• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Just For The Libs...............

Mike

Well-known member
"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

:tiphat:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
So what?

George Bush has brought more terrorists/al-Queda into Iraq than Saddam could've EVER got in there!!!

So with your line of logic...we should bomb GW as he's provided a place for terrorists to have safe haven and thrive.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
So what? we now know that those intelligence reports were laundered so the Senators were given predetermined data. Again, the Senator expected to be reading what the reality was, instead she was fed only the information that would support the administrations desire to invade a country without provocation.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I LOVE it when you Libs fall for bait!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Never Read Iraq Intelligence Reports

Wednesday, 30 January 2008
By her own admission, Hillary Clinton never read the intelligence reports on Iraq before casting her vote for the Iraq War Resolution. Clinton can put all the spin that she wants on this:

Sen. Clinton explained to Tim Russert, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote [the NIE]. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense."

Sen. John Kerry, a supporter of the Obama campaign, echoed these sentiments saying, "I didn’t read the full report because I got it from them straight."

That explanation is very vague, unsatisfactory, and shows how all the experience in the world did not stop Hillary from getting one of the most critical votes of her career wrong. At least John Kerry admitted that Obama was right and he was wrong. And in fact, the fact that Clinton had access to all the intelligence in the world and still got it wrong on Iraq, and the fact that Obama had no such access and got it right shows how far superior Obama's judgement is to Hillary's on key decisions that affect the future of millions of lives around the world.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Caught in another lie, GP? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Sen. Clinton explained to Tim Russert, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote [the NIE]. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense."
So instead of reading a biased report she was briefed by the guys who wrote the biased report. Who cares how she got the information. The ones she relied on to tell the truth, both written and verbally, lied. The only one caught in a lie is duhbya.
 

Mike

Well-known member
You really do believe that crap....don't you? :lol: :lol: :lol:
__________________________________________________

Pre-War Militarism
Senator Clinton’s militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush’s 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that “[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband’s administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from “containment” – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq’s neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to “regime change,” which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that “It is clear…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.”

In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons “are not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2003 speech at the UN was “compelling” although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
So what?

George Bush has brought more terrorists/al-Queda into Iraq than Saddam could've EVER got in there!!!

So with your line of logic...we should bomb GW as he's provided a place for terrorists to have safe haven and thrive.

:agree: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb GW...(sung to the tune of McCains version of Barbara Ann) :wink: :lol:
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
Mike said:
You really do believe that crap....don't you? :lol: :lol: :lol:
__________________________________________________

I think you are the one who has gone around the 7 1/2 years smelling something funny. You bought into the doctored reports, the forgery, and the lies to get the Congress and the American public to go along with this insane war. We should have put all those resources into Afghanistan where the real terrorists are and gotten rid of them once and for all. That didn't suit the members of the Project for a New American Century who had been itching for an invasion of Iraq since the mid 90s and who were bush's closest advisors. It was a cakewalk for them to convince Dumya to go into the war. I believe they called it a "slamdunk"! Well, in case you haven't noticed, it has been anything BUT that. And to add injury to insult, the terrorists are still doing their thing whenever and wherever they want. The only reason the surge is working at all is that al Sadr called his people off into a cease-fire.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
schnurrbart said:
The only reason the surge is working at all is that al Sadr called his people off into a cease-fire.

And many now believe that the only reason he did that is that the US and Iraqi governments bribed him with part of the $9 Billion dollars in missing taxpayer dollars that the State Department can't/won't account for... :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
The cease-fire also does al-Sadr a favor by making him a player that the U.S. must continue to handle respectfully while he keeps the peace — and he can always go back to fighting if he wants to play that card, though that may not be his smartest move, one analyst said.

"I think Sadr's strategic self-interest is served by continuing the cease-fire in part because he'd take heavy losses in another fight with the U.S. military," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council for Foreign Relations. "He's less able to replace those losses this time given his militia's increasingly criminal reputation among Shiite civilians."
_________________________________________________________

In other words.......he's scared. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
The cease-fire also does al-Sadr a favor by making him a player that the U.S. must continue to handle respectfully while he keeps the peace — and he can always go back to fighting if he wants to play that card, though that may not be his smartest move, one analyst said.

"I think Sadr's strategic self-interest is served by continuing the cease-fire in part because he'd take heavy losses in another fight with the U.S. military," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council for Foreign Relations. "He's less able to replace those losses this time given his militia's increasingly criminal reputation among Shiite civilians."
_________________________________________________________

In other words.......he's scared. :lol:

Or using US taxpayer dollars to rebuild, rearm, and refocus his efforts in other areas....He has forever to fight this war- they've been doing it for the last 1000 years.....
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
The cease-fire also does al-Sadr a favor by making him a player that the U.S. must continue to handle respectfully while he keeps the peace — and he can always go back to fighting if he wants to play that card, though that may not be his smartest move, one analyst said.

"I think Sadr's strategic self-interest is served by continuing the cease-fire in part because he'd take heavy losses in another fight with the U.S. military," said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council for Foreign Relations. "He's less able to replace those losses this time given his militia's increasingly criminal reputation among Shiite civilians."
_________________________________________________________

In other words.......he's scared. :lol:




He's richer now cause we're paying him to stand back.

Since he's said he's not gonna honor the cease fire anymore...how much MORE do you think has landed in his Swiss bank account??? Lots more...


Makes ya wonder why we just didn't do the same thing with Saddam...just buy him off? Would have been a lot cheaper in the long run.

Of course the funeral homes and florists through out the US would not have made as much money this year...but who cares.... cause GW says we're not in a recession!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
cause GW says we're not in a recession!!!!

Yep-- GW's R word--he still ain't figured out the definition of that one :roll: :wink: :lol: ....

Now I see where GW/Administration won't even use our US taxpayer dollars to buy US military aircraft-- with the Air Force awarding the contract for all their new fleet of tanker planes to a European company to be built in Europe...

Thats really gonna thrill voters as it comes near election time... :roll:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- GW's R word--he still ain't figured out the definition of that one :roll: :wink: :lol: ....
I don't guess I know the definition of the word recession either Oldtimer. You care to post what you consider the proper definition?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- GW's R word--he still ain't figured out the definition of that one :roll: :wink: :lol: ....
I don't guess I know the definition of the word recession either Oldtimer. You care to post what you consider the proper definition?

In macroeconomics, a Recession is a decline in any country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year. However, this definition is not universally accepted. The American National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession more ambiguously as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." A recession may involve simultaneous declines in coincident measures of overall economic activity such as employment, investment, and corporate profits. Recessions may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or, alternatively, sharply rising prices (inflation) in a process known as stagflation. A severe or long recession is referred to as an economic depression. A devastating breakdown of an economy is called economic collapse. Newspaper columnist Sidney J. Harris amusingly distinguished terms this way: a recession is when you lose your job; a depression is when I lose mine.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- GW's R word--he still ain't figured out the definition of that one :roll: :wink: :lol: ....
I don't guess I know the definition of the word recession either Oldtimer. You care to post what you consider the proper definition?

In macroeconomics, a Recession is a decline in any country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year. However, this definition is not universally accepted. The American National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession more ambiguously as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." A recession may involve simultaneous declines in coincident measures of overall economic activity such as employment, investment, and corporate profits. Recessions may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or, alternatively, sharply rising prices (inflation) in a process known as stagflation. A severe or long recession is referred to as an economic depression. A devastating breakdown of an economy is called economic collapse. Newspaper columnist Sidney J. Harris amusingly distinguished terms this way: a recession is when you lose your job; a depression is when I lose mine.
There is no clear definition of the word recession, so like Bush, you don't have an clear definition?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
When all the criteria established by all the economic entities has been reached, it is a recession, regardless of the definition or how you parse the events. But then you appear to be more willing to be in denial than recognize reality.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
Red Robin said:
I don't guess I know the definition of the word recession either Oldtimer. You care to post what you consider the proper definition?

In macroeconomics, a Recession is a decline in any country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year. However, this definition is not universally accepted. The American National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession more ambiguously as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." A recession may involve simultaneous declines in coincident measures of overall economic activity such as employment, investment, and corporate profits. Recessions may be associated with falling prices (deflation), or, alternatively, sharply rising prices (inflation) in a process known as stagflation. A severe or long recession is referred to as an economic depression. A devastating breakdown of an economy is called economic collapse. Newspaper columnist Sidney J. Harris amusingly distinguished terms this way: a recession is when you lose your job; a depression is when I lose mine.
There is no clear definition of the word recession, so like Bush, you don't have an clear definition?

GW is still trying to just learn the word-definitions come next year :wink: -but you can't expect much more from someone who hasn't even heard the price of gas is going up :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
a Recession is a decline in any country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 4.9 percent."
gdp_large.gif


so even by your definition, which I agree with.. we are not in a recession..
 
Top