Phony Scandals? not to voters

[editec]

The voters as defined by Fox News, ya means?

Yeah, I don't doubt that.

 

[JRK]

Fox News Poll: Phony scandals? Not to voters | Fox News

The main stream media ignores this like a bad cold
Could you imagine GWB doing this?

Since you brought up Bush, which of these phoney scandals is worse than the disaster of Iraq?

What disaster?
The war in Iraq was a bi partisan event that dated back to the early 90s
Al Qaeda was there
The UN ckaimed that there where 6500 WMDs there in Jan 2003 ( and according to the Clinton CIA they agreed as many who followed the truth still do, it was not the if, it became the where)
War on terror does not take place if there is no terror
BHO lied/covered up his failings in Benghazi

When did GWB lie at any-time about Iraq?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fox News Poll: Phony scandals? Not to voters | Fox News

The main stream media ignores this like a bad cold
Could you imagine GWB doing this?

Since you brought up Bush, which of these phoney scandals is worse than the disaster of Iraq?

What disaster?
The war in Iraq was a bi partisan event that dated back to the early 90s
Al Qaeda was there
The UN ckaimed that there where 6500 WMDs there in Jan 2003 ( and according to the Clinton CIA they agreed as many who followed the truth still do, it was not the if, it became the where)
War on terror does not take place if there is no terror
BHO lied/covered up his failings in Benghazi

When did GWB lie at any-time about Iraq?

So your position is that the IRS "scandal" was worse than the disaster of Iraq?

lol. This thread belongs in the Rubber Room.

 

[FJO]

Phony Scandals? not to voters

Its not that the scandals are phony, its that based on the performance of past Republican administrations, the general public no longer view the GOP as a plausible alternative.

You fool.
Who took the hottest ever win in 2010? Geeze louise the Republicans. Who holds the Congress? Even in 2012.

Who holds the purse strings? This shows your ignorance of your own country's government if you do not understand all the branches.

The Senate is the battle up and coming. The congress will be held .

And Marxette Jarrett can scream all she wants from the WH but Obama will go down in history as the most impotent President ever.

"Tinydancer" seems to have forgotten who won the 2012 Presidential Election despite 8% unemployment.

As for Republican control of the House, John Boehner may go "down in history as the most impotent Speaker ever" having been repeatedly embarrassed by lack of support from members of his own party.

The Left constantly cries about the popularity and success and first place ranking of FOX News, claiming that it is nothing but the illustration of the stupidity of those who watch FOX News.

The election and re-election of Obama is - similarly - is nothing but the illustration of the stupidity of those who voted for Obama. Special credit for stupidity must go to the block - who will not be mentioned because doing so would make one a RACIST - who blindly, slavishly and in-lock-step votes 90+% for an empty suit with appropriate (similar) skin color.

 

[BlindBoo]

The phony scandals were brought to you by Fox News.

The biggest scandal coming out of Benghazi (as opposed to the actual attack which we all agree was a tragedy) was the Republican candidate criticizing the president during the attack. And of course the Republican Circus over the talking points the Government gave out during the investigation....

Turn off Fox.
It's bad News for America.

 

[BlindBoo]

Fox News Poll: Phony scandals? Not to voters | Fox News

The main stream media ignores this like a bad cold
Could you imagine GWB doing this?

Since you brought up Bush, which of these phoney scandals is worse than the disaster of Iraq?

What disaster?
The war in Iraq was a bi partisan event that dated back to the early 90s
Al Qaeda was there
The UN ckaimed that there where 6500 WMDs there in Jan 2003 ( and according to the Clinton CIA they agreed as many who followed the truth still do, it was not the if, it became the where)
War on terror does not take place if there is no terror
BHO lied/covered up his failings in Benghazi

When did GWB lie at any-time about Iraq?

The unnecessary war and loss of American lives.

Iraq was not involve with 9-11 and was not harboring al Qaeda fugitives post 9-11 either. The only Cell al Qaeda had in Iraq was in the Kurdish area which was being protected by the UK/USA no fly zone.

The UN made no such claim. And the head of the UN at the time claimed the invasion and occupation was illegal according to the UN Charter.

When they prefaced their talking points with "well there is an investigation going on and we'll look to that to provide answers, but our best estimate is ......", were they lying?

 

[JRK]

OP- "Nothing there" but piles of Pubcrappe.

No mission anywhere can be defended against RPGs- arrests are coming, and RW BS has been proven- not reported by them, dupes.. What about 9/11 and that total incompetence, and the stupidest wars ever. This is a joke.

Of course the IRS looks at new Orgs, and 90% are Tea Party since 2009. More BS, for hater dupes ONLY.

Hater dupes?
look if the IRS was after move-on.org I would be just as upset, no matter who was the commander in chief
9-11?
was there a law that prevented people with legal passports and legal plane tickets and legal knives from flying?
No 9-11
No wars
No Saddam
No wars
No Al Qaeda in Iraq BEFORE 2003, no wars
no 6500 munitions with Chemical war heads missing in Iraq per the UN, no wars

All of the items were never covered up
There where never "swept" under the rug

The Benghazi event
The IRS event(s)
The events that surrond Holder with the guns as well as bird dogging Zimmerman
BHO changing laws with no vote in congress (see Obamacare and the corps getting a free pass, but not the person)

GWB would have crucified

 

[JRK]

The phony scandals were brought to you by Fox News.

The biggest scandal coming out of Benghazi (as opposed to the actual attack which we all agree was a tragedy) was the Republican candidate criticizing the president during the attack. And of course the Republican Circus over the talking points the Government gave out during the investigation....

Turn off Fox.
It's bad News for America.

really?
so why is it those people being murdered means nothing to you?
And what about the movie lies that followed as the cause?
Hell every-one knows those lies came form the admin and was done because of the election.
Holders gun give away
IRS targeting any-one for any reason other than legitimite
Changing laws passed by congress with no vote in congress?
One scandal after another

 

[JRK]

Since you brought up Bush, which of these phoney scandals is worse than the disaster of Iraq?

What disaster?
The war in Iraq was a bi partisan event that dated back to the early 90s
Al Qaeda was there
The UN ckaimed that there where 6500 WMDs there in Jan 2003 ( and according to the Clinton CIA they agreed as many who followed the truth still do, it was not the if, it became the where)
War on terror does not take place if there is no terror
BHO lied/covered up his failings in Benghazi

When did GWB lie at any-time about Iraq?

The unnecessary war and loss of American lives.

Iraq was not involve with 9-11 and was not harboring al Qaeda fugitives post 9-11 either. The only Cell al Qaeda had in Iraq was in the Kurdish area which was being protected by the UK/USA no fly zone.

The UN made no such claim. And the head of the UN at the time claimed the invasion and occupation was illegal according to the UN Charter.

When they prefaced their talking points with "well there is an investigation going on and we'll look to that to provide answers, but our best estimate is ......", were they lying?

really?
Let’s start with the 9/11 Commission’s report, which is one of those books that few have actually digested. Whitlock and Erdbrink think the 9/11 Commission concluded that al Qaeda had no presence in Saddam’s Iraq. In actuality, the commission found:


In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help [Kurdish extremists] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

In other words, not only was the al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq, but the commission also found “indications” that Saddam’s regime “tolerated” and may have “helped” the group. (The commission also cited a 1999 email from famous Iraq-al Qaeda naysayer Richard Clarke. While working as a counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration, Clarke worried that bin Laden may “boogie to Baghdad” because it was well known that Saddam wanted him in Iraq at the time. Bin Laden decided against the move, obviously, but it is telling that Saddam would even offer safe haven.)

It was once widely understood that Ansar al Islam was in Kurdish Iraq prior to the war, so the Democrats relied on another talking point. While conceding that Ansar al Islam was there, the Democrats and much of the press argued that this region was beyond Saddam’s control and, therefore, we shouldn’t believe the group’s presence there said anything about al Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq. This, of course, ignores the “indications” of Saddam’s support mentioned in passing by the 9/11 Commission and found by others as well.

It also ignores the fact that al Qaeda was in Baghdad and regime controlled territory, too.

In his book, At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet discussed at length the intelligence concerning al Qaeda’s presence in Baghdad. Tenet says the CIA found “more than enough evidence” connecting Saddam’s Iraq to al Qaeda. The CIA was particularly concerned about a group of al Qaeda operatives and allies – including Ayman al Zawahiri’s lieutenant, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (the first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq), and Abu Ayyub al Masri (who stepped in for Zarqawi as leader of al Qaeda in Iraq but was killed in 2010) – who had set up shop in Baghdad prior to the war.

Abu Ayyub al Masri’s widow has since confirmed the CIA’s pre-war intelligence, explaining that she and her husband moved to Baghdad in 2002.
Still Clueless About Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

the Un never made this claim?
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
nor this one
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
nor this one
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
nor this one
Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
Update 27 January 2003

what upsets me the most of what the liberals are doing to this great nation is they are being lied too and are to fucking lazy to ck out the truth

 

[BlindBoo]

The phony scandals were brought to you by Fox News.

The biggest scandal coming out of Benghazi (as opposed to the actual attack which we all agree was a tragedy) was the Republican candidate criticizing the president during the attack. And of course the Republican Circus over the talking points the Government gave out during the investigation....

Turn off Fox.
It's bad News for America.

really?
so why is it those people being murdered means nothing to you?
And what about the movie lies that followed as the cause?
Hell every-one knows those lies came form the admin and was done because of the election.
Holders gun give away
IRS targeting any-one for any reason other than legitimite
Changing laws passed by congress with no vote in congress?
One scandal after another

Their murders were a vicious criminal act.

Just because there were apparently no protest in front of the Consulate doesn't mean the attackers were not motivated by the irrational hatred of America, whipped up by some Mullah somewhere over a POS film clip as was happening in multiple Muslim countries at the time.

When ever you say every-one knows....I know you're fixing to tell a whopper.

There was no gun give away.

Issa announced his conclusion that the IRS was being directed by the WH to target Tea Bags before he began his investigation. The real scandal there is that in 1959 a bureaucrat in the IRS changed the law and nothing has been done to stop it. They should.

One made up scandal after another brought to you by the GOP and Fox News.

Turn off Fox
It's bad news for America.

 

[The Rabbi]

The phony scandals were brought to you by Fox News.

The biggest scandal coming out of Benghazi (as opposed to the actual attack which we all agree was a tragedy) was the Republican candidate criticizing the president during the attack. And of course the Republican Circus over the talking points the Government gave out during the investigation....

Turn off Fox.
It's bad News for America.

really?
so why is it those people being murdered means nothing to you?
And what about the movie lies that followed as the cause?
Hell every-one knows those lies came form the admin and was done because of the election.
Holders gun give away
IRS targeting any-one for any reason other than legitimite
Changing laws passed by congress with no vote in congress?
One scandal after another

Their murders were a vicious criminal act.

Just because there were apparently no protest in front of the Consulate doesn't mean the attackers were not motivated by the irrational hatred of America, whipped up by some Mullah somewhere over a POS film clip as was happening in multiple Muslim countries at the time.

When ever you say every-one knows....I know you're fixing to tell a whopper.

There was no gun give away.

Issa announced his conclusion that the IRS was being directed by the WH to target Tea Bags before he began his investigation. The real scandal there is that in 1959 a bureaucrat in the IRS changed the law and nothing has been done to stop it. They should.

One made up scandal after another brought to you by the GOP and Fox News.

Turn off Fox
It's bad news for America.

Depends. If you think "America" means "The Obama agenda" then you're right. If you think anything else then you're wrong. And of course you dont think at all. Every post of yours has the intellectual complexity of an amoeba. If it supports your preconceived notion, YAY! If it opposes your preconceived notion, Boo! You dont get any more sophisticated than that. Maybe that explains your screen name. You blindly boo what you dont understand or agree with.

 

[BlindBoo]

What disaster?
The war in Iraq was a bi partisan event that dated back to the early 90s
Al Qaeda was there
The UN ckaimed that there where 6500 WMDs there in Jan 2003 ( and according to the Clinton CIA they agreed as many who followed the truth still do, it was not the if, it became the where)
War on terror does not take place if there is no terror
BHO lied/covered up his failings in Benghazi

When did GWB lie at any-time about Iraq?

The unnecessary war and loss of American lives.

Iraq was not involve with 9-11 and was not harboring al Qaeda fugitives post 9-11 either. The only Cell al Qaeda had in Iraq was in the Kurdish area which was being protected by the UK/USA no fly zone.

The UN made no such claim. And the head of the UN at the time claimed the invasion and occupation was illegal according to the UN Charter.

When they prefaced their talking points with "well there is an investigation going on and we'll look to that to provide answers, but our best estimate is ......", were they lying?

really?
Let’s start with the 9/11 Commission’s report, which is one of those books that few have actually digested. Whitlock and Erdbrink think the 9/11 Commission concluded that al Qaeda had no presence in Saddam’s Iraq. In actuality, the commission found:


In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help [Kurdish extremists] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

In other words, not only was the al Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al Islam in northern Iraq, but the commission also found “indications” that Saddam’s regime “tolerated” and may have “helped” the group. (The commission also cited a 1999 email from famous Iraq-al Qaeda naysayer Richard Clarke. While working as a counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration, Clarke worried that bin Laden may “boogie to Baghdad” because it was well known that Saddam wanted him in Iraq at the time. Bin Laden decided against the move, obviously, but it is telling that Saddam would even offer safe haven.)

It was once widely understood that Ansar al Islam was in Kurdish Iraq prior to the war, so the Democrats relied on another talking point. While conceding that Ansar al Islam was there, the Democrats and much of the press argued that this region was beyond Saddam’s control and, therefore, we shouldn’t believe the group’s presence there said anything about al Qaeda’s relationship with Iraq. This, of course, ignores the “indications” of Saddam’s support mentioned in passing by the 9/11 Commission and found by others as well.

It also ignores the fact that al Qaeda was in Baghdad and regime controlled territory, too.

In his book, At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet discussed at length the intelligence concerning al Qaeda’s presence in Baghdad. Tenet says the CIA found “more than enough evidence” connecting Saddam’s Iraq to al Qaeda. The CIA was particularly concerned about a group of al Qaeda operatives and allies – including Ayman al Zawahiri’s lieutenant, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (the first leader of al Qaeda in Iraq), and Abu Ayyub al Masri (who stepped in for Zarqawi as leader of al Qaeda in Iraq but was killed in 2010) – who had set up shop in Baghdad prior to the war.

Abu Ayyub al Masri’s widow has since confirmed the CIA’s pre-war intelligence, explaining that she and her husband moved to Baghdad in 2002.
Still Clueless About Al Qaeda in Iraq | The Weekly Standard

the Un never made this claim?
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
nor this one
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.
nor this one
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.
nor this one
Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.
Update 27 January 2003

what upsets me the most of what the liberals are doing to this great nation is they are being lied too and are to fucking lazy to ck out the truth

There simply was not operational ties between the Iraq government of Saddam and bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Without WMD and the means to deliver them against the US, Iraq was no threat to the worlds remaining super power. Without operational ties to the 9-11 attack, President Bush didn't satisfy the requirements of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The UN did not authorize the use of force to remove Saddam from power in Iraq, no matter how many times you use that interim report issued by the chief weapons inspector Hans Blix as justification.

 

[JRK]

The voters as defined by Fox News, ya means?

Yeah, I don't doubt that.

The poll was done by others

 

[JRK]

The phony scandals were brought to you by Fox News.

The biggest scandal coming out of Benghazi (as opposed to the actual attack which we all agree was a tragedy) was the Republican candidate criticizing the president during the attack. And of course the Republican Circus over the talking points the Government gave out during the investigation....

Turn off Fox.
It's bad News for America.

really?
so why is it those people being murdered means nothing to you?
And what about the movie lies that followed as the cause?
Hell every-one knows those lies came form the admin and was done because of the election.
Holders gun give away
IRS targeting any-one for any reason other than legitimite
Changing laws passed by congress with no vote in congress?
One scandal after another

Their murders were a vicious criminal act.

Just because there were apparently no protest in front of the Consulate doesn't mean the attackers were not motivated by the irrational hatred of America, whipped up by some Mullah somewhere over a POS film clip as was happening in multiple Muslim countries at the time.

When ever you say every-one knows....I know you're fixing to tell a whopper.

There was no gun give away.

Issa announced his conclusion that the IRS was being directed by the WH to target Tea Bags before he began his investigation. The real scandal there is that in 1959 a bureaucrat in the IRS changed the law and nothing has been done to stop it. They should.

One made up scandal after another brought to you by the GOP and Fox News.

Turn off Fox
It's bad news for America.

I do not watch fox news
I read drudge once in a while
The poll was common knowledge
Gun Give away? who said anything about a gun give away?
Holder Begs Court to Stop Document Release on Fast and Furious
Unless of course you think that the way these bad guys got those guns was a "give away"
Boo pay attention to what those you support are doing
And as far as the Benghazi event
every-one knows it was a planned terrorist attack. My god it was done on 9-11
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...44CQBQ&usg=AFQjCNEFxK6RjEI2K71KTLC9W-plU-iKAw
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...44CQBQ&usg=AFQjCNFcbknDNnJgr5_saym006uVYY4n6g

 

[JRK]

For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens's front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable," he said. "I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris - Chris's last report, if you want to say his final report - is, 'Greg, we are under attack.'

"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. ....My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."

Though the White House has said it was in contact with officials in Libya the night of the attack, Hicks said in the days following, he was never consulted about the talking points. One day after Rice's Sunday show blitz, Hicks said he called Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for near eastern affairs at the State Department, and asked, "Why did Amb. Rice say that?" The tone of her answer - "I don't know," he said - indicated that "I perhaps asked a question that I should not have asked."
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...44CQBQ&usg=AFQjCNFcbknDNnJgr5_saym006uVYY4n6g