Dems Push Big Lie About War

[quote]rainjack wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Did you even read the article you fucking idiot?

Left-wing hacks like wreckless and harryass6969 don’t read anything. They react. They use the same tactic in every political thread they post in.

The left couldn’t recognize the truth if it was taking a shit on their dumb heads.

No - but twist it so that Bush is the bad guy, and they will swallow it like a ten dollar whore.[/quote]

LOL! that’s funny shit.

All true, all true RJ.

And that’s when the real liberal ass kicking begins!

Another really good read illustrating the pure folly of the left.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05310/600991.stm


Jack Kelly: About that Iraq ‘deception’

Evidence does link Saddam to WMD programs and terror groups
Sunday, November 06, 2005

The president went on television to announce: “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years,” the vice chairman of the Intelligence committee told the Senate.

The president was Bill Clinton (Dec. 16, 1998). The senator was Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia (Oct. 10, 2002).

These statements should be kept in mind when assessing the hissy fit Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid threw Tuesday when he called the Senate into secret session to discuss whether Bush administration officials had exaggerated prewar intelligence about Iraq.

Mr. Reid claimed his action was prompted by the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about from whom he learned that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.

“The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq,” Sen. Reid said.

But Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had made it clear that that was not what the Libby indictment was about. “This indictment is not about the war,” he said. “This indictment will not seek to prove the war was justified or unjustified.”

The Iraq Survey Group found no large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. This could be because no such weapons actually existed.

Or it could be because they were moved to another country between the time Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and when the war actually began.

[b]“We’ve had six or seven credible reports of Iraqi weapons being moved into Syria before the war,”[/b] a senior administration official told reporter Kenneth Timmerman.

Or it could be the Iraq Survey Group had an unusually restrictive definition of what constitutes a WMD stockpile.

-Bigflamer sez…Hmmmmmmm.

The 4th Infantry Division discovered in an ammo dump near the town of Baiji 55 gallon drums of chemicals which, when mixed together, form nerve gas. They were stored next to surface-to-surface missiles which had been configured to carry a liquid payload.

If prewar intelligence was faulty, the fault lies with the CIA which supplied the erroneous information, not with the political leaders, Democratic and Republican, who relied upon it.

But Democrats who had access to the same intelligence President Bush had, and who because of it voted to authorize war with Iraq, are charging now that the president deliberately deceived the nation into war.

The slender reed on which this weighty charge is hung is the credibility of Mr. Wilson, who the CIA had sent to Niger in 2002 to determine if Saddam had tried to buy uranium there.

The Senate Intelligence Committee snapped that reed when it issued its report on prewar intelligence in July of last year. The committee found unanimously that [b]Mr. Wilson lied when he said Mr. Cheney had sent him on the mission, lied when he denied his wife had recommended him for it and lied when he said he’d found no evidence Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger.[/b]

Journalists who interview Mr. Wilson – who’s been enjoying a second 15 minutes of fame in the wake of the indictment of Mr. Libby – rarely bring this up. Most think it best to ignore facts that get in the way of the story they want to tell.

The press’ amnesia has convinced Democrats they can regain power by lying about prewar intelligence. But facts are stubborn things.

“The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments,” said the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments,” said the Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence, issued in March.

Thanks to really lousy reporting, most Americans are unaware of how much evidence there is of Saddam’s WMD programs and his ties to international terror groups. This is a debate Republicans should welcome.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
rainjack wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Did you even read the article you fucking idiot?

Left-wing hacks like wreckless and harryass6969 don’t read anything. They react. They use the same tactic in every political thread they post in.

The left couldn’t recognize the truth if it was taking a shit on their dumb heads.

No - but twist it so that Bush is the bad guy, and they will swallow it like a ten dollar whore.

LOL! that’s funny shit.

With retards like you voting in '08, I smell another decisive conservative victory.

Why wait till '08? The Senate will be filibuster proof in '06, not because of the ‘nuclear option’, but because they will lose more seats in the election.

All true, all true RJ.

And that’s when the real liberal ass kicking begins![/quote]

Yeah, wer’e republicans!! We own the world!! ignorance personified, there is no debate to be had with someone like you; you would label ANYONE who disagrees with you a liberal and attack. sickening bullshit…YEAH LIBERAL ASS KICKING RRRRRRRR WE RULE!!! fucking joke…

[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
Yeah, wer’e republicans!! We own the world!! ignorance personified, there is no debate to be had with someone like you; you would label ANYONE who disagrees with you a liberal and attack. sickening bullshit…YEAH LIBERAL ASS KICKING RRRRRRRR WE RULE!!! fucking joke…[/quote]

You haven’t engaged in anything even remotely resembling debate since you started posting down here. You wait and make a half-assed attempt at attacking - but you fail at that.

You fashion yourself as some grand free thinker. Any idea as to when you might actually have an idea that supports you being anything other than a half-rate hack?

FYI - i especially like it when you think you are making a point by printing in all caps like this: YEAH LIBERAL ASS KICKING RRRRRRRR WE RULE!!!

Do one of those again. BTW - what does RRRRRRR mean?

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Denigrate the reportage? wow, you almost sounded like an intelligent person there, good work.

And the idea of not “denigrating the reportage” (whatever the fuck reportage means…I think you mean ‘reporting’) is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.[/quote]

You truly are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met, perfect leftist, easily lead. Reportage is a french word that refers to reporting on a subject, as a whole. Obviously you don’t speak french, you can barely speak english looking at your last post, so I can understand the confusion on your part. I like this line,
“(whatever the fuck reportage means…I think you mean ‘reporting’) is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.”

How eloquent of you, you are truly gifted with the ability to put together a coherent argument. There is a double negative in there, along with overutilization of “who”, but good work none the less. Keep it up, you might be able to write for the New York Times in a few weeks, they are always looking for fucking retards such as yourself. Cheers

[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
Yeah, wer’e republicans!! We own the world!! ignorance personified, there is no debate to be had with someone like you; you would label ANYONE who disagrees with you a liberal and attack. sickening bullshit…YEAH LIBERAL ASS KICKING RRRRRRRR WE RULE!!! fucking joke…

You haven’t engaged in anything even remotely resembling debate since you started posting down here. You wait and make a half-assed attempt at attacking - but you fail at that.

You fashion yourself as some grand free thinker. Any idea as to when you might actually have an idea that supports you being anything other than a half-rate hack?

FYI - i especially like it when you think you are making a point by printing in all caps like this: YEAH LIBERAL ASS KICKING RRRRRRRR WE RULE!!!

Do one of those again. BTW - what does RRRRRRR mean? [/quote]

Actually ive tried to ask certain questions about things the bush organization has done, and all i got was ridiculed, so, I figured it must be par for the course down here.Anytime an opposing viewpoint is offered, the term “hack”, “stupid liberal”, things of the sort are used. And you seemed to be one of the biggest perpertrators of throwing insults when a topic you disagreed with was brought up.

You spew the same tired lines again and again like its some mindless mantra. I asked you some honest questions in another thread about what seemed to me over protection of Bush and his administration, and yes, i did throw insults myself. But like i said, because thats what seemed to be the norm.

You responded with how youll do anything for the conservative cause; regardless of anything which may be right or wrong, and that my friend, is pathetic. I liked Bush, didnt vote for him OR Gore or kerry, but i liked him. But he has done things which to me are very reprehensible. The RRRR and things of that nature are in respect to your tough guy “tit for tat” attitude.

Im sure your probably a decent guy in person but on here you come across as very arrogant and know-it-all ish. Now, ive explained myself, continue with your regurgitated lines and keep the faith in w, because its quite clear he and his administration can do no wrong in your eyes. Something tells me though he doesnt share that same affinity for you and his other followers…

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Were they central to the investigation? Should the White House turn over every document requested in every partisan investigstion of a current administration?

We’ve certainly seen from past democrat administrations that The white house can hide alot of documents under the white house umbrella.
[/quote]

“Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee say that their investigation was hampered by the refusal of the White House to turn over key documents”

see below

Many of the people who first went along with this war did so based on info supplied by the administration - they lied.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

But what was the MOST urgent reason - the $300 billion+ cost, the civil war, the 2000 troops killed or the $3 per gallon gas?

HA, HA - I see what’s so funny. The UN said before the war they couldn’t find any evidence of WMD’s but then we went in and… DIDN’T FIND ANY!

Somehow the irony escapes you. Now what motive would the “right” have for trying so hard to discredit the U.N.?

Panel: U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21854-2005Apr2.html

Prewar Findings Worried Analysts
Washington Post
May 22, 2005
It has been clear since the September report of the Iraq Survey Group – a CIA-sponsored weapons search in Iraq – that the United States would not find the weapons of mass destruction cited by Bush as the rationale for going to war against Iraq.

Kelly spoke of dying in the woods
London
August 23, 2003
“I asked what would happen then (if Britain invaded Iraq) and he replied in a throw-away line he would probably be found dead in the woods,” Mr Boucher wrote.

Former U.N. inspector Dr Kelly’s body was found in a wood near his Oxfordshire home in July, after he had been revealed as the source of a BBC report that alleged Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office had “sexed up” last September’s pre-war Iraqi weapons dossier.

Who’s on the take?
US ‘backed illegal Iraqi oil deals’
Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms
The Guardian
May 17, 2005
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

Texan Indicted In Oil-for-Food Kickback Scheme

[quote]
It’s over Johnny…OVER!

That’s right Johnny, it certainly does look to be over for the democratic party.[/quote]

In what world would that be? (not that I have any high regard for the Democratic party either)

Santorum is 14pts behind Casey in PA - and losing more ground everyday.

Voter Anger Might Mean an Electoral Shift in '06
Public Voices Dissatisfaction Over Iraq War, Economy
Washington Post
November 6, 2005
One year before the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans are facing the most adverse political conditions of the 11 years since they vaulted to power in Congress in 1994. Powerful currents of voter unrest – including unhappiness over the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with the leadership of President Bush – have undermined confidence in government and are stirring fears among GOP candidates of a backlash.

Your really going to ride this turd all the way to the ocean aren’t you?

Oh oh, this just in…
Newly Released Data Undercut Prewar Claims
Source Tying Baghdad, Al Qaeda Doubted
Washington Post
November 6, 2005
“The newly declassified information provides additional dramatic evidence that the administration’s prewar statements regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda represents an incredible deception,” Levin said.

[quote]CaliKing wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Denigrate the reportage? wow, you almost sounded like an intelligent person there, good work.

And the idea of not “denigrating the reportage” (whatever the fuck reportage means…I think you mean ‘reporting’) is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.

You truly are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met, perfect leftist, easily lead. Reportage is a french word that refers to reporting on a subject, as a whole. Obviously you don’t speak french, you can barely speak english looking at your last post, so I can understand the confusion on your part. I like this line,
“(whatever the fuck reportage means…I think you mean ‘reporting’) is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.”

How eloquent of you, you are truly gifted with the ability to put together a coherent argument. There is a double negative in there, along with overutilization of “who”, but good work none the less. Keep it up, you might be able to write for the New York Times in a few weeks, they are always looking for fucking retards such as yourself. Cheers[/quote]

You speak French, huh? Why don’t you move there if you love the French so much, you big smelly socialist?

And, point to the double negative. And keep calling people retarded and ignorant when you have nothing else to say because you support murderers, thieves, and liars against your own self-interest.

[quote]CaliKing wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Denigrate the reportage? wow, you almost sounded like an intelligent person there, good work.

And the idea of not “denigrating the reportage” (whatever the fuck reportage means…I think you mean ‘reporting’) is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.

You truly are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met, perfect leftist, easily lead. Reportage is a french word that refers to reporting on a subject, as a whole. Obviously you don’t speak french, you can barely speak english looking at your last post, so I can understand the confusion on your part. I like this line,
“(whatever the fuck reportage means…I think you mean ‘reporting’) is amusing coming from the man who people who coined the phrase MSM.”

How eloquent of you, you are truly gifted with the ability to put together a coherent argument. There is a double negative in there, along with overutilization of “who”, but good work none the less. Keep it up, you might be able to write for the New York Times in a few weeks, they are always looking for fucking retards such as yourself. Cheers[/quote]

There is something about hearing someone get called a “fucking retard” that makes me smile. You applied it so well here I just thought i’d give you some props.

Harris, you’re circling the drain man, it’s not looking good for you.

V

[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
Actually ive tried to ask certain questions about things the bush organization has done, and all i got was ridiculed, so, I figured it must be par for the course down here.Anytime an opposing viewpoint is offered, the term “hack”, “stupid liberal”, things of the sort are used. And you seemed to be one of the biggest perpertrators of throwing insults when a topic you disagreed with was brought up.[/quote]

Yet you don’t see the same partisanship gushing from the left? Have you not read anything that harryass has written? He’s not exactly a Sunday School teacher. How about vroom? Wreckless? WMD? They are all as bad or worse than I am. I don’t even think I am the worst one from the right. There are subjects that don’t always go partisan, but most of the topics down here are nothing more than pissing matches between the right and left.

Once again - I am the only one you see doing this? Look to the left and honestly tell me that you don’t see the same thing. The same message, the same words. I’ve said it many times before - when the left actually tries a new approach, a new message, a new idea, I’ll stop it with mine. But as it stands I see no need to use anything new to counter the same old shit being parroted by the left on here. The fact that what I say irritates those that don’t like me only makes it that much funner.

I am a conservative. I am not ashamed of that fact. I have said that I will do whatever I have to do to further the message. If I ever gave the impression that I would cross the line into illegalities to further the cause, I apologize. If the only way a movement can be furthered is by breaking the law, or in any way other than the ballot box - it is no longer a movement.

I am sorry that you don’t understand tit-for-tat. But I’m not going to sit idly by and let the left spout off and get away with their particular brand of partisanship. If you think I am the only one being offensive - you need to look again. I’m not sure where the tough guy label comes from. If tough guy means adamantly defending the things I believe in, and pissing my adversaries off on the process then I guess I am. But the term brings up connotations of bullying - and I don’t think I intentionally pin my ears back and go after people in an effort to prove my manhood. Well there’s vroom - but it has nothing to do with provong anything, It’s just fun to irritate the shit out of him.

I am arrogant. I do come across as a know it all - but name 2 people down here that aren’t one or the other or both. I don;t see where I am that much different than 90% of the regulars down here.

Why are you rednecks and liberals wasting your time arguing here? You’ll never change anyone elses opinion but merely reinforce your own ideals. Mental masturbating I would call it.

[quote]Elder Troll wrote:
Why are you rednecks and liberals wasting your time arguing here? You’ll never change anyone elses opinion but merely reinforce your own ideals. Mental masturbating I would call it.[/quote]

And you felt the need to chime in because?

You must be another ‘free thinker’. But using racial epithets like this doesn’t really speak that well of you- other than to prove you are a bigoted elitist.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elder Troll wrote:
Why are you rednecks and liberals wasting your time arguing here? You’ll never change anyone elses opinion but merely reinforce your own ideals. Mental masturbating I would call it.

And you felt the need to chime in because?

You must be another ‘free thinker’. But using racial epithets like this doesn’t really speak that well of you- other than to prove you are a bigoted elitist.
[/quote]

Rainjack,

Come on, man. There is no way you are honestly offended by the term “redneck”. It was one thing to lay into Vroom for using it (that’s just sport), but you can’t keep acting like it really bothers you.

Sure, sure, there’s a double-standard and that is wrong, but you can’t seriously be bothered by that word.

[quote]doogie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Elder Troll wrote:
Why are you rednecks and liberals wasting your time arguing here? You’ll never change anyone elses opinion but merely reinforce your own ideals. Mental masturbating I would call it.

And you felt the need to chime in because?

You must be another ‘free thinker’. But using racial epithets like this doesn’t really speak that well of you- other than to prove you are a bigoted elitist.

Rainjack,

Come on, man. There is no way you are honestly offended by the term “redneck”. It was one thing to lay into Vroom for using it (that’s just sport), but you can’t keep acting like it really bothers you.

Sure, sure, there’s a double-standard and that is wrong, but you can’t seriously be bothered by that word.[/quote]

Redneck implies lack of intelligence and bigotry, I think that would bother anyone. It’s not like people are using it here implying that he likes country music and nascar, then it would be ok.

You guys need to learn context, in political conversations, calling someone a redneck is never a positive thing and is meant to be insulting, thus it should be taken as an insult. If your discussing sports or music or movies or something and you call someone a redneck, it can be taken as a positive or at least nuetral label, same as “city slicker” in a sense.

V

[quote]doogie wrote:
Rainjack,

Come on, man. There is no way you are honestly offended by the term “redneck”. It was one thing to lay into Vroom for using it (that’s just sport), but you can’t keep acting like it really bothers you.

Sure, sure, there’s a double-standard and that is wrong, but you can’t seriously be bothered by that word.[/quote]

When elitists use it as a derogatory term - I am very much against it. It is every bit as bigoted and offensive as other racial slurs.

If someone wants to call me out personally for what I believe in - that’s fine. But to use words that denegrate an entire class of people - that is wrong, and it is bigoted, and it is racist. Why wouldn’t I be offended?

[quote]Vegita wrote:

Redneck implies lack of intelligence and bigotry, I think that would bother anyone. It’s not like people are using it here implying that he likes country music and nascar, then it would be ok.

You guys need to learn context, in political conversations, calling someone a redneck is never a positive thing and is meant to be insulting, thus it should be taken as an insult. If your discussing sports or music or movies or something and you call someone a redneck, it can be taken as a positive or at least nuetral label, same as “city slicker” in a sense.

V[/quote]

Did I just get a lecture on the term “redneck” from a guy in New York? Mind your own business, yankee!

Seriously, though, he didn’t call Rainjack a redneck. Rainjack chose to identify with the term. Also,as a fellow Texan, it hurts me to see him whining like a liberal about a word.

Many on this board like to use the term “liberal” as an insult also, just like redneck.

According to Webster:

Liberal - Favororing the principles of liberalism.

Liberalism - “political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, the automony of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and social liberties.”

What is it that you have against this position? Which of the above beliefs are you against?
Please enlighten me.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Seriously, though, he didn’t call Rainjack a redneck. Rainjack chose to identify with the term. Also,as a fellow Texan, it hurts me to see him whining like a liberal about a word.

[/quote]

Troll boy gave you two choices: Redneck, or Liberal.

And if me calling him out as a bigoted elitist for using the word redneck is now considered whining - I must have missed the memo on changing the definition.

I just find that particular word very offensive when it is used to convey contempt for an entire group of people.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Many on this board like to use the term “liberal” as an insult also, just like redneck.
[/quote]

I don’t mindthe use of insulting words, particularly if they are limited to political connotations.

I am well aware of Webster and his book of definitions. But the meaning of the word liberal has changed - at least as far as it’s definition in pop culture.

And to even try and equate using liberal, or conservative, or neo-con - with the use of racial slurs is a very very weak position. It is absurd.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
doogie wrote:
Seriously, though, he didn’t call Rainjack a redneck. Rainjack chose to identify with the term. Also,as a fellow Texan, it hurts me to see him whining like a liberal about a word.

Troll boy gave you two choices: Redneck, or Liberal.

And if me calling him out as a bigoted elitist for using the word redneck is now considered whining - I must have missed the memo on changing the definition.

I just find that particular word very offensive when it is used to convey contempt for an entire group of people.

[/quote]

What if that entire group of people is contemptuous?