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbDfYzq_HaQ]Truth about Halliburton and Dick Cheney - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



*Bullshit*. It was one *MORE Bush* oil-deal gone *BAD!!!*

*He*, and *his puppetmaster*, figured.......









....if *Hussein* was *taken-out*, *ALL* (previous) oil-contracts, with *Hussein's government*, would be considered  *NULL-AND-VOID*.....and, we could simply walk in and call their oil a *"spoil of War"!!!*

As usual......*Lil' Dumbya FUCKED-UP!!!!!!!!*​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 18, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



....*The reason he's called*.....​


> *.....Lil' DUMBYA!!!!!*​
> "Kagan was not only wrong  with his influence factored in, in he was dangerously wrong. *It is easy for all to see in retrospect what sage observers saw at the time*  *that Saddam Hussein posed the same level of threat to the United States vital interests that he did to Europes: none.* *Had Iraq developed weapons of mass destructions*, it would have been a problem for the United States, as it would have been to European nations. *But it would not have been a profound threat, leaving aside the fact that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to inflate the alleged threat.* The same with Iran, North Korea and other so-called rogue states  *problems, yes; threats, no.* When it came to Iraq, France and Germany were correct, and the United States was not. The United States does have burdens beyond those of European countries  but it assumes far more burdens than it needs to, and those cases were the source of European complaints."



​


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 18, 2013)

GEEZ... Were all these Democrats in on this HOAX also???
32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!
ALL these are DEMOCRATS that wanted Saddam gone!
Clinton bombed Saddam almost more then GHBush did!

"..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
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable  evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response 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 , Jan. 23. 2003.

Explain why Clinton said this after bombing Iraq???

In the first three months of 1999, U.S. led-forces bombarded Iraq with 241,000 pounds of bombsjust shy of the 253,000 pounds dropped under President Bush in the eight months leading up to the final UN resolution before the war.
The Raw Story | Clinton bombing of Iraq far exceeded Bush's in run-up to war; Bush 'spikes of activity' questioned

By August of 1999, American and British pilots had fired more than 1,100 missiles against 359 targets that year alone.
THIS WAS ALL DONE BY CLINTON...
So based on Clinton's experience oh and just a little event called 9/11
What the f...k would you have done differently!  
YOU had Saddam a murderer of 50,000 kurds, who destroyed Mesopotamia displacing 500,000 people his sons using drills on tongues.. and
YOU would have sat and continued dialogue AFTER 9/11?


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 18, 2013)

wonder if Doug Feith will be brought up for his setting up shop inside the Pentagon to funnel unconfirmed reports to the WH?

Douglas J. Feith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In February 2007, the Pentagon's inspector general issued a report that concluded that Feith's office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some *conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." *This repeated Feith's earlier involvement with Team B as a postgraduate, when *alternative intelligence assessments exaggerating threats to the United States turned out to be wrong on nearly every point.* The report found that these actions were "inappropriate" though not "illegal." Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that *"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. *


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

Dr. Maddow rocks!  Looking forward to 9:00 p.m.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 18, 2013)

healthmyths said:


> GEEZ... Were all these Democrats in on this HOAX also???
> 32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!
> ALL these are DEMOCRATS that wanted Saddam gone!
> Clinton bombed Saddam almost more then GHBush did!
> ...




they want to forget all those so they can push their lie Bush lied


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Dr. Maddow rocks!  Looking forward to 9:00 p.m.



Hope they address all the PNAC crowd not the least of which was the chairman- Bill Kristol (current Fox employee)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Persons_associated_with_the_PNAC


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Don't miss the premiere of 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' hosted by Rachel Maddow, Feb. 18 at 9pm E.T./6pm P.T.
> 
> I'll be watching...


I can get into a fantasy film.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 18, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> George Washington would be lost in today's world.


Obamaturd is lost in todays world.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 18, 2013)

lol, hosted by Rachel maddow, luckily not too many people will she her lies, their ratings and viewership are in the toilet


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 18, 2013)

chickenhawks but NOT deficit hawks:

How the Bush administration sold the Iraq war ? MSNBC


> These talking points make it clearer than ever that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were determined&#8211;probably from the moment they came into office&#8211;to invade Iraq. Paul Pillar&#8211;then one of the CIA&#8217;s top terrorism analysts&#8212;says in the documentary that the 9/11 attacks &#8220;made it politically possible for the first time to persuade the American people to break a tradition of not launching offensive wars.&#8221;


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

AmericanFirst said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Don't miss the premiere of 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' hosted by Rachel Maddow, Feb. 18 at 9pm E.T./6pm P.T.
> ...



Especially one with lots of facts and new information - like this one.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

Dr. Maddow's Iraq special is bringing back many bad memories.  I still remember the first time I heard Bush try to make the 9/11-Iraq connection.  I remember thinking that the American people will not buy this.  I was wrong...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 18, 2013)

This is beautifully done.  It will make the warmongers' future, neverending, denials even more grimly comical.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 18, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This is beautifully done.  It will make the warmongers' future, neverending, denials even more grimly comical.



Amen!  Dr. Maddow did an awesome job.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 18, 2013)

Great coverage, based on the book by Michael Isikoff & David Corn.
What evil lurks in the hearts of man.


----------



## rdean (Feb 18, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > We all kinda knew it already.
> ...



Because a terrible mess was created and a political vacuum in a dangerous area of the world.  Sometimes, responsible adults just don't walk away.  We aren't all Republican.


----------



## rdean (Feb 18, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > George Washington would be lost in today's world.
> ...



That is such bullshit.  Obama was all set to close Guantanamo.  The generals said it was a terrible recruiting tool for al Qaeda. 

Republicans at first criticized Obama for keeping it open.  Then when he began the process of closing it, they SCREAMED that he was going to release terrorists on your city streets and in your backyard.  It was only a couple of years ago and still Republicans on this board pretend that's not what happened.  

You have to wait longer than 5 years to rewrite history.  Haven't they learned anything?


----------



## rdean (Feb 18, 2013)

rdean said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



You can go down that list and every item makes Republicans look more and more ridiculous.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

healthmyths said:


> GEEZ... Were all these Democrats in on this HOAX also???
> 32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!
> ALL these are DEMOCRATS that wanted Saddam gone!
> Clinton bombed Saddam almost more then GHBush did!
> ...









[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg]Family Guy - Undecided Voters - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > GEEZ... Were all these Democrats in on this HOAX also???
> ...


Yeah.....it'd be wrong to give *Lil' Dumbya ALL* the credit.....



> *The LIARS' War*​


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > We all kinda knew it already.
> ...



it also reminds these republicans here that the 3 trillion dollars that was passed on to the Obama administration wasn't racked up by Dem/Liberlas spending ... something they accuse the dem/liberals of doing quit often


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

lol, a book by David Corn..

must of been a comic book


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > _By David Corn_
> >
> > An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book, *finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war*.
> >
> ...



Saw it last night.

It was devastating. It focused on 2 bullet points. Extremely detailed and well researched.

It's unreal there are no investigations into this..because the government should NEVER be allowed to do this again.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > > _By David Corn_
> ...



Well you better blame those Democrats who voted for it, and how about Bill Clinton dropping bombs on Iraq after the used chemical weapons on his own people
a couple of low level reporters writing a book doesn't make it true


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



No.

I absolutely do not blame the Democrats that voted for it. 

The Bush administration cherry picked and outright lied about intelligence. Even with that, he was given the Authorization to use force. Congress didn't decide to invade.

That..was George W. Bush.

The Decider. The Commander In Chief.

NOT THE DEMOCRATS.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



of course you don't..You are saying they are too stupid to check things he said out..

He got the information from the CLINTON administration..so I guess he cherry picked thing too

SNIP:
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office 
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance  
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. 


Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.


Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.


Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors. 

US Forces:  
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region. 

U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region. 

More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said. 

Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region. 


December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT) 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. 

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. 
*
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. *

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said. 

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said. 

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. 

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. 


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

all of it here
CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > We all kinda knew it already.
> ...




hu·bris
 [hyoo-bris, hoo-] noun 
excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. 

In the history of mankind I can't imagine another time when so many were deceived so badly by so few who represented them. nearly 4500 young Americans dead plus about 33,000 seriously wounded plus a trillion dollars of new debt. That doesn't even speak to the fact that an estimated 150,000 innocent Iraqis were killed while 2 million fled their homes to Syria and Jordon. That one long lie told by basically half a dozen politicians led hundreds of millions down a false path for one reason only....to attempt to gain their approval to invade a country half way around the world which had never done anything to the United States. The closest Saddam Hussein ever came to direct aggression against the U S was the first Gulf war when he invaded a country which was one of our overseas oil producers. In 1993 he did attempt to assassinate Bush's daddy. The last time George W. Bush appeared on an American news station when asked about the circumstances which were revealed to everyone after the war was winding down he said he had made the right decision. Talk about arrogance. The toy cowboy has spoken. In the history of the United States Bush is without a doubt the sorriest excuse for a president who has ever served.

Look at the actions of Colin Powell since all that crap came down. He still says he's a Republican but in fact ever since they fooled him into making that speech of lies to the U N he has been acting like a Democrat.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

Cammmpbell said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



In the history of mankind..my gawd
you can think what you want, but his crockamenty done by Rachel Maddow was probably far from the truth..


----------



## rdean (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Who knew the president would lie this way.  No wonder Republicans are always SCREAMING Obama is a liar.  It's what they know.  What they expect.  What they are used to.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 19, 2013)

what does the right think they have to gain by denying what every knows is the facts of what happened?

We were lied into war by the Bush administration.

Its just a fact that everyone in the country KNOWS happened.


The facts are all there.


The intell people already said it happened.


Jesus the right has to lie about EVEYTHING


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Don't forget about *The DICK; Cheney!!*​



> *August 22, 2008*
> 
> *PR Push for Iraq War
> Preceded Intel Findings*​
> ...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Ah, yes.....it's time to "reheat" *BU$HCO's* neverending excuse.....


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



There's only two excuses the cowboy might realistically use:

1)  I prayed and god told me to do it

2)  He tried to kill my daddy


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Cammmpbell said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



"....*probably*...."*?????*






 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....you *really* _committed_ yourself to *THAT one!!*


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 19, 2013)

They lied us to war.


Its a fact.


that fact will NEVER be allowed to be rewritten by the right in this country.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> They lied us to war.
> 
> 
> Its a fact.
> ...



Like a whole lot of other things the voting electorate have recently caught onto. The Republican party will become a relic within a decade if they do not do some serious rethinking and reconstruction...something they are presently unwilling to do for America.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 19, 2013)

If they insist on NOT reforming they will distroy the name for future generations.

There is no Whig party anymore


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 19, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> If they insist on NOT reforming they will distroy the name for future generations.
> 
> There is no Whig party anymore



As I have posted before I was a Republican for the first 30 years of my voting life. I voted for Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon three times and even Reagan once. I was a Republican when they stood for balanced budgets, small government and individual liberty. When the Reagan/Bush41 regime cut taxes for the wealthy, continued to spend like a drunken sailor and quadrupled the national debt I knew they were in the pockets of the corporations and wealthy. Because of the similar followup by Bush43 I won't vote for them again in a national election if I live to 100......which really isn't that far away. I retired about 20 years ago and in another 20 I'll be 98. Yes.....I plan on being around...my mom turned 100 the last day of July last year.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Franticfrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.
> ...



Don't be too sure o' that......



> *"Hubris"*
> (*Here*)


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 19, 2013)

Franticfrank said:


> I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.


Turn them over to the ICC, it's what they deserve.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 19, 2013)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


You are a friggin idiot.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 19, 2013)




----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

loinboy said:


>



It's true now.....it wasn't always this way:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY]Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## SuMar (Feb 19, 2013)

Failure to distract...People care about unemployment right now..Not old news...


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 19, 2013)

It was a good re-hash of the events leading the USA to war, with a few more behind the scenes info.  

BTW didn't MSNBC fire Donahue for being against the invasion?


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

BlindBoo said:


> It was a good re-hash of the events leading the USA to war, with a few more behind the scenes info.
> 
> BTW didn't MSNBC fire Donahue for being against the invasion?



Pretty much. They said his anti war attitude would put a bad face on the network while the nation was at war.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 19, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Personal attacks won't prove your point - whatever it is...
> ...


Not that it matters, nor is it anyone's business, however if you must know.  Once you understand how university bureaucracies work, and how foundations are set up to fund them and operate them and condition the public's minds with them, the only people that are worth getting an education from in them are tenured and professors emeritus.  A well educated mind is one that seeks knowledge on it's own, not one that absorbs the knowledge that is fed to it.  What does that mean?  It means RESEARCH.  Most people around here just accept what they hear, read, or see through the outlets that they have.  How many actually go and research.  Dig behind the facts they are given?  

You have to understand who gives you the information to make sense of the information itself.  No, I did not attend a community college.  Though I have had many friends that have, and if you have ever taken a class on logical fallacies, (which it is clear you haven't,) you would understand that such a statement is juvenile, childish, and irrelevant.

This is the more well known of the two schools I went to.  Occasionally their football team shows up in the college bowl games, ever heard of them?
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison_College*

Since you are both too obtuse to figure out what George Washington meant, I will tell you.  He meant that market forces will keep this nation on a for more ethical and moral course if we choose to be as neutral as possible in a international affairs.  We will be much more financially stable and our budget will be sound if we choose not to engage in foreign entanglements.

They have the nation thinking that "pork spending" is what causes the budget crises.  Whatever.  It is insignificant.  They have people thinking that it is government salaries and fees are hurting us, again, insignificant compared to the real costs.  The media will do what ever it can to distract the ignorant.

The three largest costs are unfunded liabilities, military spending, and interest payments to the banking cartel.  The banking cartel is using our military to do the same thing to other nations as they did to our nation by using slavery to cause a civil war and make slaves of use all.  The banking cartel funded both sides of our civil war.  But I don't expect anyone to understand this.  They fund all sides of every war.

Who was the good guy in the musical "Annie?"  Could it be your Daddy Warbucks?  Yeah, go watch your TV and believe one daddy Warbucks is better than the other.  They will find you a new enemy once the old one is defeated.  And if it isn't a real enemy?  Or one powerful enough to justify that military spending?  Don't worry, they will make you believe what ever is necessary, because they and their friends own the media too.  They'll tell you what ever they need to in order to make the system go and to get you to wake up at six a.m. and get your ass off to work every morning.  That's what slaves do.  You have got to pay a pound of flesh to the masters silly.  

And if that is not enough, they'll have your sons too.  Well I am glad I have been to University, and have educated myself enough with independent research.  Because unless their private mercenary armies start invading my town, or unless the Chinese invade my state looking for gold to pay off these bastards, they won't have my son to fight in their global wars of conquest.

Are you really stoopid enough to believe any soldier we have over seas is actually fighting for freedom?  They aren't.  They are fighting to enslave the world in a global police state.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Dr. Maddow rocks!  Looking forward to 9:00 p.m.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc]Catapult The Propaganda - YouTube[/ame]







You should learn how to do your own research.  You should learn how to read.  Stop being lead about by your nose.  This is precisely what I was talking about.  Of course you are looking forward to it, you would not know what to post about, how to think, or what to say were it not for the media.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Franticfrank said:


> I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.


Exactly -- and Obama should deliver the sonofabitch, along with his conspirators, to the Hague.  






But I really don't see that happening.

Which brings me directly to my next thought, which is nothing short of a radical revolution, in which the concepts of Left and Right are dissolved in coalescence, is capable of purging the filth from the sewer of American politics.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > We all kinda knew it already.
> ...



It is good to be reminded so it won't soon be forgotten.  But I have absolutely no confidence that it won't be repeated.  The only thing which might have that effect would be the Bush Crime Family in prison cells somewhere.  

Nothing else will do it.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Truly yesterdays news?  The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.
> ...


Of course you're right about the topic being old news.  But I strongly disagree with your notion that it's "politically motivated claptrap."  While Maddow usually gets on my nerves I give her a lot of credit for researching and producing this important reminder of the hoax perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  

I am not at all confident that anything will come of it but something is better than nothing.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Franticfrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think he deceived the American people and got thousands of young men killed. I'd be happy if he was put on trial in the Hague for war crimes.
> ...


Why?

I think we should try them first here, then turn them over to the Hague where they might get what Saddam Hussein got.  Which would be nothing but poetic justice.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Franticfrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Of course it would.  If Bush got what he deserves it would serve to give all future presidents cause to avoid doing anything close to what Bush did.  That is the basic purpose of punishment but it is being ignored by our pitifully corrupted political system.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 19, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Maddow rocks!  Looking forward to 9:00 p.m.
> ...


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> No he absolutely did not. Bush truly believed in what he was doing. I can't say that about the folks he surrounded himself with..but Bush himself?
> 
> He did all the wrong things for the right reasons. He truly thought that Saddam Hussien was a huge threat. Bush is..and was a patriotic American.
> 
> ...


If there were some reason to regard George W. Bush as anything but the self-serving elitist fop that he is I might be inclined to consider what you're presenting here.  But that man is nothing more or less than a corporatist water-carrier and I am convinced the purpose of the Iraq invasion was to serve the interests of the Military Industrial Complex and to facilitate the emergence of a virtual army of private "contractors."


----------



## Mustang (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > _By David Corn_
> >
> > An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book, *finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war*.
> >
> ...




After Watergate, we were told that not putting Richard Nixon in prison would 'spare' America the distraction and 'national nightmare' of a trial etc.

At the time, I bought in to that argument.  I was a fool to believe that it wasn't:

A.  a mistake not to hold Nixon accountable (because we're SUPPOSED to be a nation of laws and not men) and send him to prison just like the people in European countries like France (which we are supposedly superior to in so many ways) manage to do when their leaders break the law.

B.  the beginning of a trend where the rich and powerful in this country would continue to escape justice again, and Again, and AGAIN.

Watergate inevitably led to lran-Contra and then the Iraq War fiasco.  And what happened to our leaders?  They walk out as free men even as small fish like Lynndie England (sometimes) get sent to prison.

The 2008 financial meltdown in the private sector was just another example of how our legal system goes easy on the wealthy and powerful even as the rest of us have to pick up the pieces.   Sometimes fines are levied.  But jail time seems to be out of the question for most of these men.

You want to know what the REAL definition of American exceptionalism is?  It's that we're a nation of laws and not men, except for the rich and powerful.

Read "With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful" by Glenn Greenwald if you want an eye-opener to our so-called justice system.


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 19, 2013)

BlindBoo said:


> It was a good re-hash of the events leading the USA to war, with a few more behind the scenes info.
> 
> BTW didn't MSNBC fire Donahue for being against the invasion?



All big media is in the pockets of the establishment.  You can really tell in this forum who is an independent thinker aware of this principle, and who is not.  Those who are not aware of this principle are rabidly partisan and repeat the government propaganda verbatim, like mindless zombies.  It makes uniting the people against their common foe, (the globalists) a pain.

Instead they have this silly notion that the opposite party, or terrorists or some other fool notion is their foe.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are just wishing they would do their own damn research and learn how to read.

Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media


> The Pratt House Matrix and "Ruling Class Journalists"
> Big Media has been the handmaiden to Big Government for decades. Now that the Internet and independent media are challenging the statist game plan, Big Media and Big Government are desperately seeking to formally legitimize their longstanding illicit affair. To longtime observers it is not in the least surprising that the key players in this perverse Big Government-Big Media-Big Foundation symbiosis seem to hale disproportionately from the membership roster of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
> 
> Like the slime trail that leads to the slug, most of the major efforts to centralize, nationalize, and cartelize political and economic power over the past century can be traced back to the CFR and the matrix of corporations, foundations, think tanks, and universities its members dominate. So it is with the current push to have the federal government fund and control more and more of the media. Dr. Bollinger (of Columbia University and the Federal Reserve) is a CFR member. As are Alberto Ibarg?en, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation and Walter Isaacson, president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, key operatives leading the FOCAS campaign.



"The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim."
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6833727-post8.html


----------



## LilOlLady (Feb 19, 2013)

Where is Issa, Graham, McCain and the *OTHERS *on this cover up and lies?


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

LilOlLady said:


> Where is Issa, Graham, McCain and the *OTHERS *on this cover up and lies?



same place they are on the cover up of Obama and Benghazi I guess


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 19, 2013)

.

I hate Bush's wars, but when I tuned in and saw that Maddow was doing it, I tuned back out.  There's no way of knowing what information is being distorted or avoided, so it would just be a waste of my time to watch it.

That's the problem with partisan ideologues providing "information":  Who knows what the reality is.

.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I hate Bush's wars, but when I tuned in and saw that Maddow was doing it, I tuned back out.  There's no way of knowing what information is being distorted or avoided, so it would just be a waste of my time to watch it.
> 
> ...


That's not what I got.  I thought it was pretty good at showing how they cherry-picked the intel.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

I thought Dr. Maddow did a great job of reporting the facts.


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 19, 2013)

.

I can't assume what a partisan is telling me is the whole story, no way.  If I can't hear both sides of a story, there's no way I can make a final decision.  That's just me.

.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I can't assume what a partisan is telling me is the whole story, no way.  If I can't hear both sides of a story, there's no way I can make a final decision.  That's just me.
> 
> .



You mean you haven't been hearing the other side of the story from Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc...?


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 19, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > No he absolutely did not. Bush truly believed in what he was doing. I can't say that about the folks he surrounded himself with..but Bush himself?
> ...





You nailed it! The cowboy was also interested in a little TX justice because Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in 1993. I'd say he got it. Ask about 35,000-40,000 American familes whose lives were wrecked while he was doing it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Truly yesterdays news?  The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.
> ...


It's timely to remind the country, since the NeoCons are at it again with Iran.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I can't assume what a partisan is telling me is the whole story, no way.  If I can't hear both sides of a story, there's no way I can make a final decision.  That's just me.
> 
> .


It's pretty obvious to see what's going on when the government dismisses the conlcusions of their nuclear experts and goes with a story from an informant that the British and Italian intelligence agencies have both said the guy couldn't be trusted.

When the IAEA say's the uranium tubes were not the right kind for enriching uranium, how can anyone justify Cheney dismissing that finding, when he doesn't know squat about the technology?

How can George Bush say one of the reasons for going to war was because Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors in Iraq, when they were already there driving around in white vans.

Or the more obvious thought that popped into my head when he said Iraq was a threat, which is...

_*"how is a country of goat-herders, that we bombed back to the stone-age in the first Persian Gulf war, that has barely any running water or electricity, 9000 miles away with no navy, a threat to a country that has the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen?"​*_


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> George Washington would be lost in today's world.



No. He just wouldn't tolerate your bullcrap and you'd think he was a nutjob.

BTW you are proud of a propaganda piece? seriously? As if people didn't live through the last 10 years.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

Cammmpbell said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Saddam was pissed after "daddy" betrayed him.  Remember Ambassador April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam regarding Kuwait on July 25, 1990?

TRANSCRIPT: Saddam and Ambassador Glaspie


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Not exactly credible sources there, either.  If I'm gonna watch a cartoon, I find SpongeBob Squarepants much funnier.

The only way to get fairly reliable information on something this nasty would be to hear from intelligence and administration sources, and there's some of that.  Based on that, my suspicion that Bush cherry-picked evidence because he had a hard-on for bein' "exceptional" 'n stuff.  If that's the premise of this show, great, I'm already there.

.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


Bingo.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



I would call outing a covert CIA agent treasonous.


YMMV.


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Cammmpbell said:


> [...]
> 
> Look at the actions of Colin Powell since all that crap came down. He still says he's a Republican but in fact ever since they fooled him into making that speech of lies to the U N he has been acting like a Democrat.


I believe you are quite right in 99% of what you've said.  But do you really believe Colin Powell was "fooled" into making his fatefully deceitful and misleading presentation before the UN and the world?  

Colin Powell, more than any other single individual, is responsible for the Iraq invasion.  Because it was his effort that achieved final approval for it.  He deliberately and calculatedly prostituted his reputation by showing himself to be Bush's house ****** and lying for him, thus betraying not only the Nation that trusted him but each of those American troops who died or were crippled in that wholly unnecessary and unlawful military aggression.

What you should keep in mind is Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during Operation Desert Storm.  He orchestrated the destruction of the Iraqi Army.  Who had access to better intelligence about Iraq's capabilities and subsequent military potential than he?  

Colin Powell deserves to be tried as a criminal, stood against a wall and shot.  Yet he is gradually re-inserting himself into the political mainstream.


----------



## PeterS (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I can't assume what a partisan is telling me is the whole story, no way.  If I can't hear both sides of a story, there's no way I can make a final decision.  That's just me.
> 
> .



Truth doesn't have two sides.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Pure speculation.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> MSNBC and Rachel Maddow..
> 
> Yeppers two very "Unbiased" sources.
> 
> Makes me want to just run out and "watch" this show....


If you find anything that they got wrong, you make sure to let us know.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

I'll pass on watching a fairy tale written by a left wing nutjob from Mother Jones

Woodward and Bernstein they are not


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Don't miss the premiere of 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' hosted by Rachel Maddow, Feb. 18 at 9pm E.T./6pm P.T.
> 
> I'll be watching...


What, maybe getting a little to close on Benghazi ? Is this what this is all about ? The timing seems suspect, so am I right ? How about lets focus on what is now ( don't you think that enough is on all our plate already as Americans with the current lying politician/chief being dealt with?), and how about lets leave it to the professional historians to deal with the past.  The fact that we have this Rachael left wing wacko Maddow hosting this docudrama, is a total turn off for many to begin with, so good luck trying to spread the distracting left wing propaganda to the masses, while skating or covering up what went down in Benghazi.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

You know what would be fun?  If Rachel Maddow leaked a rumor that her next documentary was going to be about the life of John McCain.  

He would go ballistic, thinking she was going to lay out his 5 crashed planes, his incident aboard that ship, and his corruption during the Keating Five all over again for the American public who have been hoodwinked by this "Maverick".


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I can't assume what a partisan is telling me is the whole story, no way.  If I can't hear both sides of a story, there's no way I can make a final decision.  That's just me..


You've heard the side of the story that led us into a wholly unnecessary, devastatingly wasteful and unlawful invasion and occupation of a non-aggressive nation which had done absolutely nothing to provoke it.  Why not weigh the other side and apply a little common sense reasoning to making up your mind?


----------



## francoHFW (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I hate Bush's wars, but when I tuned in and saw that Maddow was doing it, I tuned back out.  There's no way of knowing what information is being distorted or avoided, so it would just be a waste of my time to watch it.
> 
> ...



Pub pundits, who seem to be running the party these days, or since 1992, are mainly undereducated charlatans who'll say anything for a buck and form a huge propaganda machine that lies nonstop and has the dupes in an alternate universe- see "Obama's sequestration, O gutted workfare, grabs guns, had total control first 2 years,is a tyrant LOL, see sig pp3.

 Maddow is a Rhodes scholar who doesn't lie, or link?. Thanks for the depression, the stupidest wars ever, 9/11, and 3 1/2 years of mindless obstruction, now becoming an OBVIOUS disgrace...even for dupes.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 19, 2013)

If Dick Cheney was a leader of a country other than our own, and he pushed for war with another country as intensely as he did here for reasons that later turned out to be factually untrue after that war was launched and dragged on for years, killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people, our gov't would likely insist that he be turned over to the ICC.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

Mustang said:


> If Dick Cheney was a leader of a country other than our own, and he pushed for war with another country as intensely as he did here for reason that later turned out to be factually untrue after that war was launched and dragged on for years, killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people, our gov't would likely insist that he be turned over to the ICC.


Milosevic


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 19, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



oh boy, Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar also and he damn sure lied and was IMEACHED for it...so you can stop blowing smoke up our asses already, Maddow will and does lie
David Corn is some left wing nut job from Mother Jones, I wouldn't take anything he says as truth if his tongue came notarized


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.

Bush 43 could have easily avoided the SECOND U.S.-Iraq War.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> You know what would be fun?  If Rachel Maddow leaked a rumor that her next documentary was going to be about the life of John McCain.
> 
> He would go ballistic, thinking she was going to lay out his 5 crashed planes, his incident aboard that ship, and his corruption during the Keating Five all over again for the American public who have been hoodwinked by this "Maverick".


No I think he would see it just for what it is, just like everyone else would at this point and time, where as it would be viewed as yet another desperate left wing smear campaign, then concocted against anyone in power, that might be getting to close to the truth on her beloved Jim Jones type of idolized figure she has now in her life.   I mean she can't be wrong about it all now can she?  No she just can't be as figured in her mind.   I mean she has to much of her life invested in this left wing ideology that she has become a full fledged member of, and she can never be proven wrong now, and if she was, she would be like a little rebellious teen ager, with her hands over her ears saying I don't hear you, no I don't na na na boo boo I don't hear you la la la la la I can't hear you..... : )


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 19, 2013)

PeterS said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




And what would your personal definition of "Truth" be?

.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

Colin Powell: Useful Idiot or Co-Conspirator?


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 19, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




Not hard to Google "rachel maddow lies" and come up with some stuff, unless the person doing the searching refuses to believe what they read, or if they're ready to spin away from it.

Perhaps your definition of lying is different from mine.  I believe that purposely leaving out pertinent and contrary information from a "report" is clearly intellectually dishonest, and that constitutes "lying" in my book.  You may actually believe that you're getting the whole story from her, I don't know.  If that's the case, not much I can say.

And a person's intelligence and their intellectual honesty are mutually exclusive character traits.  I would guess that's common knowledge.

.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 19, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> You know what would be fun?  If Rachel Maddow leaked a rumor that her next documentary was going to be about the life of John McCain.
> 
> He would go ballistic, thinking she was going to lay out his 5 crashed planes, his incident aboard that ship, and his corruption during the Keating Five all over again for the American public who have been hoodwinked by this "Maverick".



John McCain disputes that he's a maverick.  At least that's what he was saying in 2010.



> *John McCain: I'm not a Maverick*
> 
> 
> John McCain: I'm not a Maverick - Political Hotsheet - CBS News


----------



## francoHFW (Feb 19, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



He didn't lie about politics, he lied about a silly affair, which I thought gentlemen were supposed to do. THAT was the end result of a 6 year witch hunt that found nothing based on its supposed subject. 

ANOTHER Pub disgrace and stupid distraction from governing. Another reason you live in an alternate BS universe. NO DEM political lies like the Pub ones you're DROWNING in, dupe. See sig pp3 etc. Now, one political Dem lie, PERIOD, chump of greedy rich idiots?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Mustang said:


> If Dick Cheney was a leader of a country other than our own, and he pushed for war with another country as intensely as he did here for reasons that later turned out to be factually untrue after that war was launched and dragged on for years, killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people, our gov't would likely insist that he be turned over to the ICC.


And your man Barack who backed the Arab Spring should be what ? How about his inaction on the middle east, especially after he endorsed much of the situations that have now blown up over there recently (even our getting an ambassador and others killed), and yet he has been absent vocally or truthfully about these situations for the most part since ? What has he done for the Syrians or for the Iranians that would have been endorsed by the United States if asked maybe, for whom these people had risen up against their rogue leaders as well ? What has he done to protect the gains made for the people of Iraq since their liberation ? Has he all but abandoned them now?  If he has, does this not negate the lives spent there by those who felt they were doing those people a service while there (boots on the ground), and this by liberating them from a real killer tyrant in which Sadam had become? 

At least George Bush took action against someone who was oppressive to his people, who was killing the Kurds with acid chemicals being dropped from Helicopters upon them, thus causing us to keep a no fly zone on him "Hussein", in order to save these people or to try and save them, then how about all the lies this dictator was constantly running from his ministry of misinformation, and his boasting and threats we had to endure constantly by this tyrant and his sons ?  How about those two sons of his, and their raping and pillaging the women at their low life sorry choosing ? How about the very reason we had to send in all these inspectors because of his taunts and lies and constant threats to the region ? How about his flight into Kuwait, and then us having to walk with gloves out of respect for his sympathizers found in the world, otherwise to not finish him off and his reign of terror then ? How about his threats to George Senior for order of his assassination after his pushing Sadam turned madman out of Kuwait? How about we ask the Kuwaiti's about Sadam being taken down finally, and see what they say ? How about we ask the new Iraqi Prime minister about Sadam being taken down and see what he say's? How about we ask the Saudi's about Sadam being taken down and see what they say ? Has the region without Sadam been a little safer for these people? I could go and on and on about the good that came from taking down Sadam, but it wouldn't fit with your smear campaign to protect Benghazi maybe, and the other problems that have come to past by either Barack Obama's actions or in-actions. Take your choice.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> PeterS said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


The only way to get to the truth is by viewing always both sides of a story, issue, event or other.. I can't believe you actually made such a statement really.....wow

Oops this was meant for Peter... sorry..


----------



## initforme (Feb 19, 2013)

The show was very interesting.   But we all know those stockpiles of wmds.   Now where were they?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.
> 
> Bush 43 could have easily avoided the SECOND U.S.-Iraq War.


And what, let the Kuwaiti's fend for themselves, and forget about them as our friends along with our oil interest in which they were our allies on?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 19, 2013)

Bush scammed us into war?

Amazing.
I knew that before we even invaded Iraq.

NOw the "brains" of the midia are figuring it out?

sheesh.

Of course I was saying this would be the great recession while the experts were saying just a 6 month adjustment...


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.
> ...



Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait.

TRANSCRIPT: Saddam and Ambassador Glaspie


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 19, 2013)

Now Lakhota do not confuse the sheep with facts.
It hurts their poor widdle brains.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Don't miss the premiere of 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War' hosted by Rachel Maddow, Feb. 18 at 9pm E.T./6pm P.T.
> ...



You really read the bullshit you post?

There was NO investigation into the run up to Iraq. None.

And there REALLY were lies. Not "Sunday Talk Show" came with caveat lies..

They were profound lies.

They cost this country huge..and in multiple ways.

NOTHING..and I mean NOTHING has been done to stop it from happening again.

10 years after the invasion, the AUMF is STILL in effect.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.
> ...



They were never our "friends".

Not even acquaintences.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > You know what would be fun?  If Rachel Maddow leaked a rumor that her next documentary was going to be about the life of John McCain.
> ...



You equate telling about documented facts as a smear campaign?


----------



## Mustang (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.
> ...



It was never about the Kuwaitis as "friends" or about "self-determination" or about freedom from tyranny or any of those high-sounding ideals.  It was ALWAYS about oil.  And it wasn't JUST about Kuwait's oil.  It was about Saudi oil since there was nothing standing between Saddam and the Saudi oil fields other than hundreds of miles of desert.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

initforme said:


> The show was very interesting.   But we all know those stockpiles of wmds.   Now where were they?


Could be in Syria, just as some WMD gas had been reported upon lately or was it that they had boasted about it recently (the Syrian government) maybe? Wasn't there a report on this recently ?.  Wasn't there a report about the gas they have or something about that gas being in Syria now ? There was another topic on this, and it sure was interesting indeed, because it was debated on here as to where did this gas come from? He had chemicals (used on the Iranians), because he was using them also on the Kurds as it was dropped from helicopters, but this was acid or something as was reported, but are we sure of that ? He had plenty of time to get rid of these stockpiles, as we gave him a good bit of time, and this happened as we tippy towed around trying to conduct inspections at his permission while in country. If he had nothing to hide, he sure had a weird way of showing it, I mean this guy sacrificed his entire nation to without a secret that ummmm didn't exist ? Think about it..............................


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

uscitizen said:


> Bush scammed us into war?
> 
> Amazing.
> I knew that before we even invaded Iraq.
> ...


It would have been a 6 month adjustment, if politics hadn't gotten in the way.. We would have won Vietnam also if politics wouldn't have gotten in the way, so what's your point again?


----------



## Britfire54 (Feb 19, 2013)

Funny how these conspiracy theory-type issues only become properly aired a good DECADE after the event, isn't it. When theory becomes mixed with known fact, but only AFTER there's been ample time for confusion to set in, and only after memories have had time to become dimmer.

I've little time for such exercises just because of this. 

I find myself wondering where Syria got her WMD's from (and, happily, I see I'm not alone in that). There's a fairly sudden acceptance that Syria has them, but no reports I'm aware of, of where they originated.

Just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > The show was very interesting.   But we all know those stockpiles of wmds.   Now where were they?
> ...



He "had" chemical munitions given to him by the United States.

You folks are really something else.

You think if he still had anything..he would have let America roll Iraq without a fight?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Mustang said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


And Sadam would've wanted the Saudi Oil next maybe ? Hey whose to say what this tyrant would have done if we would have allowed him to take what he wanted in that region? Do you think there should have been no intervention in Kuwait by us or anyone, I mean once Sadam invaded that nation for it's oil fields or control of that oil ?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > The show was very interesting.   But we all know those stockpiles of wmds.   Now where were they?
> ...



Saddam was pissed that CIA spies had infiltrated the inspection teams - which was proven to be true.  Saddam stated, before his lynching, that he had been running a "bluff" against Iran with his WMD rhetoric.

UN 'kept in dark' about US spying in Iraq | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 19, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Why don't you tell us some lies that Maddow has told?


----------



## Britfire54 (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...


----------



## rdean (Feb 19, 2013)

Republicans really did a number on this country.  It's like they gut f*@ked America and are proud of it.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 19, 2013)

FDR invited the Japanese attack so that he could get the US into the "real" war in Europe.Truman didn't ask congress for permission for his disastrous adventure in Korea. LBJ used a fake Tonkin gulf crisis to get the US into the quagmire of Vietnam. Clinton bombed a defenseless country in Europe to distract Americans from sodomy in the Oval Office. Tell me again who had the most hubris?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Sallow said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...


The Syrians, palease... they were scared to pieces of the United States power, and only served as a distant assistant in other ways to Sadam, where as they knew it not wise to help a madman sacrifice his nation in the way that Sadam did, in which could have sacrificed their own nation in the process if got knowingly involved.

It worked out anyway, because now that the dictator is gone in Iraq, it made the people feel in that region that they might not have to suffer under such dictators for long anymore, and therefore they are trying to rise up and change things now in these places, and it is not by Obama speaking a bunch of empty speak to them about how we are arrogant and such, but it was by the actions and deaths of our soldiers who liberated Iraq from a tyrant, as well as ran the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Our use of power has created hope if anything for those who are oppressed, and they had taken our lead after the domino's began to fall. Barack still uses our military to create hope from the tribal areas of Pakistan, and in other areas where these drones have been killing terrorist it is a strong message being sent, just as well as taking out Osama Bin Laden or the on going military operations that started with Bush in which the left seems to love to adopt when convenient for them and their cause for the moment, then it's back to bashing Bush for their own personal agenda's.

Oh you are talking about Sadam being given chemical weapons from us, and he was going to or would have used those weapons before we could roll him eh ? He was to afraid to use those weapons against us, even if he would have had the ones we allegedly gave him left, he still would not have used them on us, but you are saying now that he had WMD's in which he would have used, even if they would have come from us? Where did the WMD's we gave him go?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > initforme said:
> ...


So he sacrificed his whole nation for secrets that didn't exist ?


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 19, 2013)

Nothing says it better...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E]Democrats confirm Saddam Hussein has WMD.flv - YouTube[/ame]

They all claim amnesia now...


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

whitehall said:


> FDR invited the Japanese attack so that he could get the US into the "real" war in Europe.Truman didn't ask congress for permission for his disastrous adventure in Korea. LBJ used a fake Tonkin gulf crisis to get the US into the quagmire of Vietnam. Clinton bombed a defenseless country in Europe to distract Americans from sodomy in the Oval Office. Tell me again who had the most hubris?



"Sodomy in the Oval Office"?  Holy shit, this is breaking news...


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



No, the Bush boys sacrificed his whole nation for secrets that didn't exist - _or highly exaggerated._


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

Rachel Maddow just started, and she's talking more about the Iraq hoax.  Good stuff...


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


So sad that you hate America so bad, now why are you still here is the next big question?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


The whole world was watching, so did Bush fool the whole world ? If so then he was even better than Obama is at doing something like that, and it's becoming highly debatable anymore as to who is the better or the worst at this game anymore.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


It's the GOP that is willing to destroy the US in order to promote their party.


----------



## francoHFW (Feb 19, 2013)

It's no problem getting chemical weapons. It's the mushroom clouds that were the lies. Reagan and Rummie loved Saddam and OBL in the 80's. How'd that turn out? Idiotic chickenhawk Reaganism till now...

EVERYONE was all for going to Korea. Ditto Vietnam. Monica was Pubcrappe, Stopped Bill from governing. Pubs have just interfered and screwed up Dems since Rush and the racist charlatans took over the party... FDR? Stop with the BS conspiracies...


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



After 9/11, American patriotism was at fever pitch - and Bush used that to his advantage for his Iraq agenda.

Iraq WMD Lies: The Words of Mass Deception

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

GWV5903 said:


> Nothing says it better...
> 
> Democrats confirm Saddam Hussein has WMD.flv - YouTube
> 
> They all claim amnesia now...


No their all in distract mode, and so they begin to develop amnesia quickly while in this mode...LOL


----------



## francoHFW (Feb 19, 2013)

Why the FUQUE would Bush fool Saddam into attacking Kuwait? LOL! Reagan gave Saddam the impression he was our boy- Glaspie that he could have Kuwait. Brilliant! Pubs have fuqued everything they've touched since Reagan- people dying from El Salvador to Afghan... Lucky he didn't wreck Gorbechev too.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


What like Obama not letting a good crisis go to waste ? Is he Bushes clone as according to you and your thinking, or are you just one sided in your biased thinking ?


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

_"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."  _--George W. Bush


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Why the FUQUE would Bush fool Saddam into attacking Kuwait? LOL! Reagan gave Saddam the impression he was our boy- Glaspie that he could have Kuwait. Brilliant! Pubs have fuqued everything they've touched since Reagan- people dying from El Salvador to Afghan... Lucky he didn't wreck Gorbechev too.


Spoken well from a sympathizer of the enemies of the United States.. I mean this is what you sound like by trying to trash everyone who has worked in these rolls over the years. You have no clue as to why government does what it does from within the strategic command rooms, and within the Pentagon concerning threats to freedoms around the world, and as to our resolve in containing our security and interest along with our future interest as an American nation in this world, whom believes in certain ideologies, and our beliefs in freedom from oppression and dictatorships gone rogue to the point of becoming a threat against their own or this nation be it now or at a future date and time.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Try to focus.  Obama didn't start the Iraq wars - the Bush boys did.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 19, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...


And we are to figure that you are the expert on why it all went down, and yet we are to forget about the current problems being faced right now in the newest administration concerning Benghazi and other serious stuff going on ?

This is so obvious as to what is going down here, that it just isn't funny.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Benghazi?  Holy shit...

Thread Topic:* "Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax"*


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 19, 2013)

Keep ignoring it, it will never go away Locohota...​


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E]Democrats confirm Saddam Hussein has WMD.flv - YouTube[/ame]

       

All of them caught on tape and you try to ignore it...​


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

GWV5903 said:


> Keep ignoring it, it will never go away Locohota...​
> 
> 
> Democrats confirm Saddam Hussein has WMD.flv - YouTube
> ...



I'm well aware that faulty intelligence led many to believe that Saddam had WMD - but it was the Bush boys who invaded Iraq TWICE - for no fucking logical reasons worth so much blood and treasure.  Bush 41 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait - and Bush 43 suckered the world with more deceit.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)

> Mushroom clouds, duct tape, Judy Miller, Curveball. Recalling how Americans were sold a bogus case for invasion.



Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq


----------



## MikeK (Feb 19, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > You know what would be fun?  If Rachel Maddow leaked a rumor that her next documentary was going to be about the life of John McCain.
> ...


"Smear campaign?"  Did he or didn't he wreck five planes, create a disastrous fire on board a carrier?, and was he not among the five senators who improperly intervened in the investigation of the perpetrator of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association fraud?  

The real bottom line where McCain is concerned is there is nothing truly _heroic_ about anything he did or endured in Vietnam.  He did suffer.  So did many thousands of others who served there but who did not rise to high political office because of their family's connections.  

If you wish to know who John McCain really is, just do a little Google research.  There is a lot there to be learned and it's not part of any "smear campaign."


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 19, 2013)

MikeK said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Yes, father & grandfather were both admirals, and John graduated Annapolis near the bottom of his class.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 19, 2013)




----------



## MikeK (Feb 20, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> At least George Bush took action against someone who was oppressive to his people, who was killing the Kurds with acid chemicals being dropped from Helicopters upon them, thus causing us to keep a no fly zone on him "Hussein", in order to save these people or to try and save them, then how about all the lies this dictator was constantly running from his ministry of misinformation, and his boasting and threats we had to endure constantly by this tyrant and his sons ?  How about those two sons of his, and their raping and pillaging the women at their low life sorry choosing ? How about the very reason we had to send in all these inspectors because of his taunts and lies and constant threats to the region ? How about his flight into Kuwait, and then us having to walk with gloves out of respect for his sympathizers found in the world, otherwise to not finish him off and his reign of terror then ? How about his threats to George Senior for order of his assassination after his pushing Sadam turned madman out of Kuwait? How about we ask the Kuwaiti's about Sadam being taken down finally, and see what they say ? How about we ask the new Iraqi Prime minister about Sadam being taken down and see what he say's? How about we ask the Saudi's about Sadam being taken down and see what they say ? Has the region without Sadam been a little safer for these people? I could go and on and on about the good that came from taking down Sadam, but it wouldn't fit with your smear campaign to protect Benghazi maybe, and the other problems that have come to past by either Barack Obama's actions or in-actions. Take your choice.


Do you think any of this was worth the cost of nearly 4,500 American lives, the maiming of tens of thousands more, a (so far) ten year engagement which has cost us enough treasure to solve all of our economic problems and more, and the utter devastation of the country and the people we were supposed to be rescuing?

What oppressed and suffering people do you think we should rescue next?  And do you have any sons and/or brothers, or maybe yourself, who lives and limbs you're willing to sacrifice in support of the effort?


----------



## MikeK (Feb 20, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.
> ...


Allies?  Kuwait was an ally?  Like Israel is an ally?  

What exactly do you mean by the word, _ally?_


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 20, 2013)

Bush and Cheney should be on trial at The Hague for war crimes.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


>


Bet he regretted that statement, or maybe not.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 20, 2013)

When Will George W. Bush Be Tried for His War Crimes?

Types of War Crimes « GEORGE W. BUSH, WAR CRIMINAL?

George W. Bush Admits He's A War Criminal In New Book | Crooks and Liars

George W. Bush Convicted of War Crimes, Can't Leave U.S. Fearing Arrest | The Libertarian Review


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 20, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




Did you not read my post?

.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 20, 2013)

loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



There's ten things which nailed it but the one about the tubes being for rockets instead of centrifuges would have cinched it for me. The expert brought the tube samples to Oak Ridge, TN where the U-235 material came from a barrier tube process to make the original Hiroshima bomb and which was the world leader in centriguge research until the old plant went into shutdown. In other words the expert acquired a second opinion. He said he was disappointed, disgusted and insulted when he heard the administration making a case for those tubes being obtained for use in a centrifuge. Cheney used phrases like "no doubt" and "has been proven" and "expert opinion" when referring to the tubes and other deceptive points....nothing but bare faced lies. I don't see how he kept a straight face when he was speaking.

This has become historical, proven fact with dated video documentation to leave for future generations. Something which was pretty well unheard of till a few decades ago. Hopefully it will serve to prevent the same kind of deception 50 or 100 years from now.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 20, 2013)

Cammmpbell said:


> There's ten things which nailed it but the one about the tubes being for rockets instead of centrifuges would have cinched it for me. The expert brought the tubes to Oak Ridge, TN where the original U-235 material came from a barrier tube process to make the original Hiroshima bomb and which was the world leader in centriguge research until the old plant went into shutdown. He said he was disappointed, disgusted and insulted when he heard the administration making a case for those tubes being obtained for use in a centrifuge. Cheney used phrases like "no doubt" and "has been proven" and "expert opinion" when referring to the tubes. In other words nothing but a bare faced lie. I don't see how he kept a straight face when he was speaking.
> 
> This has become historical, proven fact with dated video documentation to leave for future generations. Something which was pretty well unheard of till a few decades ago. Hopefully it will serve to prevent the same kind of deception 50 years from now.


What did it for me, was how much Bush was hyping them up as a threat.  

I thought to myself, _*"how much of a threat can you be on 9 hours of electricity a day?"*_

Because back at that time, that was all the power they had the ability to generate.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 20, 2013)

I recall that year in the leadup to the "shock and awe" crap as one of the worst years of my life.

Its why I went into the internets.

I was just blown away to see the entire Media just take a pass on confronting the obvious lies of the Bush administartion.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 20, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Again.

Kuwait was not a friend or an ally. In fact..Saddam Hussien went to the United States prior to the invasion to let us know what was going to happen. He was practically given the go ahead. What the US did not expect was that the Iraqis were going to take the whole country. And oil companies began to complain about it. So did the Saudis. The whole thing was handled terribly.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 20, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



What?

Seriously. You are completely ignoring history. Iraq was already rolled once by the United States. They weren't "scared". They had nothing to fight back with. They really were expecting the invasion.

And the "dictator" is not "gone" in Iraq. The dictators were swapped out. They have a new dictator now..and Islam as a national religion. Something they didn't have before. And they didn't "fall". The rebels were bought out. Part and parcel with the COIN was "bribing" the insurgents to re-patriot them. Something that wouldn't have been necessary if the Bush administration hadn't disbanded the Baathists and the military.

The Taliban aren't out of Afghanistan either. They control huge areas which the United States has essentially ceded to them. Right now the weak central government and the taliban are at a stalemate.

Obama has seemed to have flipped the Bush "nation building" script in favor of letting the natives rule. Short term, it's going to be ugly, because you have a lot of very pissed off people. But over the long term, who knows? Maybe cooler heads prevail. In any case, it's much cheaper just to kill the people that want to attack us..and leave the rest on their own.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 20, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Maddow doesn't lie.

She's has made mistakes. And she corrects them quickly.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 20, 2013)

loinboy said:


> Cammmpbell said:
> 
> 
> > There's ten things which nailed it but the one about the tubes being for rockets instead of centrifuges would have cinched it for me. The expert brought the tubes to Oak Ridge, TN where the original U-235 material came from a barrier tube process to make the original Hiroshima bomb and which was the world leader in centriguge research until the old plant went into shutdown. He said he was disappointed, disgusted and insulted when he heard the administration making a case for those tubes being obtained for use in a centrifuge. Cheney used phrases like "no doubt" and "has been proven" and "expert opinion" when referring to the tubes. In other words nothing but a bare faced lie. I don't see how he kept a straight face when he was speaking.
> ...



Not to mention that they were half way around the globe. Instead of invading Iraq if we had spent that trillion dollars paying down debt we would again be the undisputed leader of the world and tens of thousands of American families would be happier and more capable of the future. It's not over yet....we will be trying to resolve this debt thing for a long time.


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

Your lack of any real historical knowledge is astonishing kid.



francoHFW said:


> It's no problem getting chemical weapons. It's the mushroom clouds that were the lies. Reagan and Rummie loved Saddam and OBL in the 80's. How'd that turn out? Idiotic chickenhawk Reaganism till now...
> 
> EVERYONE was all for going to Korea. Ditto Vietnam. Monica was Pubcrappe, Stopped Bill from governing. Pubs have just interfered and screwed up Dems since Rush and the racist charlatans took over the party... FDR? Stop with the BS conspiracies...


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 20, 2013)

roo tell us how the leadin to the Iraq war really wnet in your memory?


----------



## 1Templar (Feb 20, 2013)

MisterBeale said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > One must remember that Saddam and Iran hated each other - but thanks to Bush's clusterfuck - Iraq and Iran are now buddies.  In that respect, I understand Obama's continued concern...
> ...




I know that this farewell speech, is to bolster the argument that we should not have invaded and meddled in Iraq and I agree. 

But I couldn't help but think of Israel also. We have favored Israel so much, that they may as well be the 51st state.


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

Lets clear up the whole Bush lied crap, Bush articulated what virtaully EVERY leading politician was saying from BOTH sides of the isle were saying.

Having said that, Iraq was a mistake. 
WE had the Taliban on the ropes in Afghanistan AND we had Bin Laden stuck in Tora Bora and we elt them and him get out.

 As for Bin Laden in the 80's, we did what we did to help Afghanistan take down the Soviets.
It worked but AS IS USUAL for our Nation we did not calculate the Cultural and Religious
differences of our Society, we have a VERY long history of no thinking past the length of our own dicks.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"....meaning we want hate these guys more than you, so we'll whip them and then deal with you later....and that is EXACTLY what happened.




Truthmatters said:


> roo tell us how the leadin to the Iraq war really wnet in your memory?


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 20, 2013)

why is it the intell people dont agree with you roo?


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

The problem here is that no matter what facts you personally are shown, your ONLY reaction is "nuh-uh".

I have quotes as far back as the mid 90's of the Left all agreeing that something had to be done because Saddam was on the verge of getting WMD.

As for all of the hindsight and spin that comes from the Left, spare me....everybody thought he had them.





Truthmatters said:


> why is it the intell people dont agree with you roo?


----------



## boilermaker55 (Feb 20, 2013)

So, we take it you are not interested in finding out why and who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of US Soldiers.
How despicable of you to be calloused.  




blackhawk said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Truly yesterdays news?  The documentary doesn't air until tomorrow night.
> ...


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 20, 2013)

I'll believe the war was a good idea when Iraq stops palling around w/ countries like Iran & Syria PLUS when Repubs pay for it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 20, 2013)

Roo said:


> The problem here is that no matter what facts you personally are shown, your ONLY reaction is "nuh-uh".
> 
> I have quotes as far back as the mid 90's of the Left all agreeing that something had to be done because Saddam was on the verge of getting WMD.
> 
> ...



and then Bush LIED about the intell to take us to war.

your point?


----------



## MarcATL (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> > _By David Corn_
> >
> > An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book, *finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war*.
> >
> ...


Wish I could rep you for this.

Yes, I'm well-aware of this documentary, all reports are that it was totally awesome...and timely.

However, I haven't seen it as yet, I did tape it, plan on watching it today or tonight.

The GOP is DESPERATELY trying to relititage the Iraq War and conduct their brand of revisionist history.

As recent as Nov. 2010 Bush told Matt Lauer or was it Brian Williams that even knowing what he knows now...he would still have done what he did. The bastard doesn't have any apologies.

I will never forget, nor forgive that man.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 20, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I can't assume what a partisan is telling me is the whole story, no way.  If I can't hear both sides of a story, there's no way I can make a final decision.  That's just me.


You've got some "magic" way of listening to both sides....at *once??*


----------



## Britfire54 (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



... nope. *Try to focus.* It was Saddam's intransigence, and belligerence, that was the point of origin for all that followed.

Are you trying to tell us that Saddam never defied UN Resolutions, these Resolutions designed to make him accountable for WMD stocks ? Did he never refuse to allow inspection teams the access they needed to do their jobs ?

And do you think it would've been at all reasonable for the US President to refuse to deal, in the wake of 9/11, with a rogue regime that was friendly with terrorists and which was going to great lengths to fail to cooperate with efforts made to scrutinise their WMD status ??

Bush launched the War on Terror, *but he did so in reaction to terrorist attacks against the American mainland.* What would you have had him do ... just sit passively on his hands, doing NOTHING to respond to terrorist attacks and threats ?!?

By the way, can you tell me why you keep citing so-called 'sources' of material from some evidently biased sites ? I absolutely include the Guardian newspaper in that description - for those who don't know, the British Guardian paper has a long history of pro-Socialist bias.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 20, 2013)

loinboy said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...





> *September 08, 2002*
> 
> *Former weapons inspector:
> Iraq Not A Threat**!*​
> ...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Feb 20, 2013)

> *July 27, 2010*
> 
> *Hans Blix;
> Iraq Inquiry Commission*​
> ...


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 20, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bush 41 could have easily avoided the FIRST U.S.-Iraq War.
> ...



As the WH pointed out at the time we had no mutual defense pact with Kuwait.  Why didn't GWHB tell Saddam in no uncertain terms that we would defend Kuwait as if we did?


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 20, 2013)

Roo said:


> Lets clear up the whole Bush lied crap, Bush articulated what virtaully EVERY leading politician was saying from BOTH sides of the isle were saying.
> 
> Having said that, Iraq was a mistake.
> WE had the Taliban on the ropes in Afghanistan AND we had Bin Laden stuck in Tora Bora and we elt them and him get out.
> ...



Let's ask him to watch this nice collection of their lies and tell us again about "Honest Abe" Bush:


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindBoo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Instead, Bush 41 gave Saddam the "green light" to invade Kuwait - as per the Saddam/Ambassador Glaspie transcript.


----------



## BlindBoo (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



They were sending mixed messages for sure.  The defense Sec stated on record that we had no defense pact with Kuwait, but they were making noise that a military option was not what we wanted.  I'm sure Saddam saw this as the same game Ronnie played during the Iran war and chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds.  Alot of talk with no action and Saddam continue to be on the favor Nations trading status.


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

I must apologize, I assumed that anyone who could read the post would also be able to understand it, well you know what they say about assumptions.

*"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998*

*"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998*

*"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002*

*"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002*

Now go and play with the other children kids.
You are dismissed.



Cammmpbell said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Lets clear up the whole Bush lied crap, Bush articulated what virtaully EVERY leading politician was saying from BOTH sides of the isle were saying.
> ...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Feb 20, 2013)

Oddly, not one mention of these quotes:



> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.  That is our bottom line."
> President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 20, 2013)

Faulty intelligence had many thinking Saddam had WMD - but the Bush boys had an agenda...OIL...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Faulty intelligence had many thinking Saddam had WMD - but the Bush boys had an agenda...OIL...



Oh, I see.  Now it isn't Bush lied, it's "faulty intelligence".


----------



## Sallow (Feb 20, 2013)

Roo said:


> I must apologize, I assumed that anyone who could read the post would also be able to understand it, well you know what they say about assumptions.
> 
> *"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998*
> ...



Did any of those folks have the power the commander in chief does?

Wait, what? NO?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Keep ignoring it, it will never go away Locohota...​
> ...


No, it's just that when the conservatives or those people with conservative values and/or influence, try to rescue and/or help other nations and their people in distress, the dems show up next not having the spine or the back bone to finish the job or even support it like it should be, so the situation ends up being a lost cause for all involved in the end, otherwise if they get their slimy hands all over it.   Then look out because it all goes backwards after that it seems. 

I think the politicians these days could mess up a two car funeral or better yet they couldn't pour water out of their shoe, even with the instructions written on the heel anymore.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 20, 2013)

Lakhota said:


> Faulty intelligence had many thinking Saddam had WMD - but the Bush boys had an agenda...OIL...



You nailed it! I'm 78 years old and we've had American oil companies in most of the middle eastern oil producing countries nearly all my life.  At the end of the second world war at the conference in Yalta when Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill met to make the most strategic decisions about the spoils of war Churchill told them to divide up the countries anyway they wanted to but not to mess with Great Britain's oil interests. Poor old Roosevelt was nearly on his death bed and agreed to the division of the European countries which resulted in the Berlin wall and in Asia  the 38th parallel division which later led us into the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Roosevelt died about thee months after the meeting.


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

Dude you really don't have a brain in your head...you do know that Billy was Prez when he said that...

You do know that Kerry and Hillarywere briefed when they said those things AFTER 9/11?

Good lord please do NOT procreate.

QUOTE=Sallow;6851730]





Roo said:


> I must apologize, I assumed that anyone who could read the post would also be able to understand it, well you know what they say about assumptions.
> 
> *"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998*
> ...



Did any of those folks have the power the commander in chief does?

Wait, what? NO?
[/QUOTE]


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 20, 2013)

It's all depending on what perspective one has or it is all being viewed from.. 

This is from the historians, in which they had this perspective of Sadam, so is this documentary well done or totally wrongheaded and/or wrong ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv9Adb3EuVE]Greatest Tank Battles - Season 1 - Episode 1 - The Battle of 73 Easting - YouTube[/ame]


Like I said, what sense did it make for Sadam to sacrifice his whole nation on a lie, in which is claimed that Bush was allegedly telling on him? If he had nothing to hide (innocent), then the Americans would have never went in, but Sadam taunted America by lying and distracting until the Americans & coalition forces came against him again. Undoubtedly Sadam figured he had plenty to hide, and also was arrogant to think he could bring his nation to the brink due him being a self made powerful dictator, the same way in which he was towards his people and his nation.

Funny how you don't hear people speaking in his favor after he is gone..


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 20, 2013)

Roo said:


> Dude you really don't have a brain in your head...you do know that Billy was Prez when he said that...
> 
> You do know that Kerry and Hillarywere briefed when they said those things AFTER 9/11?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

No soldier died when Clinton lied.

When Bush and Cheney made up a thousand lies to make a case to invade with boots on the ground 10,000 miles from home 4500 died and 35,000 were seriously wounded. A little matter of a trillion dollars of new debt was also counted. Bush was always and still is an arrogant idiot.


----------



## KnobbyWalsh (Feb 20, 2013)

Bush didn't want to go when they found out there were no WMD's but couldn't say "no" to the chickenhawks like Cheney and Rumsfield.  They bullied him into that so called war.


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

War sucks, but the fact remains EVERYBODY believed Saddam had them, deal with it old man.





Cammmpbell said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude you really don't have a brain in your head...you do know that Billy was Prez when he said that...
> ...



No soldier died when Clinton lied.

When Bush and Cheney made up a thousand lies to make a case to invade with boots on the ground 10,000 miles from home 4500 died and 35,000 were seriously wounded. A little matter of a trillion dollars of new debt was also counted. Bush was always and still is an arrogant idiot.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Sallow (Feb 20, 2013)

Roo said:


> Dude you really don't have a brain in your head...you do know that Billy was Prez when he said that...
> 
> You do know that Kerry and Hillarywere briefed when they said those things AFTER 9/11?
> 
> ...



You're the one who can't get simple tagging right and your asking "me" not to procreate?

Here's a clue.

The VERY same folks that begged Clinton to attack Iraq, populated the Bush administration.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

LMAO....

I've got 30 more quotes from your side...face it moron, EVERYBODY thought he had them...here is another little tidbit for you...just because they weren't found doesn't mean he didn't have them...

Did he?
I have no idea, and the fact is neither do you....and thats the dirty little secret.

We don't know.
Now dad....read more than your little lefty sources, you are embarrassing yourself here.






Sallow said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude you really don't have a brain in your head...you do know that Billy was Prez when he said that...
> ...


----------



## Antares (Feb 20, 2013)

Dad, I am already on record as saying Iraq was a mistake...you need to work on some credibility and and admit you are all fucked up on what the facts are.


----------



## Lakhota (Feb 20, 2013)

> CIA Director George Tenet - July 11, 1997  July 11, 2004
> 
> *Tenet and Iraq WMD controversy*
> 
> According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.[33] At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet stated that it was taken out of context. He indicated that it was made pursuant to a discussion about how to convince the American people to support invading Iraq.[34] The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces yielded no significant WMDs.



George Tenet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: Dubya awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 21, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Dude you really don't have a brain in your head...you do know that Billy was Prez when he said that...
> ...



Ain't It The Truth. The Fox crowd doesn't like facts:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC 


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.  In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat.  We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.  That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power.  We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.  As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.  Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished.  Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production.  The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets.  As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard.  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz  R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 21, 2013)

Roo said:


> Lets clear up the whole Bush lied crap, Bush articulated what virtaully EVERY leading politician was saying from BOTH sides of the isle were saying.
> 
> Having said that, Iraq was a mistake.
> WE had the Taliban on the ropes in Afghanistan AND we had Bin Laden stuck in Tora Bora and we elt them and him get out.
> ...


You say that we let him or them get out in Tora Bora, but do you have proof that this was what happened ( we let him or them just walk ), otherwise get out as you say ?

Why don't we ask the military in charge of that operation, about what happened in Tora Bora, and how is it that we allegedly just "LET HIM or THEM GET OUT". This is a conspiracy theory about what happened, and so what people need is this kind of theory to be laid to rest by actual accounts or by confirmation on the ground that day. We need to see interviews by the officers in charge of that operation or even more so, maybe some actual soldiers and their accounting of that situation or operation to speak also. Have you got links to any interviews with the military about that operation, and them suggesting that they just let Bin Laden Go or get away due to their idiocy or direct orders? Which is it maybe ?


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 21, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'll believe the war was a good idea when Iraq stops palling around w/ countries like Iran & Syria PLUS when Repubs pay for it.



They wouldn't be paling around with them, I mean what maybe trying to fill the void or vacuum created? If we would have finished the job for them in the first place, then I think we would be accepted by most if not all of the Iraqi's afterwards, otherwise if it was done the way it was suppose to be done.  It was coming, but to bad we have an election every 8 years in Bush's case, in which isn't enough time to see such a huge operation like that completed finally. The one side of our powerful political dynamic is not unified with the other side in this nation in which we call America any longer. We went to war at the peril of our own, but that doesn't matter to certain people in power now, who have an agenda to destroy the other side of the power dynamic in this nation, and they are doing this in order to put forth a social agenda that trumps it all, and this no matter who or what gets in their way. NPR is pure poison, as also the same with MSNBC etc.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 21, 2013)

Hubris will repeat on March 15.
It had the most viewers of any documentary on MSNBC in a decade.


----------



## Cammmpbell (Feb 22, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Hubris will repeat on March 15.
> It had the most viewers of any documentary on MSNBC in a decade.



Number two was the documentary explaining how the greedy Wall St. assholes manipulated the financial system for years and finally crashed the mortgage industry.

Best I remember it was called "House Of Cards"


----------



## MarcATL (Feb 22, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Hubris will repeat on March 15.
> It had the most viewers of any documentary on MSNBC in a decade.


I finally watched it last night...it was good.

I haven't deleted it from my DVR and most likely won't. I'll watch it again over the coarse of the weekend, perhaps tomorrow night or Sunday day.

The testimonies were just damning for the Bush Admin.

Many people involved are very regretful of allowing themselves to go along with it for political reasons. I distinctly remember one Democrat that said he didn't vote his conscious, he voted for political reasons to go along with the Iraq War...the remorse on his face as he said it was palpable. Colin Powell has had that same expression in the aftermath.

Like I've stated numerous times in the past on this very board, the Bush Administration had everyone in such a state of fear and hyper-patriotism that it was it was damn near impossible to vote against him. Not if you wanted to stay in office. It was you're either for us or against us, anyone else preaching anything other than war would have been branded as weak and be tossed out on the next go in spades.

Very, very few had the testicles to withstand that political climate.

I gotta give Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the gang props for one thing....those bastards sure do know how to use the bully pulpit. Damn them for it.


----------



## beagle9 (Feb 22, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> I finally watched it last night...it was good.
> I haven't deleted it from my DVR and most likely won't. I'll watch it again over the coarse of the weekend, perhaps tomorrow night or Sunday day.


 Hmmmmm, what so now you are using self inflicting propaganda upon yourself, and so is this what you are into now Marko ? What is this, some kind of new way to get high for you libs maybe ?



MarcATL said:


> The testimonies were just damning for the Bush Admin.



Keep telling yourself that OK, and maybe someday a little mouse in the corner will finally listen to you and agree, but make sure you have a cookie to give him ok.



MarcATL said:


> Many people involved are very regretful of allowing themselves to go along with it for political reasons. I distinctly remember one Democrat that said he didn't vote his conscious, he voted for political reasons to go along with the Iraq War...the remorse on his face as he said it was palpable. Colin Powell has had that same expression in the aftermath.



Colin Powell's expression says it all to you eh ? Why don't they or you get Colin Powell in an interview, and then see if he will begin to roll with the flow, or will he remain a part of the team to your dis-liking ? Funny how you bring Colin Powell into this by name, and I mean to the point of showing some kind of bias towards him, but why ? What about Condi Rice, she to Uncle Tomisina for you maybe ? 



MarcATL said:


> Like I've stated numerous times in the past on this very board, the Bush Administration had everyone in such a state of fear and hyper-patriotism that it was damn near impossible to vote against him. Not if you wanted to stay in office. It was you're either for us or against us, anyone else preaching anything other than war would have been branded as weak and be tossed out on the next go in spades.



So you are saying really, that Bush was more powerful than any hated dictator would be in the world as according to you (even hated more so than Osama Bin Laden maybe?), but I thought the people and our government (with all it's checks and balances on power), could always keep an alledged dictator/tyrant in check ? Is this why you want to rebuild America from the bottom up, because it just isn't working any more for people like yourself or rather it has never worked for people likeyourself as found in your mind ?



MarcATL said:


> I gotta give Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the gang props for one thing....those bastards sure do know how to use the bully pulpit. Damn them for it.


 Oh so Barack doesn't known how to use it as good maybe, and so in this envy that you give here, do you find that Barack is letting you down in comparrison too ?


----------

