Ghouta: (Bandar) Bush Did It (again)!

georgephillip

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2009
43,826
5,232
1,840
Los Angeles, California
"Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

"Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much..."

According to this account partially provided by Dale Gavlak, an AP correspondent based in Jordan for ten years, it was Syrian rebels handling weapons they were completely unfamiliar with that produced an accidental explosion in Ghouta last week:

"The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was 'a judgment … already clear to the world.'

"However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

"'My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,' said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

"Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a 'tube-like structure' while others were like a 'huge gas bottle.'

"Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels."

Bandar Bush strikes again?

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
Brown skinned people aren't nearly as valuable as black skinned people. Take that Assad guy, he's so pale he's a white man. Robert Mugabe has killed way more than Assad but he's black and gets a pass.
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
Do you honestly believe McCain or Romney would be more merciful?
What's been "hashed out?"

McCain and Romney are NOT the President. Your buddy Obama is, Obama wants to attack Syria, Obama is ignoring the information you just provided. Obama not Bush is responsible for any attack.

Obama ask for unlimited authority to attack Syria, that would include an invasion if he wants.
 
From Wiki:

"Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname 'Bandar Bush'[10]

"His particularly close relationship with the Bush family was highlighted in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. He was reportedly so close to George H. W. Bush that he was often described as a member of the former president's family.[3][11]

"He advocated Saddam Hussein's overthrow in Iraq in March 2003.[12]

"He encouraged military action against Iraq and supported Dick Cheney's agenda for 'The New Middle East', which called for pro-democracy programs in both Syria and Iran.[12]

"Additionally, Prince Bandar's children supposedly attended the same school that Cheney's grandchildren were enrolled at..."
 
From Wiki:

"Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname 'Bandar Bush'[10]

"His particularly close relationship with the Bush family was highlighted in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. He was reportedly so close to George H. W. Bush that he was often described as a member of the former president's family.[3][11]

"He advocated Saddam Hussein's overthrow in Iraq in March 2003.[12]

"He encouraged military action against Iraq and supported Dick Cheney's agenda for 'The New Middle East', which called for pro-democracy programs in both Syria and Iran.[12]

"Additionally, Prince Bandar's children supposedly attended the same school that Cheney's grandchildren were enrolled at..."

Bush is not President. Bush is not asking Congress for unlimited authority to attack Syria. Bush is not ignoring the reports that say the rebels caused the chemical attacks.

That all rests with Obama.
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
Do you honestly believe McCain or Romney would be more merciful?
What's been "hashed out?"

McCain and Romney are NOT the President. Your buddy Obama is, Obama wants to attack Syria, Obama is ignoring the information you just provided. Obama not Bush is responsible for any attack.

Obama ask for unlimited authority to attack Syria, that would include an invasion if he wants.
I've never cast a vote for Obama, Bush, or Clinton.
What about you?
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
Do you honestly believe McCain or Romney would be more merciful?
What's been "hashed out?"

This has been discussed in other threads, that is what I meant.

I am really confused, what makes Syria different then Libya? Obma bombed the crap out of them and hardly a word. Now he is seeking Congressional approval, what kind of game is he playing.

I don't know about McCain and what he might or might not have done. I believe him wishy washy and he may have done as Obama.

Romney, I fully believe he would be much more merciful and would not just bomb the crap out of a country.
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
Brown skinned people aren't nearly as valuable as black skinned people. Take that Assad guy, he's so pale he's a white man. Robert Mugabe has killed way more than Assad but he's black and gets a pass.

I am not sure of the pass but it certainly seems that way.
 
From Wiki:

"Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname 'Bandar Bush'[10]

"His particularly close relationship with the Bush family was highlighted in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. He was reportedly so close to George H. W. Bush that he was often described as a member of the former president's family.[3][11]

"He advocated Saddam Hussein's overthrow in Iraq in March 2003.[12]

"He encouraged military action against Iraq and supported Dick Cheney's agenda for 'The New Middle East', which called for pro-democracy programs in both Syria and Iran.[12]

"Additionally, Prince Bandar's children supposedly attended the same school that Cheney's grandchildren were enrolled at..."

Bush is not President. Bush is not asking Congress for unlimited authority to attack Syria. Bush is not ignoring the reports that say the rebels caused the chemical attacks.

That all rests with Obama.
This all rests with ALL Republicans AND Democrats who voted to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, with Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran slated to follow. Bush is not president but he is a war criminal along with Obama, Clinton, and Kerry and eventually their "Long War" will blow up in their rich faces along with millions of others.
 
This has been hashed over. The liberals just want to push the "I believe" button and let Obama kill some more brown skinned people.
Do you honestly believe McCain or Romney would be more merciful?
What's been "hashed out?"

This has been discussed in other threads, that is what I meant.

I am really confused, what makes Syria different then Libya? Obma bombed the crap out of them and hardly a word. Now he is seeking Congressional approval, what kind of game is he playing.

I don't know about McCain and what he might or might not have done. I believe him wishy washy and he may have done as Obama.

Romney, I fully believe he would be much more merciful and would not just bomb the crap out of a country.
Assume for the sake of argument you had read the following in your newspaper two months after 911 and that its content is true:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Even the US threshold for war can be breached and perhaps that happened after Gadaffi was murdered to Hillary's chuckles.

The next domino in the Middle East after Syria is Iran, and I seem to remember Money Mitt saying some fairly harsh things about the Mad Mullahs.

Since 1% of US voters (like Obama, Bush, Clinton, McCain, and Romney) get filthy rich from wars they usually don't fight in, I don't think we can change the Long War by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat congressional candidates in the voting booth.

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Do you honestly believe McCain or Romney would be more merciful?
What's been "hashed out?"

This has been discussed in other threads, that is what I meant.

I am really confused, what makes Syria different then Libya? Obma bombed the crap out of them and hardly a word. Now he is seeking Congressional approval, what kind of game is he playing.

I don't know about McCain and what he might or might not have done. I believe him wishy washy and he may have done as Obama.

Romney, I fully believe he would be much more merciful and would not just bomb the crap out of a country.
Assume for the sake of argument you had read the following in your newspaper two months after 911 and that its content is true:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Even the US threshold for war can be breached and perhaps that happened after Gadaffi was murdered to Hillary's chuckles.

The next domino in the Middle East after Syria is Iran, and I seem to remember Money Mitt saying some fairly harsh things about the Mad Mullahs.

Since 1% of US voters (like Obama, Bush, Clinton, McCain, and Romney) get filthy rich from wars they usually don't fight in, I don't think we can change the Long War by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat congressional candidates in the voting booth.

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

on the other hand if we don't fight the "long war" our economy crumbles. We're screwed.
 
"Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

"Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much..."

According to this account partially provided by Dale Gavlak, an AP correspondent based in Jordan for ten years, it was Syrian rebels handling weapons they were completely unfamiliar with that produced an accidental explosion in Ghouta last week:

"The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was 'a judgment … already clear to the world.'

"However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

"'My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,' said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

"Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a 'tube-like structure' while others were like a 'huge gas bottle.'

"Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels."

Bandar Bush strikes again?

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack



No. This one is all O. It must be tearing you apart inside. Lol.
 
Last edited:
"Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

"Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much..."

According to this account partially provided by Dale Gavlak, an AP correspondent based in Jordan for ten years, it was Syrian rebels handling weapons they were completely unfamiliar with that produced an accidental explosion in Ghouta last week:

"The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was 'a judgment … already clear to the world.'

"However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

"'My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,' said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

"Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a 'tube-like structure' while others were like a 'huge gas bottle.'

"Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels."

Bandar Bush strikes again?

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack



No. This one is all O.

Even O needs a cover for going in. You can't just say " It's all about oil, gas and pipelines".
 
This has been discussed in other threads, that is what I meant.

I am really confused, what makes Syria different then Libya? Obma bombed the crap out of them and hardly a word. Now he is seeking Congressional approval, what kind of game is he playing.

I don't know about McCain and what he might or might not have done. I believe him wishy washy and he may have done as Obama.

Romney, I fully believe he would be much more merciful and would not just bomb the crap out of a country.
Assume for the sake of argument you had read the following in your newspaper two months after 911 and that its content is true:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Even the US threshold for war can be breached and perhaps that happened after Gadaffi was murdered to Hillary's chuckles.

The next domino in the Middle East after Syria is Iran, and I seem to remember Money Mitt saying some fairly harsh things about the Mad Mullahs.

Since 1% of US voters (like Obama, Bush, Clinton, McCain, and Romney) get filthy rich from wars they usually don't fight in, I don't think we can change the Long War by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat congressional candidates in the voting booth.

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

on the other hand if we don't fight the "long war" our economy crumbles. We're screwed.
If we are killing to prop up the petrodollar and ensure our currency remains the world's reserve currency, our choice would seem to lie between eternal war, another Great Depression, or an entirely new political economy which maintains a wall of separation between private wealth and government. Maybe such an economy could tax war into extinction while providing a guaranteed annual wage to all adults regardless of how many hours of work they choose to engage in?

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Assume for the sake of argument you had read the following in your newspaper two months after 911 and that its content is true:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Even the US threshold for war can be breached and perhaps that happened after Gadaffi was murdered to Hillary's chuckles.

The next domino in the Middle East after Syria is Iran, and I seem to remember Money Mitt saying some fairly harsh things about the Mad Mullahs.

Since 1% of US voters (like Obama, Bush, Clinton, McCain, and Romney) get filthy rich from wars they usually don't fight in, I don't think we can change the Long War by "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat congressional candidates in the voting booth.

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

on the other hand if we don't fight the "long war" our economy crumbles. We're screwed.
If we are killing to prop up the petrodollar and ensure our currency remains the world's reserve currency, our choice would seem to lie between eternal war, another Great Depression, or an entirely new political economy which maintains a wall of separation between private wealth and government. Maybe such an economy could tax war into extinction while providing a guaranteed annual wage to all adults regardless of how many hours of work they choose to engage in?

Social credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like a much better plan to me but I know a few people who might be a little pissed off. It might be to honest for a lot of folks.
 
"Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

"Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much..."

According to this account partially provided by Dale Gavlak, an AP correspondent based in Jordan for ten years, it was Syrian rebels handling weapons they were completely unfamiliar with that produced an accidental explosion in Ghouta last week:

"The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was 'a judgment … already clear to the world.'

"However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

"'My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,' said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

"Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a 'tube-like structure' while others were like a 'huge gas bottle.'

"Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels."

Bandar Bush strikes again?

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack



No. This one is all O. It must be tearing you apart inside. Lol.
I never voted for Bush or Obama, AND I'm completely over "Mission Accomplished"
How about you?

search
 

Forum List

Back
Top