You think Iraq is the only reason Republicans have been collectively shitcanned by a sizable majority of Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Printable View
You think Iraq is the only reason Republicans have been collectively shitcanned by a sizable majority of Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Bush and Cheney made it all up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
No.
Or maybe they fudged it a bit. Why don't you accept that as a possibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Doubt they fudged it. Do you have any idea what a massive conspiracy that would be? To falsify records that a country has nuclear weapons. Do you understand how many people would have to be involved on every single level, in the military, government, UN, private sector, etc. You liberals are crazy. Guess the Clinton Administration was in on it too.
Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
Who knows what's really going on? Perhaps the people who put this turtle on the post want him to divide america. I mean I wonder how much money Soros would stand to make on currency speculations during this economic crisis, as the Obama administrations has so often told us"a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste" Chaos can be quite profitable.
However this administrations heavy handed antics,and arrogance has begun to bring a large group of people together, many of whom have never been involved in politics.Most of these people have been to busy earning a living and raising families and have relinqushed power to the political class.People want to take back power to their own hands.It may be that the Obamanation will wind up bringing together the American nation.
You can't blame only Republicans and thats a fact. You can give Republicans and the Bush administration the lionshare of the blame considering they were pushing for the war on 9/12/2001 and thats a well documented fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
You know this is like complaining about the season the Lakers just had because they didn't win every single game. Obama's presidency is off to a great start especially when you consider the circumstances under which he took office.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
What the fuck is with this Jacob1983 dumbass?
Complains about Obama not being the messiah? Check
Pulls out the ###### card? Check
Recession that is at least 5 years in the making is Obama's fault? Check
I have to give this ignorant slut the title of worst poster on this site... and it's not limited to the Political forum either. You should see his bullshit in the NBA forum. I don't know what the fuck they put in the water in Dallas.
That intel failure was orchestrated by Cheney. So in effect the only thing you can blame democrats for, and it's legit to do so, is trusting that they weren't being lied to. But if you're leveling those criticisms as a republican you're a dumbass.
When republicans say it, it's like, "fuck democrats, they trusted us when we lied to them."
according to wednesday's protests, there's about 300K white people that have divided themselves from the rest of the country. in the sense that those people hate having a black president, Obama is a polarizing figure. fortunately for us sane people, nobody gives a fuck about those people.
All it took was a couple of Bush appointees in the defense department charged by Rumsfeld to "reinterpret" intel that had previously been discredited by other agencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryJohnston
Unfortunately, it is true. That's one reason why I turned against Bush so completely. You might want to read up on what actually happened.Quote:
Its a false hope for liberals to think that it was a conspiracy, and the fact that some of you push it speaks volumes of your lack of intellect. Im sure you are an American who enjoys living in this country, but the misguided, idealogical, anti-American in you would love for that conspiracy to be true wouldn't you............wouldn't you?
Why is everyone arguing a bunch of straw man points?
Yes he is dividing us further, but this is the reality of the world we live in now and a consequence of how we do politics today. The media, the issues, everything has polarized people to the extremes over the past decade and a half, and they will only listen to their side.
Looking at the rest of the world, we are just following the normal trend where political parties turn into extreme platforms on certain issues. The only thing that makes us different from Europe is our two political parties as opposed to 3-6.
Maybe if people change (not happening) we would be united. The government can promise change all it wants, but the psychology of the people lends themselves to be divided. As long as we continue to elect people who are polar opposites, this will continue to occur.
Is there truly any candidate we could of elected that would not have divided us more?
Nope. And pinning the blame on solely the president just proves the point that people are partisan sheep. And goes that's for both parties, no matter how much they want to believe that they are good and the other are evil. As long as they both have human beings, they are each as guilty as the other.
One prime example:Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryJohnston
Quote:
How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH
Published: October 3, 2004
n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.
Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.
Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.
One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources.
Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure.
Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions.
Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is unclear. Ms. Rice knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance, but only learned of the alternative rocket theory of the tubes soon afterward, according to two senior administration officials. President Bush learned of the debate at roughly the same time, a senior administration official said.
Last week, when asked about the tubes, administration officials said they relied on repeated assurances by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the tubes were in fact for centrifuges. They also noted that the intelligence community, including the Energy Department, largely agreed that Mr. Hussein had revived his nuclear program.
"These judgments sometimes require members of the intelligence community to make tough assessments about competing interpretations of facts," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the president.
Don't play stupid. It's not very hard to manipulate a message. Of course since this was used to sell the 'imminent' threat howcould anybody say no?
You can take back you the necessity of the mass conspiracy for Bush and Cheney to fudge things a bit.
forgot the linky..
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...st/03tube.html
Why must we keep harping on the same tired old arguments? We're never going to convince you and you're never going to convince us - you think the Bush administration lied and the Iraq war was needless; we think Bush made the best decisions possible with the intel at hand and that Saddam Hussein was a threat and needed to be dealt with.
So how about we put this to bed for good? There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!
pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!
Eh, I think many Iraqis are just waiting for us to leave so they can get on with their ethnic cleansing and civil war.
colin powell said " the evidence that led us to war was deliberately misleading".Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
how about we put you to sleep.Quote:
So how about we put this to bed for good?
not from you. i listen to the same talkies you do. how do you like life as a parrot?Quote:
There are plenty of other things to discuss and argue about than a 6-year old war!
here you go again...........talking for all people throughout the world.Quote:
pssst - I think the Iraqis are glad we took care of Saddam. They have a higher opinion of Bush than many Americans! There is absolutely no way they want to go back to life under Saddam and his sadistic, raping sons!
:lol @ the thought of putting the greatest blunder in American Foreign policy in my life time to bed. And yeah, they made the best decisions with the intelligence they happened to cherry pick and make up along the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
You can actually put the subject to bed when you acknowledge what 90% of our country already has. The war was unnecessary, stupid, and hurt us in the long run.
Here are some divering lines if I've ever seen them
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/issue-rdwt.php
Okay, here we go. I never called Obama a ######. While Bush was the president, he economy sucking was his fault. I'm not Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. I can admit 100 percent without a doubt that Bush made a lot of mistakes during his presidency. I can also admit that he did fuck up the economy. However, I believe that Obama is making things worse. Whatever happens from January 20, 2009 and on, is on Obama.
The reason why I ask if Obama is dividing Obama even more is because he bitched so many times during campaign how bad Bush divided America. Obama made it seem like he was going to unite America. Has he united America?
DO you even have a definition of unite? When will he have united the country? What is your measuring stick of how divided we are? Please present your analysis
Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam being a threat. It was partly to scare the shit out of the muslim world into showing we are not the mortal cowards that are going to run away from a fight they had come to see us as, and partly to capitalize on a chaotic scenario and claim the most strategically important country in the middle east as our own. We pasted the deal with promises of eliminating threats and spreading democracy because they knew conservatives were stupid enough to believe such rhetoric. Republicans being republican by nature, they bit off more than they could chew, despite blatant evidence we were treading dangerous ground. Not unlike a greedy moneywhore scumfuck hedgefund manager acted throughout the course of the current financial situation.
Actually, from a non shortsighted (neocon) perspective, Saddam Hussein was the perfect leader for Iraq. He was secular, kept those barbaric fanatics scared shitless because he ruled with an iron fist, and was already our bitch in every plausible way a middle eastern secular leader of his vein could be. We never wanted to disarm him, and we never even gave him a chance to comply when we were imposing impossible to follow sanctions on his country for the decade between the two Iraq wars. No fucking way al-Sadr, Ahmedinjad, or any of those other shiite fucks get halfway head of steam if Saddam is there to neutralize their fanatic bull shit. Because he knew how to prevent leaders from using the bull shit religion of Islam as a tool to horde human cannon fodder. He controlled them with outright totally total pure brutality, far more effectively than Islam ever can. He was a pragmatic student of the Dad of his ideology, Josef Stalin. But the neocons portrayed him as some fanatic nuke-chunking threat to the US, like the one we are potentially creating in Iran after removing Saddam from the playing field.
Say what you will about republicans and the latest neocon movement, they are absolute masters of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Give me abortion, high taxes, and an overinfluential EPA any time over such stupid stupid squanderings of our global hegemony and status.
C_B_F, blitzing linebacker. Come strong or don't come at all.
Next blitzer...
When the country was united after 9/11, we did a lot of dumb things in a hurry. I'm not so sure the unity is good for us. It's overrated IMO.
Power causes division. It's unavoidable, even with the best of intentions. I don't quite understand why *creating division* is a gripe. It seems like a commonplace to me. It's a common outcome of policy..