It worries me.... and this is why

[tcumom]

Tyler and Anna ~

                 

Encore. Please.

[WidgetTheMidget]

THe commission who investigated 911 proved that what Wilson said in the NYT was all lies, that he had every reason to belief that Iraq had WMD and had purchased yellowcake, but remember, it was his job to undermine our country and gain financially from it.  He and his bleached blond wife who is only undercover when she is under the covers, should be brought up on treason, because they have naive and uninformed people such as Widget believing that what was written by that poseur, Wilson, in the old gray lady was the truth, and yet it was far from the truth, and we all know the old gray lady is no lady, but a lying tabloid for those who wish to undermine the USA.  Widget, you really have moved to such a clandestine location, you are totally out of touch with reality.

{{edit}}

 

[WidgetTheMidget]

Tyler and Anna ~

                 

Encore. Please.

Closet Case .................

I SUGGEST TO ALL OF YOU MONKEYS TO WATCH THE HISTORY CHANNELS SECRETS OF 9/11 ...............

See For Your Own Eyes, Where Your Government Was During The

Terrorist Attack..........Out Of Touch ( On Purpose ) ...........

Bush Knew 9/11 Would Give Him The Green Light To Attack Iraq....

They All Lied About Not Seeing Documentation On Al-Qaeda ..........

Rumsfeld Said Immediately After OK Lets Set The Groundwork For

Attacking Iraq.... This Was All In The Works Before 9/11 Ever Happened..

All Lines To The White House Were Down So President Could'nt

Contact Anyone ( How Convenient ) .... All Lines To The White House

Were Down When Kennedy Was Shot .............

 

[WidgetTheMidget]

And when those LYING about the sitting President of the United States finish that, try this on for size:

Quote:

Exhaustive article and references pertaining to claims of WMD and support of Saddam for terrorist.
Refutes the claims of Bush lying well.
 
Well sourced.  I do so wish President Bush were more the type to answer critics instead of ignoring them.
 
 
http://truthandcons.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-lied-people-died.html


Each and every claim by those who like to pretend that Bush lied is once again fully refuted.

I don't know why some people just can't accept the fact that it is not Bush who has lied but the socialist left in this country and their willing minions in the liberally biased and also lying mainstream media in this country.

We live like the Russians under the Soviet Union with media that lies for political gain and to try to grasp political power.  We do not have access to the truth, only what the socialist taking over the country want us to know.  The truth is out there but you have to dig for it and cut through the propaganda that is coming from the Liberals as never before.

Remember, leftists are citizens of the universe first of all and care not one whit about this country for they do not believe in nationalism, patriotism or any of that.

And Widget, how old are you???  You fought in Vietnam?  What unit?  What year?  I would not have thought you were that old but know you wouldn't be exaggerating now would you?  Like you do about Bush????

{{edit))
 

[Tylergal]

Widget, I do not doubt you know more about coffee and many other things than I but you are severely limited in your knowledge about world affairs, unless perhaps you are a part of the subversive shadow government employed by the Democrats to undermine the USA at the behest of the PIAPS.

[klaasend]

REMINDER - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

[Tylergal]

No attacks, just surmising as I am quite flummoxed over the misunderstanding of a conservative website and free speech.

Dick McDonald
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 12 March 2007

Are there any Americans who believe that bringing personal freedoms and the Bill of Rights to the people of the world is not a prescription for world peace? Are there any Americans who believe that America should wait to respond to our Islamic Terrorist enemies until they strike America again by incinerating New York City? Are there any serious Democrats who believe that Americans want to become a country of surrender monkeys by cutting and running from Iraq? Have Americans accepted turning their back on the people of Iraq who took our word and voted to install a democracy in the middle of a theocratic Islam? Are Americans convinced that our departure will not trigger a mass genocide of Iraqis who voted to separate church from state? All evidence to the contrary, I don’t think so.  

No! Americans watch too much TV to be that short-sighted and mindlessly ignorant. They are fed up with a media and a political class that has failed to identify with any certainty who we are fighting, why we are fighting, how we will win and when? This is not too much to ask and the people rose up to smite those who were not delivering those answers. Americans were just fed up with a perceived failure. They bought into the fact that too many Americans were dying to justify our efforts to keep the war offshore when the actual  

The frustration got so high Americans want to change course to win the War on Terror. They believe that changing political control of Congress will do the trick. Nothing could be further from the truth. Americans have just gone to the bull pen for a relief pitcher, they are not moving the franchise to another city. Americans want success. They just aren't getting it. The instant gratification mentality that has been slowly injected into our veins needs its fix; and we want it now not some 50 years from now when Islam learns that killing for their God is not religious.  

If President George W. Bush has done nothing else he has played the part of the pro-active American ready to change the political and cultural landscape of the world by fighting not appeasing or containing. The mistake he made was to believe he could finesse Islam by appealing to their peaceful and moderate factions by announcing they were a religion of peace highjacked by a murderous cult within that “great” church.  

This was his biggest mistake and the reason why the American people don't think highly of his perceptive skills. If they are so “peaceful” why don't they discipline their own? Why do they fly planes into tall building to kill people. Why do they suicide bomb women and children all over the world? Why do they behead their enemies to a chorus of Allah Akbar “God is Great”. Why can’t they be reasoned with? Is it because their 3-year-olds grow up believing Jews are pigs and monkeys? That martyrdom is preferable to tolerance of those that don’t believe as they do? It has been Bush's biggest fault. The American people can understand if they are given a chance. They don’t take kindly to less than full disclosure when it comes to reasons to fight a war.  

All of which winds us down to what the electorate expects the Democrats to do now they control the purse and direction of the country. I don't expect the people believe that Democrats have an answer. There are more differences within that party than there are difference between Republicans and Democrats. There is one thing for certain the never ending cycle of talk then fight, talk then fight, talk then fight will go on for what seems like an eternity. The talkers, appeasers and containers as represented by Jim Baker and his crowd are divining a new approach to the war in Iraq and the greater war on terror.  

These talkers will prevail. The last time they did their dance they opted for Saddam Hussein rather than have Iraq fall into the hands of the Iranian Mullahs. They are talkers and the Muslims are just laughing. Mohammed told them in the Koran that talking is a sign of weakness; a sign you are winning the war, now press your advantage. Jim Baker and his crowd are the talkers to President Bush's hawk. What the election proved was we want action and results not appeasement of Islam or their fascists. The only people deceived by the election are the politicians who normally misread just about everything.  

Apparently George W. Bush knew something his Daddy didn’t. He became a hawk fighting and pre-emptively so. He wants to fight to win. He played Little League and its in his DNA. “If must fight, win” as Mr. Myagi said and General Patton did. Although a hawk, our President was too compassionate. His Bible does not trump a society indoctrinated into death squads by their bible, the Koran. Both dictums are delivered from on high where no one can dispute their veracity. That is unless the light of day shines down on them from a relentless and truthful media. When the world turns against the teachings of the Koran, then the Muslim world will quiet down and do its retrospective.  

That tiny race of 15 million Jews and their isolated nation state of Israel is caught amongst all these currents. Jonathan Tobin has an illuminating article on all these dilemmas.  

 
Perhaps, Widget, you do know more than me.  I give you that, and Klaas admonishes me not to attack, so this response is no attack and I apologize to Red, Mrs. Red & Klaas, if that is what was perceived.

[LouiseVargas]

Tylergal wrote: "The commission which investigated 911 proved that what Wilson said in the NYT was all lies."

***********************
Do you happen to remember the Warren Commission report in 1964  which investigated the assination of JKF? The commission took its name from the chairman, Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren. It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the killing of Kennedy. The Commission's findings have since proven extremely controversial and have frequently been challenged.

Gerald Ford was one of the members of the Warren Commission.  In recent years, he admitted that evidence was manipulated in its investigation of JFK's assination in order to fit the "one gunman theory."
************************

So therefore, I don't believe the 911 Commission Report or the Warren Commission Report.

I'm with Widget, 100%.  Please do not bother me with rebuttals.  Bush 43 lied to us, over and over and over. That is a fact.

[Anna]

Tyler and Anna ~

                 

Encore. Please.

Closet Case .................

I SUGGEST TO ALL OF YOU MONKEYS TO WATCH THE HISTORY CHANNELS SECRETS OF 9/11 ...............

See For Your Own Eyes, Where Your Government Was During The

Terrorist Attack..........Out Of Touch ( On Purpose ) ...........

Bush Knew 9/11 Would Give Him The Green Light To Attack Iraq....

They All Lied About Not Seeing Documentation On Al-Qaeda ..........

Misfield Said Immediately After OK Lets Set The Groundwork For

Attacking Iraq.... This Was All In The Works Before 9/11 Ever Happened..

All Lines To The White House Were Down So President Couldn't

Contact Anyone ( How Convenient ) .... All Lines To The White House

Were Down When Kennedy Was Shot .............

 

I have seen that.  I have also read at Rense.com.  Information like that is usually accompanied by crop circles, UFO abductions and sightings of Amelia Earhart in Japan.

The day I become that gullible, I hope I just hang it up.  Just like playing the game of Kevin Bacon, starting with a predetermined goal, it is possible to work backwards and claim just about anything.  The massive number of people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy and then keep the big secret would be enormous and not only improbable but impossible.

And those are not the bones of Jesus Christ either just because it is on TV.  

I do think, however, that the previous administration ignored warnings and Sandy Berger went to the National Archives and stole the evidence that Bill Clinton had been warned repeatedly that Bin Laden planned to make a direct attack, possibly flying planes into buildings.  

I also believe he stole memos about TWA Flight 800 being shot down by a missile.  Probably had to go back time and again to get all the documents with Clinton's personal handwriting on them.  

And we know the intelligence community risked their lives repeatedly to find Bin Laden and could have assassinated him long before 9/11 but both Clinton and Berger lacked the intestinal fortitude to do it and had them stand down over and over even after the bombing of our embassies, The US Cole, Kobar Towers and all the other attacks we sustained without any response at all.  Oh, except we bombed an aspirin factory as reprisal once in return for an embassy including loss of life.  

I have seen that on the History Channel and dozens of websites that make the same claims and every bit of it can be refuted by the facts.  The President wasn't in the White House so I don't know what lines you are talking about but they do not have to depend on "lines" as we now have this wonderful invention called the cell phone and they even have secure lines.  There is no down.  Besides, there was nothing to do as this was an attack by terrorists and not another nation.  

I have a son in the intelligence community and he has been since he turned eighteen, part time all through college and grad school at Georgetown the full 20 hours per week they allow and now full time/career, and I am very aware of attacks in Washington as I fear for his safety in case of a next one.   I do take these things very seriously.

.

[nonesuche]

Anna, of all our posters here with a son working in national and international intelligence, I suspect if there were a huge subversive effort to hoodwink the entire US he might have found a way to alert you. I think our government is at times corrupt but I also think some give the current president far more credit than is due for subterfuge. Again it was Clinton who allowed bin Laden and Saddam, as well as Iran to grow exponentially toward the terrorism we now are enduring.

Amazingly ALL of this data emerges as the Democrats lick their chops with their eyes on the white house? Louise I believe Gerald Ford said more than you are stating so simply regarding the Warren Commission. It is amazing to me how every soundbyte out there becomes fact and judge, jury and trial.

Thank heavens presidential elections only come every four years for I am not sure I could deal with the manipulations more often than that.

[Leslie]

I am with you Widget.  I do not like to read posts attacking you and trying to silence you with insults or attempting to educate you with dubious information.  I know the war profiteers create a climate of fear that allows them to loot the treasury of the country they say they love, but why does the average American enable these traitors?  When the President and Vice President of the United States show no regard for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the opinions of the majority of the people they supposedly serve, it is time to speak up.
The people who don't agree with me shouldn't bother responding to this because; I don't care what you think or what you know or what you think you know because I have done my research and nothing will change my mind.  

[justinsmama]

I would imagine that those individuals who do work in intelligence are at no more liberty to reveal information to a family member than the FBI is.

Why is it that it must be all or nothing? If one does not support the agenda of the current administration, then one is deemed unpatriotic, not supportive of our troops, "...wait[ing] to respond to our Islamic Terrorist enemies until they strike America again", etc.? Nothing could be further from the truth.  

And just who the hell are we to decide for any other nation that they become "democratic"? Iraq is free of Saddam. Allow them to wage their own struggle to determine what is meaningful to them as a people. After all it is their oil, oops, I mean lives.


I believe that it was demonstrated that the Bush administration had more interest in looking at how Iraq could be invaded than what the Clinton administration clearly and unequivocably informed as being a significant threat from Bin Laden and company.

[justinsmama]

I am with you Widget.  I do not like to read posts attacking you and trying to silence you with insults or attempting to educate you with dubious information.  I know the war profiteers create a climate of fear that allows them to loot the treasury of the country they say they love, but why does the average American enable these traitors?  When the President and Vice President of the United States show no regard for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the opinions of the majority of the people they supposedly serve, it is time to speak up.
The people who don't agree with me shouldn't bother responding to this because; I don't care what you think or what you know or what you think you know because I have done my research and nothing will change my mind.  

Dittos all around for each point you made, Leslie.

[justinsmama]

Regarding the followig~ If said intelligence individual were to breach that silence in any manner to a family member, that individual needs to be prosecuted and expelled from said position.

I would imagine that those individuals who do work in intelligence are at no more liberty to reveal information to a family member than the FBI is.

[nonesuche]

oh please you two, get a grip !

I never implied Anna's son would be less than committed to the integrity of his position, but I will say this now after that low potshot was taken, that both of you need to grow up.

how darn petty of you ! build an argument and back it up with fact and links to documentation please, I am waiting !

[nonesuche]

I amend this for Leslie didn't make that statement, I frankly was so appalled by justins implied slam to my stating that Anna likely knows a helluva a lot more about our actually intelligence capabilities than any of us might ever know simply having a family member in that vocation, that I mistakenly thought justins had lifted a quote from leslie's post. To learn from a family member about an industry doesn't require sharing coveted intelligence either, but surely you aren't so naive as to think he would ????????

oh that's right Bush's entire administration is in cahoots with the oil conspiracy according to justins, does he use a cattle prod to coerce his entire staff to do so? do tell !

[Carnut]

Yes Anna,

Since the official end of the Vietnam War was 27 Jan 1973, which was 34 years ago, anyone who would have served in combat in Vietnam would have to be 50+ years old by now. Actually with 4mos bootcamp and at least one leave and one month in theater, one would probably need to be at least 18 on Jun 72 to have served in combat, thus an age of at least 51.5 by as of now.

[klaasend]

REMINDER - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

PLEASE WATCH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS OR I'LL HAVE TO LOCK THIS THREAD.  THIS IS MY LAST WARNING.

[nonesuche]

Klaas I respect you very much, I also think if we strive to stick to fact and not impressions this will make a huge difference.

This explains my concern quite well, I don't think any of us is happy to be at war. I also think if all of us were measured by the same standard of perfection that is applied to the presidential office, we'd be in a world of trouble. Most good decision makers know one can't make absolute decisions in a fluid environment, only hope to adapt them as we go to gain the right outcome.

This individual explains it well

The lie that Bush lied
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, March 12, 2007

If you want to know how the Iraq debate got so acrimonious, the tipping point was when mainstream Democrats went from accusing Bush of bungling the Iraq war to accusing him of lying to get America into that war. His crime, at this point, became not merely one of error but one of deliberate deception. The basic liberal reasoning is that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, therefore Bush has been misleading the American people all along.

At one time these charges of lying were restricted to the political left. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, The Nation claimed that Bush went to war based on “falsehoods and deceptions.” Al Franken took the charge a step further, alleging that “the President loves to lie.” Activist Cindy Sheehan insisted, “My son died for lies. George Bush lied to us and he knew he was lying.”

But of late even mainstream Democrats have started to talk this way. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a relatively hawkish national security advisor in the Carter administration, recently faulted Bush for going to war in Iraq on “false pretenses.” What follows from this premise is that Bush cannot now be trusted in anything he says, whether about the need for more troops in Iraq or the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to fault Bush for being wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. But unlike pundits and rival presidential candidates, statesmen do not have the benefit of hindsight. They must act in the moving current of events, using information that is available to them. At the time there was little doubt across the political spectrum that Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMDs. Hussein himself acted as if he had such weapons, constantly evading the efforts of United Nations inspectors to monitor Iraqi weapons facilities.

Bush had to weigh the risk of invading Iraq and being wrong, against the risk of not invading Iraq and being wrong. In the first case, he would be risking American troops in an unpopular war that would, nevertheless, result in the removal of a vicious dictator. In the second case, he would be risking Hussein acquiring a deadly weapon, which could end up in the hands of terrorists. If as a consequence a massive bomb exploded in Chicago killing half a million Americans, then who would take the responsibility? Weighing the risks, Bush decided it would be better to take preventive action and invade Iraq.

In retrospect, Bush was wrong to invade Iraq at the time that he did, in the way that he did. With the benefit of hindsight, I think Bush might have done better to focus on Iran which had nuclear aspirations of its own and was pursuing them—it turns out—with greater effectiveness than Saddam Hussein. Statesmen, however, not have the luxury of making decisions in retrospect.

Consider a similar decision made by President Roosevelt. In the period leading up to World War II, a group of émigré German scientists warned Albert Einstein that the Germans were building an atomic bomb under the guidance of that country’s greatest scientist, Werner Heisenberg. Acutely aware of the dangers of Hitler possessing an atomic bomb, Einstein took this information in the fall of 1939 to President Roosevelt, who commissioned the Manhattan Project. The United States built the bomb, and later dropped two of them on Japan.

Many years later, Americans discovered that the Germans were nowhere close to building an atomic bomb. Their project was on the wrong track, and it seems to have stalled in its infancy. Some historians believe that Heisenberg was trying to thwart the project from the inside. Be that as it may, in retrospect we now know that the intelligence that led to the Manhattan project was wrong. But no one goes around saying, “Einstein lied” or “FDR lied.” They didn’t lie; they used the information they had to make a tough decision in a very dangerous situation.

The same is true of Bush. Acting against the somber backdrop of 9/11, he may have acted in haste, and he might have acted in error, but he did not act in bad faith. Therefore the claim that “Bush lied” is itself a lie. By acknowledging this, we remove some of the poison that currently infects the Iraq debate, and help lay the groundwork for a constructive discussion of America’s future role in Iraq and in the Middle East.



Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

[justinsmama]

Hiya, Carnut!