Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the crux of the matter. They were trying to project the image that Obama's apology tours and appeasements defused the terrorism situation. It obviously didn't so the spin went into overdrive for the re-election effort.This administration actually believes that dropping our defenses will stop them from hating us. In fact it will do the opposite.
How did you get that from what I said?No, they saw the same intel. Otherwise Bush would have been impeached and ousted. If they could have done it, they damn sure would have.
Yeah, OK. Lies are just fine with you as long as it is YOUR guys telling them.
I'm not buying GOP lies or your spin on their lies and I'm not buying into Democrats' lies or anyone else's spin on THEM.
Saddam was bluffing that he had WMD? So he moved the WMD to Syria without anyone knowing about it and then told the world that he still had WMD so that they would feel threatened by him and therefore invade?
That's a brilliant plan which makes absolutely no sense at all.
France’s corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war.
By 2000, France had become Iraq’s largest supplier of military and dual-use equipment, according to a senior member of Congress who declined to be identified.
Saddam developed networks for illegal supplies to get around the U.N. arms embargo and achieve a military buildup in the years before U.S. forces launched a second assault on Iraq.
One spare-parts pipeline flowed from a French company to Al Tamoor Trading Co. in the United Arab Emirates. Tamoor then sent the parts by truck through Turkey, and into Iraq. The Iraqis obtained spare parts for their French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters through this pipeline.
French connection armed Saddam - Washington Times
ObamaCare is deeply flawed, partly because, without the "Public Option", it leaves the broken Insurance Monopolies in place, and merely feeds more Americans into it. Once the numbers go up significantly, it will eventually bend the cost curve. Currently, it is starting to see participants who never had insurance. And Americans with pre-existing conditions are finding coverage options that literally did not exist prior to this legislation. Lastly, a lot of the plans that were cancelled were created by insurance companies after the law was passed, but before it was enforceable - so they exploited the gap by creating policies they knew would become defunct, but they didn't tell the people who signed up. These are things that FOX News conveniently omits because they represent the interests of mega-corporations that have captured Washington and monopolized health care. They have the most to lose because ObamaCare threatens the parasitic "administrative" layer they created between Doctor and Patient - a layer which is paid for by decreasing coverage and increasing premiums. (FYI: Reagan promised the opposite. He said that profits would be created by expanding coverage not decreasing it. For this reason we know that the market, because it had been corrupted by decades of lobbying, was broken and no longer serving the consumer, but only the investors who profited from the rentier class that had formed over our health industry)
But here is the real problem. Obama failed to advocate for the Public Option, maybe because he knew it could never pass with 6 "Blue Dog Democrats" in the Senate, all of whom received significant election funding from the Health Insurance lobbies.
But there is an even bigger problem. One of our political party's is deeply invested in its failure, so they have literally created an information industry around its failure. Every day we hear different lies.
Check these lies out, click this link below. This is what happens every day - and the OP merely brings this kind of stuff to the message board as fact. The OP is angry because he deeply trusts his party bosses and doesn't think they would ever lie to him.
Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare - Salon.com
Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side
Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved - report ? RT USA
December 29, 2013
There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.
The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie Innocence of Muslims that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side
Saddam was bluffing that he had WMD? So he moved the WMD to Syria without anyone knowing about it and then told the world that he still had WMD so that they would feel threatened by him and therefore invade?
That's a brilliant plan which makes absolutely no sense at all.
Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions
Tells 60 Minutes Former Iraqi Dictator Didn't Expect U.S. Invasion
2008
Jan 24
That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.
"Oh, you couldn't imagine the excitement that I was feeling at that point," Piro remembers.
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.
Benghazi attack caused by anti-Muslim film, Al-Qaeda not involved - report ? RT USA
December 29, 2013
There is no evidence suggesting that Al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization took part in the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a new report suggests.
The investigation by The New York Times has revealed that it was actually the US-made movie Innocence of Muslims that fueled the attack, adding that the assault on the consulate did not appear to be meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.
The report is based on interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack and its context.
Months of investigation turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault, The Times said.
The report stresses that the attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATOs extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Gaddafi.
We know every detail of the President ordering the raid to kill Bin Laden. On Benghazi, we don't know what President Obama did that night.
Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) February 03, 2014
Nice guys always finish first?
Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side
Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.He couldn't have justified it.Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
The pretext changed all the time. First it was 9/11, then support for al-Qaeda, then WMD, then when all of that was shot down as rubbish, the Bush administration fell back to, "Look. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy."And, if your bottom line assumption is true, i.e. that he was bound and determined to invade no matter what, he would have had to find a different pretext.
What mushroom cloud? There weren't any WMD. Israel has nukes, Iraq and Iran don't.But, I'd say the act of PREVENTING Israel from starting WWIII or going up in a Mushroom Cloud, (not to mention all the OTHER benefits of invading) is a pretty damn good bit of statesmanship and leadership, don't you?
BTW,......
Somebody explain to me why Obama borrowed $700,000;000,000.00 from Medicare to pay for this POS if it's only gonna insure less than 6 Million folks?
Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.He couldn't have justified it.Don't talk about facts, Republican. Do you honestly believe that George W. Bush would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein confessed that his WMD were destroyed?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion
March 21, 2003
From Reuters
UNITED NATIONS The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.
