liberal hollywood ?

[rjv]

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-new-propaganda-is-liberal-the-new-slavery-is-digital-by-john-pilger

i've always though most of the hollywood left is anything but what it purports to be.

[clambake]

99% think iran is a threat to them?

not buying that.

[clambake]

and i thought palin was the only one that thought iraq was 9/11.

[rjv]

99% think iran is a threat to them?

not buying that.


the author is probably guilty of hyperbole but the point is not altogether lost. iran is the country looked upon most unfavorably by americans:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/poll-americans-view-iran-as-most-unfavorable-country.premium-1.508096


Iran's unfavorable rating of 87% scored higher than North Korea (84%) and Pakistan (81%) as well. Ongoing Gallup research attributes this to the possibility that Americans view the development of nuclear weapons by Tehran and Pyongyang as threats to U.S. foreign policy.

[rjv]

and 7 out of 10 americans believed iraq was behind 9/11. palin was not alone by any means:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

[clambake]

did you ever, at any point ever, think iraq was behind 9/11?

[clambake]

and i only mentioned palin as a jab.

[boutons_deux]

and 7 out of 10 americans believed iraq was behind 9/11. palin was not alone by any means:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Repug war criminals exploited American shock after 9/11 to repeat the Big Lie. Iraq was invaded for oil.

[sjacquemotte]

99% think iran is a threat to them?

not buying that.

You should

[mavs>spurs]

it wasn't for oil specifically, it was to prop up the petro dollar. saddam had started trading oil for gold and we had to set an example and show them a few things. same thing with gaddafi, that evil guy and his plans for an independent bank of africa! it's about the petrodollar, all oil has to flow through the dollar, it gives it what strength it has left through all the print and spend. keeps worldwide demand for dollars high.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://www.zioncrimefactory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/hollywood-jew.jpg

[DarrinS]

^seriously?

[Wild Cobra]

and 7 out of 10 americans believed iraq was behind 9/11. palin was not alone by any means:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
That is a very bad article to hang your hat on.

You say "7 out of 10 americans believed iraq was behind 9/11"

The article says:

"70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link"

"Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda"

But... It doesn't show the actual question, or the setup questions prior to the poll.

Do I believe Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? Yes. Do I believe Saddam had anything to do with 9-11? No. Personally involved, No. I would like to see the question that this is claimed from.

Over and over, I point out claims that are unsupported. Where is the support of this claim outside of the authors word?

[FromWayDowntown]

Selective cynicism; outcome dependent:

Supports my team? No cynicism.

Against my team? Cynicism.

[ElNono]

:lol

[rjv]

That is a very bad article to hang your hat on.

You say "7 out of 10 americans believed iraq was behind 9/11"

The article says:

"70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link"

"Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda"

But... It doesn't show the actual question, or the setup questions prior to the poll.

Do I believe Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? Yes. Do I believe Saddam had anything to do with 9-11? No. Personally involved, No. I would like to see the question that this is claimed from.

Over and over, I point out claims that are unsupported. Where is the support of this claim outside of the authors word?

i don't say so. the poll from the link indicates that "Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda".

the actual poll can be located here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

[rjv]

Selective cynicism; outcome dependent:

Supports my team? No cynicism.

Against my team? Cynicism.


you have a rather cynical view of cynicism

[rjv]

did you ever, at any point ever, think iraq was behind 9/11?


no, nor did i ever think they had any weapons of mass destruction.

[boutons_deux]

Saddam ran a secular state, AQ pushed/pushes for Islamic state.

No way Saddam supported AQ, at least not AQ in Iraq.

Like the US with its long history, and current practice, of supporting dictators and overthrowing democratic govts, Saddam may have financed AQ against USA but not within AQ within Iraq, because any enemy of his enemy (the USA) was his friend.

[rjv]

Saddam ran a secular state, AQ pushed/pushes for Islamic state.

No way Saddam supported AQ, at least not AQ in Iraq.

Like the US with its long history, and current practice, of supporting dictators and overthrowing democratic govts, Saddam may have financed AQ against USA but not within AQ within Iraq, because any enemy of his enemy (the USA) was his friend.


that is to the point of the article cited here. argo makes no attempt to illustrate why the students in iran had reached the boling point. the shah was a brutal despot, and had been put in place after a CIA backed overthrow of mosaddegh.

[ChumpDumper]

Do I believe Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? Yes. Do I believe Saddam had anything to do with 9-11? No. Personally involved, No. I would like to see the question that this is claimed from.

Over and over, I point out claims that are unsupported. Where is the support of this claim outside of the authors word?I am obligated to point out your claim that Saddam supported Al Qaeda is unsupported.

[Wild Cobra]

i don't say so. the poll from the link indicates that "Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda".

the actual poll can be located here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm
1) that is only part of the poll. What were the leading questions. I simply cannot believe that many people believed that in 2003.

2) What was CNN saying at the time. Since it was a CNN poll, maybe they used their audience and simply reflected their inaccurate reporting. I was never a CNN viewer because of their chronic lying, so maybe they should have said "CNN viewers?"

[rjv]

The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.

i can only assume the surveys were conducted in the manner most over the phone surveys are: as scripted questions.

[Wild Cobra]

I see you didn't consider the footnotes.

And once again. What is the complete poll, and question order to bead up to that?

[rjv]

I see you didn't consider the footnotes.

And once again. What is the complete poll, and question order to bead up to that?

the footnotes comparing the washington post poll to previous polls on different dates (and one by CNN/Time) or with a question stated differently ? (all which seem to yield similar data)

[Wild Cobra]

the footnotes comparing the washington post poll to previous polls on different dates (and one by CNN/Time) or with a question stated differently ? (all which seem to yield similar data)
Yes, and it makes you wonder who's poll they are using.

Seiously. Do you remember 2003? Nodody I knew though Saddam had anything to do with it.

Back to the rest of the poll. Professional polsters can manipulate the questions and order of question, to put a certain mindset in a persons head.

Again, what were the questions leading up to the questions about Saddam and his role in 911?

Without complete context, the poll is meaningless.

[rjv]

Yes, and it makes you wonder who's poll they are using.

Seiously. Do you remember 2003? Nodody I knew though Saddam had anything to do with it.

Back to the rest of the poll. Professional polsters can manipulate the questions and order of question, to put a certain mindset in a persons head.

Again, what were the questions leading up to the questions about Saddam and his role in 911?

Without complete context, the poll is meaningless.

..or maybe they were watching FOX news ( http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/fox-news-spins-911-commission-report/ )


"I agree with Jeff. I mean, the fact that the administration's arguments for going against Iraq was not because it caused 9/11. Now, it's true that a lot of Americans did conflate the two and did think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with it." (In fact, a poll found that Fox viewers were the most likely news consumers to believe this unsubstantiated claim--PIPA, 10/2/03.)

[Wild Cobra]

The only link Bush was trying to make was Saddam's willingness to help Al Qaeda, specifically, allowing them to train in Iraq. He never tried to say Saddam had a part in the 9/11 attacks outside of associating with them.

Please show me a Fox News report that said Saddam had an active part in 9/11.

Funny how you link an article where Hume says Bush never made such a claim. It's the mischaracterization of the M$M's. Not the administration.

[rjv]

The only link Bush was trying to make was Saddam's willingness to help Al Qaeda, specifically, allowing them to train in Iraq. He never tried to say Saddam had a part in the 9/11 attacks outside of associating with them.

Please show me a Fox News report that said Saddam had an active part in 9/11.

Funny how you link an article where Hume says Bush never made such a claim. It's the mischaracterization of the M$M's. Not the administration.

okay. the point of the article was to illustrate how even cheney admitted it would not seem unreasonable for americans to make that connection so it did not surprise him that the polls being conducted at the time were yielding the results they did. and i pasted that particular section because it mentioned that FOX viewers were the ones who were apparently more likely to make that assertion according to some poll results. the rhethoric during that time was no where near as benign as you seem to recall in regard to iraq and its relations to terror.

even if not specifically connected to 9-11, the point of the OP is that the good guys versus the muslims perception has not gone away. whether it was FOX in 2003 or affleck in 'Argo' adding to the current sentiments regarding iran.

[clambake]

The only link Bush was trying to make was Saddam's willingness to help Al Qaeda, specifically, allowing them to train in Iraq. He never tried to say Saddam had a part in the 9/11 attacks outside of associating with them
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

The only link Bush was trying to make was Saddam's willingness to help Al Qaeda, specifically, allowing them to train in Iraq. He never tried to say Saddam had a part in the 9/11 attacks outside of associating with them.I am obligated to point out your claim that Saddam allowed Al Qaeda to train in Iraq is unsupported.

[Wild Cobra]

I am obligated to point out your claim that Saddam allowed Al Qaeda to train in Iraq is unsupported.
It has weak evidence, unlike who ever perpetrated misleading people to believe that Saddam had direct connections to 9/11.

My point is that was the only Saddam/Al Qaeda connection Bush was making. Did those polling people purposely pick a stupid group of people?

[ChumpDumper]

It has weak evidenceWhich is?
unlike who ever perpetrated misleading people to believe that Saddam had direct connections to 9/11.Oh, Cheney just threw out the Mohammed Atta meeting Iraqi intel in Prague story out there and let the public draw their own conclusions. It's not rocket science.

[Wild Cobra]

Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

President George W. Bush meets with his war council at Camp David, Saturday morning, March 22, 2003. Present at the table are, from left, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Myers, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Chief of Staff to the Vice President Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff Andy Card, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, and Chief Counsel to the President Alberto Gonzalez. White House photo by Eric Draper The future of peace and the hopes of the Iraqi people now depend on our fighting forces in the Middle East. They are conducting themselves in the highest traditions of the American military. They are doing their job with skill and bravery, and with the finest of allies beside them. At every stage of this conflict the world will see both the power of our military, and the honorable and decent spirit of the men and women who serve.

In this conflict, American and coalition forces face enemies who have no regard for the conventions of war or rules of morality. Iraqi officials have placed troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for the dictator's army. I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm.

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted.

Across America this weekend, the families of our military are praying that our men and women will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with them for the safety of their loved ones and for the protection of all the innocent. Our entire nation appreciates the sacrifices made by military families, and many citizens who live near military families are showing their support in practical ways, such as by helping with child care, or home repairs. All families with loved ones serving in this war can know this: Our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation entered this conflict reluctantly, yet with a clear and firm purpose. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. This will not be a campaign of half-measures. It is a fight for the security of our nation and the peace of the world, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

Thank you for listening.

[Wild Cobra]

1Xycyq2j8JI

[boutons_deux]

Repugs and right-wingers here lying about the LIES dubya/dickhead/rummy/condi/powell told about Saddam is the equivalent of neo-Confederates LYING that the South seceding was NOT to protect their property of millions of slaves.

[Wild Cobra]

Repugs and right-wingers here lying about the LIES dubya/dickhead/rummy/condi/powell told about Saddam is the equivalent of neo-Confederates LYING that the South seceding was NOT to protect their property of millions of slaves.
Please show me evidence.

[clambake]

the evidence you should be looking for is any connection between iraq and al qeada.

where there is zero evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

the evidence you should be looking for is any connection between iraq and al qeada.

where there is zero evidence.
Fine. Let's assume there was zero. Why are people stupid enough to believe Saddam was directly connected to 9/11? Nobody on the conservative side was saying it. If so, show me wrong.

[boutons_deux]

Fine. Let's assume there was zero. Why are people stupid enough to believe Saddam was directly connected to 9/11? Nobody on the conservative side was saying it. If so, show me wrong.

dickhead started it and kept REPEATING THE LIE that Saddam was involved with 9/11, even REPEATING THE LIE after dubya publicly said there was no connection.

[ChumpDumper]

Fine. Let's assume there was zero. Why are people stupid enough to believe Saddam was directly connected to 9/11? Nobody on the conservative side was saying it. If so, show me wrong.
GOP lawmaker: Saddam linked to 9/11
June 29, 2005

A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."

Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.http://articles.cnn.com/2005-06-29/politics/hayes.911_1_qaeda-and-saddam-saddam-hussein-islamists-in-iraqi-kurdistan?_s=PM:POLITICS
Earlier, Cheney repeatedly leaked supposed intel on the link to news outlets then discuss them that weekend on the Sunday shows. He would always intimate the link between Saddam and 9/11 and never refute it. Even if others in the administration tried to walk back, what Cheney said was out there.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0916-02.htm

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Dumb Chump...

That statement is after the 2003 poll. Not before...

Is this how revisionist history looks in action?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Dumb Chump...

That statement is after the 2003 poll. Not before...

Is this how revisionist history looks in action?Hey, genius -- you asked, I answered. Don't move the goalposts now that you don't like the answer. Thanks for not reading the second link. You act like you weren't alive back then or simply incredibly ignorant. I'll believe the latter.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, genius -- you asked, I answered. Don't move the goalposts now that you don't like the answer. Thanks for not reading the second link. You act like you weren't alive back then or simply incredibly ignorant. I'll believe the latter.
I didn't move the goal post. I was asking what prompted people to believe how they answered on a 2003 poll, and your answer is a 2005 statement by another moron.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't move the goal post. I was asking what prompted people to believe how they answered on a 2003 poll, and your answer is a 2005 statement by another moron.If you want to call a GOP congressman a moron, go ahead on.

Thanks for not reading the second link after I specifically pointed out you didn't read it the first time.

[Wild Cobra]

If you want to call a GOP congressman a moron, go ahead on.

Thanks for not reading the second link after I specifically pointed out you didn't read it the first time.
What are you talking about? I read both. Common Dreams is meaningless bullshit. What quote are you twisting this time?

This?


Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Dismiss an unknown as known not to be true? That doesn't mean they said it was true now, does it?

What is your point? I see none.

The next paragraph maybe?


But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Connections... Do you mean like six degrees of separations?

You think you're so smart. Spell it out. Who said Saddam had a direct role in 9/11 before that poll.

Who said what?

I most certainly don't hope you are hanging your hat on this:


"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

What does that have to do with 9/11?

[Wild Cobra]

The only link Bush was trying to make was Saddam's willingness to help Al Qaeda, specifically, allowing them to train in Iraq. He never tried to say Saddam had a part in the 9/11 attacks outside of associating with them.

Please show me a Fox News report that said Saddam had an active part in 9/11.

Funny how you link an article where Hume says Bush never made such a claim. It's the mischaracterization of the M$M's. Not the administration.

[Wild Cobra]

NBC Transcript (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/#.UUWdLDetqqs) you loved Common Dreams is based on:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago.

How is that a Yes or No response without certainty? He goes on talking about the 1993 bombing you shithead. Not the incident on 9/11/01.

[Wild Cobra]

dickhead started it and kept REPEATING THE LIE that Saddam was involved with 9/11, even REPEATING THE LIE after dubya publicly said there was no connection.
Link please.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.google.com/search?q=cheney+saddam+9%2F11+link&aq=f&oq=cheney+saddam+9%2F11+link&aqs=chrome.0.57.10361j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.google.com/search?q=cheney+saddam+9%2F11+link&aq=f&oq=cheney+saddam+9%2F11+link&aqs=chrome.0.57.10361j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Oh funny.... Not.

[boutons_deux]

"Do Your Own Research"
-- WC

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot.

You don't get it. Nobody in the administration made that allegation. I cannot find what doesn't exist. You claim it does, so show me.

[boutons_deux]

Nobody in the administration made that allegation. I cannot find what doesn't exist. You claim it does, so show me.

I gave you the link. It wasn't until 2009 that dickhead QUIT tying Saddam to 9/11. He REPEATED that saddam-9/11 LIE for years, is the main reason military grunts thought they were going into Iraq to avenge 9/11 AND why such a large %age of Americans believed the same.

dickhead was the sheriff leading the neo-con invade-Iraq-for-oil posse of LIARS.

They, PNAC, all wanted into Iraq in the mid-90s.

They welcomed and exploited 9/11 as a LYING pretext to go in.

I think the dubya's Exec's ignoring the non-stop, loud summer-of-2001 warnings was part of their plan to use ANY ATTACK as a pretext to go into Iraq-for-oil.

[Wild Cobra]

I gave you the link. It wasn't until 2009 that dickhead QUIT tying Saddam to 9/11. He REPEATED that saddam-9/11 LIE for years, is the main reason military grunts thought they were going into Iraq to avenge 9/11 AND why such a large %age of Americans believed the same.

dickhead was the sheriff leading the neo-con invade-Iraq-for-oil posse of LIARS.

They, PNAC, all wanted into Iraq in the mid-90s.

They welcomed and exploited 9/11 as a LYING pretext to go in.

I think the dubya's Exec's ignoring the non-stop, loud summer-of-2001 warnings was part of their plan to use ANY ATTACK as a pretext to go into Iraq-for-oil.



Link please.

[ChumpDumper]

I told you exactly what Dick did. Again, it's not my fault you don't like the answer. It was such purposeful and obtuse conflation even you could tell what was going on.

Well, maybe not.

[Wild Cobra]

I told you exactly what Dick did. Again, it's not my fault you don't like the answer. It was such purposeful and obtuse conflation even you could tell what was going on.

Well, maybe not.
So you admit he didn't say Iraq was responsible for 911, right?

Why the stupid word games?

[Nbadan]

The only link Bush was trying to make was Saddam's willingness to help Al Qaeda, specifically, allowing them to train in Iraq. He never tried to say Saddam had a part in the 9/11 attacks outside of associating with them.

Please show me a Fox News report that said Saddam had an active part in 9/11.

Funny how you link an article where Hume says Bush never made such a claim. It's the mischaracterization of the M$M's. Not the administration.

Yeah that would be laughable if it did not cost us $2 trillion dollars today and trillions more in the future...Bush/Cheney scared the bageebers out of everyone with all the 'imminent threat' and 'mushroom cloud' talk...plus they never attempted not to associate Saddam with 9/11...even the implication that Saddam was allowing training camps was wrong...the training camps were actually in Kurd-controlled Iraq, an ally of the war on Saddam...

[Wild Cobra]

My God.

You guys are so stupid.

Please, show he what they said to make people believe that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11, before those polls were being taken.

[boutons_deux]

My God.

You guys are so stupid.

Please, show he what they said to make people believe that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11, before those polls were being taken.

you're the ideologically, biased blinded motherfucker.

google "bush cheney saddam iraq 9/11"

and drop the "direct" qualifier. all the Repugs/neo-c*nts had to do was ASSOCIATE saddam and 9/11, with the obvious implication, and they did that successfully for the military grunts and the general populace.

[Nbadan]

and drop the "direct" qualifier. all the Repugs/neo-c*nts had to do was ASSOCIATE saddam and 9/11, with the obvious implication, and they did that successfully for the military grunts and the general populace.

But they never 'directly' said it.....

idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

But they never 'directly' said it.....

idiot.
You cannot drop the "direct."


How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?


a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks

It's in the poll!

Personally involved seems rather direct to me. Am I wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

So you admit he didn't say Iraq was responsible for 911, right?

Why the stupid word games?That's my question for Cheney tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

That's my question for Cheney tbh.
My God man. Cheney's answer was proper.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago.

What is wrong with this? What don't you comprehend?

[ChumpDumper]

My God man. Cheney's answer was proper.


What is wrong with this? What don't you comprehend?He didn't say "No. there is no connection."

Pretty simple if one devotes the right amount of brain power to mere comprehension.

[Wild Cobra]

He didn't say "No. there is no connection."

Pretty simple if one devotes the right amount of brain power to mere comprehension.
Do you want him to lie and say there is no connection if they don't know?

My God... What a fucking moron you are. Do you really think he knew factually one way or another?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you want him to lie and say there is no connection if they don't know?I want him to tell the truth and say there is no connection.


My God... What a fucking moron you are. Do you really think he knew factually one way or another?Yes.

If you have no evidence of a connection, you have no evidence of a connection.

1 = 1

What kind of a fucking moron doesn't understand that?

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me Fuzzy.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me Fuzzy.Your stupidity never amazed me. Your stupidity is pretty mundane and predictable.

[boutons_deux]

Cheney Marks Tenth Anniversary of Pretending There Was Reason to Invade Iraq

In a sombre ceremony attended by former members of the Bush administration, the former Vice-President Dick Cheney marked the tenth anniversary of making up a reason to invade Iraq.

The ceremony, held on the grounds of the Halliburton Company headquarters, brought together the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and other key members of the lying effort.

Calling the assembled officials “profiles in fabrication,” Mr. Cheney praised them for their decade of dedication to a totally fictitious rationale.

“Making up a reason to invade a country is the easy part,” Mr. Cheney told them. “Sticking to a pretend story for ten years—that is the stuff of valor.”

Mr. Cheney added that their “steadfast charade had raised the bar for all future administrations.”

“When it is time to invade Iran or Venezuela, will the President have the will to make up an entirely fake reason to do it?” he asked. “That remains to be seen.”

The ceremony ended on an emotional note, as Mr. Cheney placed a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown W.M.D.

Former President George W. Bush, who was said to be otherwise engaged, was represented at the event by a nude self-portrait.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/cheney-marks-tenth-anniversary-of-pretending-there-was-reason-to-invade-iraq.html#ixzz2O0INuibn

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

There was reason. Why can't you liberals accept it.

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

There was reason. Why can't you liberals accept it.

THE REASON was oil.

EVERYTHING ELSE is lies.

[Wild Cobra]

THE REASON was oil.

EVERYTHING ELSE is lies.
Right.

That really helped.

Believe as you wish. You are simply wrong. I know I will never change your mind, so I will just laugh at you.

[clambake]

LOL...

There was reason. Why can't you liberals accept it.

cuz saddamn attacked us?

[Wild Cobra]

cuz saddamn attacked us?
No Cosmored, that was never a reason. Why made people believe that? CBS or CNN? The Bush administration never used that as a reason. If you believe so, please supply a link before 2003.

[clambake]

The Bush administration never used that as a reason.

what did they use as a reason?

[Wild Cobra]

what did they use as a reason?
Go back and read the history Cosmored. There is no ulterior motive or conspiracy. It primarily had to do with his refusal to show disposition of WMD, as agreed to to end Desert Storm, in an after 9/11 world, when he had known associates of terrorists. You have to remember, this guy was absolutely evil. He actually used WMD.

There was a legitimate concern that his weapons would end up in the hands of terrorists.

[clambake]

what weapons? the inspectors said they didn't have any. and they were right.

my question to you should have been "what did they use as a legitimate reason."

[Wild Cobra]

what weapons? the inspectors said they didn't have any. and they were right.

my question to you should have been "what did they use as a legitimate reason."
Are you a liar or an idiot?

They said they didn't/couldn't find any, and were blocked and delayed every step, which could give time to move them.

Please Cosmored...

Where did they say Saddam didn't have any, or are you parroting liberal journalists interpretations?

Link please.

[clambake]

Are you a liar or an idiot?

They said they didn't/couldn't find any, and were blocked and delayed every step, which could give time to move them.

Please Cosmored...

Where did they say Saddam didn't have any, or are you parroting liberal journalists interpretations?

Link please.
the inspectors......that were there......said there weren't any. moron

[boutons_deux]

WC still saying the Iraq war (and his full support) was justified, in any measure. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

the inspectors......that were there......said there weren't any. moron
Link please.

Saying they didn't find any is not the same as saying they didn't exist and moved. Besides, that is not the point Cosmored. Saddam did not allow proper inspections in a timely manner to confirm anything.

[clambake]

damn, you're stupid.

[boutons_deux]

Link please.

Saying they didn't find any is not the same as saying they didn't exist and moved. Besides, that is not the point Cosmored. Saddam did not allow proper inspections in a timely manner to confirm anything.

It was the REPUGS who pulled the inspectors out, not Saddam throwing them out.

[Wild Cobra]

It was the REPUGS who pulled the inspectors out, not Saddam throwing them out.
Yes, the inspectors were pulled out after it was clear that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections. It was a futile waste of time and money.

[clambake]

Yes, It was a futile waste of time and money.

yes, iraq surely was.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, the inspectors were pulled out after it was clear that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections. It was a futile waste of time and money.

the inspectors said then and now that they had NO INTERFERENCE from Saddam.

[Wild Cobra]

the inspectors said then and now that they had NO INTERFERENCE from Saddam.
No interference once they got to a location. The interference was getting to locations when planned.

[Wild Cobra]

---dp---

Shit this new forum sucks.

[Wild Cobra]

A simple search will yield some insightful information if you look. Here is the first one I found:

link: Timeline of UN weapons inspections (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/stories/un_inspections.htm)

I'm sure there are more detailed ones if you look.

[spursncowboys]

A simple search will yield some insightful information if you look. Here is the first one I found:

link: Timeline of UN weapons inspections (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/stories/un_inspections.htm)

I'm sure there are more detailed ones if you look.

It's easier to assume someone, they don't agree with politically, devised a plan to go to war.

[clambake]

nice try. powell himself said the evidence used to justify the war was deliberately misleading.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your stupidity never amazed me. Your stupidity is pretty mundane and predictable.

yup

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's easier to assume someone, they don't agree with politically, devised a plan to go to war.

I just want to see the part where they had intelligence of any actual weapons. It was pretty evident they had no clue after they were let into any number of sites and couldn't find the factories so they came up with that bullshit --again unsubstantiated-- mobile truck lab fiction.

Iraq was a sovereign nation and all of our allies but 1 refused to come along because they knew it was shit too. The decision apparatus is not so simple as "a man with a plan" in any case but it is not very hard to see that confirmation bias and assumptions that would make WC proud were what drove the decision. Wishful thinking makes awful policy.

[spursncowboys]

I just want to see the part where they had intelligence of any actual weapons. It was pretty evident they had no clue after they were let into any number of sites and couldn't find the factories so they came up with that bullshit --again unsubstantiated-- mobile truck lab fiction.

Iraq was a sovereign nation and all of our allies but 1 refused to come along because they knew it was shit too. The decision apparatus is not so simple as "a man with a plan" in any case but it is not very hard to see that confirmation bias and assumptions that would make WC proud were what drove the decision. Wishful thinking makes awful policy.

Think of what you are saying...

What would be the logic? What would be the benefit? I could think of some but none of them are apart of your "war for oil" nonsense.

[ElNono]

People are still waiting for the documents to be translated? There were no WMD in Iraq. Then goalposts moved to the 'liberators/spreading democracy' angle, another massive fail.

IMO, it was all about the neocon lust for warmongering, projection of power and pent up anger about 9/11. Dubya's way to 'finish the job' his dad (a much smarter man) started.
The 'we have the bigger dick' and 'fuck the UN'. Wasted thousands of American lives and international credibility in the name of an ideological brain fart. And sure, the oil is there, might as well take it.

The whole thing was obviously compounded by having sheer incompetent people like Rumself in any leadership capacity. I agree with Winehole's post on the other thread about the GOP. Iraq will hang over the GOP head for a long, long while, like Vietnam hang over the Democrats for a long time.

[spursncowboys]

People are still waiting for the documents to be translated? There were no WMD in Iraq. Then goalposts moved to the 'liberators/spreading democracy' angle, another massive fail.

IMO, it was all about the neocon lust for warmongering, projection of power and pent up anger about 9/11. Dubya's way to 'finish the job' his dad (a much smarter man) started.
The 'we have the bigger dick' and 'fuck the UN'. Wasted thousands of American lives and international credibility in the name of an ideological brain fart. And sure, the oil is there, might as well take it.

The whole thing was obviously compounded by having sheer incompetent people like Rumself in any leadership capacity. I agree with Winehole's post on the other thread about the GOP. Iraq will hang over the GOP head for a long, long while, like Vietnam hang over the Democrats for a long time.
The original goal post were the 12 UN resolution violations. If "neo-cons" were trying to extort facts, so was the rest of the intelligence communities from UK to Russia. Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi all thought that Saddam had WMD's and all thought we were less safe with Saddam having those in his hands!
You usually have pretty logical opinions but then your moronic liberal side comes out and this kind of stuff spews.
International credibilty. The countries who hate us now, were the ones cheering after 9-11.
We did not lose Iraq. If they fall into a civil war, it will be on Obama's hands for making an arbitrary pull-out date with no real logical strategic reason, besides to fulfill one of his only campaign promises.

[spursncowboys]

The idea that Middle Easterners are too stupid to have democracy, coming from people who are all too willing to increase government control on our lives, at the cost of our freedoms is pretty ironic.

[spursncowboys]

Let the Sunni's be propped up by a brutal dictator to suppress the Shiite thereby maintaining a war like state with Iran.

[ElNono]

The original goal post were the 12 UN resolution violations. If "neo-cons" were trying to extort facts, so was the rest of the intelligence communities from UK to Russia. Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi all thought that Saddam had WMD's and all thought we were less safe with Saddam having those in his hands!

Pelosi and Kerry are idiots, and Bill understood that there was no reason for invasion, and so he did not invade. Same for Bush Sr who kicked their asses out of Kuwait then proceeded to put a chokehold that didn't cost anywhere near as many American lives or money. They were the level-headed, smart people. The fact is Russia, along with China and every other country not named the US or UK didn't buy the 'mobile chemical labs' strawman, because there were no mobile chemical labs, and none was found post invasion, which, if anything, legitimizes everyone alleged intel but the US and UK.

Powell coming out later saying they basically ran photoshopped pics at the UN presentation just basically confirms what a good amount of people thought back then (me included), it was all a dog and pony show.


You usually have pretty logical opinions but then your moronic liberal side comes out and this kind of stuff spews.

There's no logic to apply here, because frankly we're 10 years later and nobody has a fucking idea why we invaded Iraq. No WMD. No mobile labs. Saddam was an asshole but he ran a fairly secular country where the two primary factions coexisted. We did an ethnic cleansing with the surge and the Iraqis still don't want anything to do with us. We were never welcome as 'liberators' and that place is heading back to the clusterfuck it was before we got there.


International credibilty. The countries who hate us now, were the ones cheering after 9-11.

You have short memory. Countries like Germany, France, Canada, etc didn't take lightly the fact that after getting ran from the UN, the US/UK turned around and went unilaterally into war. None of those countries joined the initial "Coalition of the Willing", which in the post world-war II world was unfathomable. Countries like the UK still have ripples over the decision to go to war today. Americans in general have very little pulse of the general sentiment about the US outside of the US, so I'm not going to hold it against you. But the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation the way it was done didn't sit well. Now you could say you don't give a shit about that, and that's fine. But a lot less countries are buying the "beacon of hope" today after det one.


We did not lose Iraq. If they fall into a civil war, it will be on Obama's hands for making an arbitrary pull-out date with no real logical strategic reason, besides to fulfill one of his only campaign promises.

There was no winning or losing because there was no end-game. We didn't know why we were there, and we still don't. We didn't know what to do once Saddam was removed, and we improvised on spot. We surged, then we cleansed and re-took control, then we placed a puppet. Now the puppet is still a puppet but nobody wants us there. They didn't want us when we got there, and they still don't want us, and they won't want us later on.


The idea that Middle Easterners are too stupid to have democracy, coming from people who are all too willing to increase government control on our lives, at the cost of our freedoms is pretty ironic.

I'm not saying they're stupid. I'm simply saying democracy isn't ingrained in their culture and you can't force-feed it into them. A whole lot of countries through history went through military coups, civil wars, temporary democracies, more coups, wars, then eventually settled on democracy. It was a long, drawn up process where people finally decided what worked for them and what didn't. The thought you can just walk into any of these heavily tribal and religious countries and just "change" people by dropping bombs on their houses, and tell them it's for their own good, is ridiculous.

[ElNono]

Let the Sunni's be propped up by a brutal dictator to suppress the Shiite thereby maintaining a war like state with Iran.

But let's look the other way when it comes to Saudi Arabia. There's nothing ruthless about stoning women to death. After all, it's in their culture and women love it!

[clambake]

he's an obedient grunt.

[Wild Cobra]

nice try. powell himself said the evidence used to justify the war was deliberately misleading.
I don't recall such words pertaining to all the evidence. One piece, yes, which in no way invalidates the rest of the evidence.

Link please.

[ChumpDumper]

The original goal post were the 12 UN resolution violations. If "neo-cons" were trying to extort facts, so was the rest of the intelligence communities from UK to Russia. Bill and Hillary, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi all thought that Saddam had WMD's and all thought we were less safe with Saddam having those in his hands!Only the neocons tried to intimate that the US would be nuked by Iraq.
The countries who hate us now, were the ones cheering after 9-11.You have a terrible memory. Even fucking Iran was offering to help us after the 9/11 attacks.
We did not lose Iraq. If they fall into a civil war, it will be on Obama's hands for making an arbitrary pull-out date with no real logical strategic reason, besides to fulfill one of his only campaign promises.The US–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was signed on November 17, 2008. It's pretty sad when a soldier doesn't know from whom his orders are coming tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't recall such words pertaining to all the evidence. One piece, yes, which in no way invalidates the rest of the evidence.

Link please.Off the top of my head, he said at least three major points of his speech were bogus at one time or another.

1) Mobile WMD labs

2) Stockpiles of WMD

3) The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda

I'll look for links if you insist, but if you don't know this by now....

[Wild Cobra]

Off the top of my head, he said at least three major points of his speech were bogus at one time or another.

1) Mobile WMD labs

2) Stockpiles of WMD

3) The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda

I'll look for links if you insist, but if you don't know this by now....
I won't ask you to because I know you now realize a few points do not invalidate the rest. I doubt you can find anything that calls them "bogus." lack of solid evidence, yes. I doubt it goes beyond that.

[ChumpDumper]

I won't ask you to because I know you now realize a few points do not invalidate the rest.Really, what is the rest?

Those are without a doubt the main reasons the public supported the invasion. Without those, you really have nothing that would have justified more than Desert Fox II -- which probably would have toppled Saddam on its own tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

Really, what is the rest?

Those are without a doubt the main reasons the public supported the invasion. Without those, you really have nothing that would have justified more than Desert Fox II -- which probably would have toppled Saddam on its own tbh.
Such a short memory you have. I cannot recount the several reasons without looking it up. they exist though.

[Winehole23]

can't recall, but that's good enough for you. impressive.

[Wild Cobra]

can't recall, but that's good enough for you. impressive.
Oh stuff it.

You know as well as everyone, there were several reasons laid out. I'm just not going to try to recall it and mess up on a tiny detail, which of course will give you all cause to say I;m wrong. I'm also not going to look things up again that are a decade+ old.

[Winehole23]

too lazy to look up your own justification? count me unsurprised.

[Wild Cobra]

too lazy to look up your own justification? count me unsurprised.
I don't feel like spending time on what is already a decade old argument, again. Do you?

I made my comments, pointing out that there was more than the points Chump brings up. Are you saying there are only the three points he brings up, or are you saying his three points invalidate the rest?

[ChumpDumper]

Such a short memory you have. I cannot recount the several reasons without looking it up. they exist though.Such a short memory you have.

Go ahead -- look them up and list them. This board isn't going anywhere.

[boutons_deux]

mobile weapons labs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory

yellowcake shopping (dickhead outed Plame for daring to cross him) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

aluminum tubes for centrifuges

curveball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

(dickhead) repeatedly associated Saddam with 9/11 (the BIG emotional justification for most Americans and military)

hustler/liar/bullshitter as "evidence" against Saddam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

in early 2003, it seemed like there was "raison du jour", but finally Powell, he and his staff knowing he was going to spew bullshit, went with the mobile weapons labs as WMD proof to the UN