XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
From: dead@gone.com
On Tue, 14 May 2013 12:03:41 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
> Zepp wrote in news:kmto1h$416$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:13:28 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> Zepp wrote in news:kms9v5$s25$17@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:53:34 -0500, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom McDonald wrote in news:83gkt.352$je4.172
>>>>> @newsfe09.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/13/2013 7:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> deep wrote in news:rfg2p85d0op3t1knln4conjjsdncn6bq9g@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:15:56 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> deep wrote in news:nfa2p8diimermp4kcg1pv6prbqrso51udh@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:57 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> deep wrote in news:dbo1p8dvo2pkvfpgef5a3cl6tm8v48t92u@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:30:33 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They had a chance to talk to the survivors the week after
> the
>>>>>>> attack
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they knew the truth--that it was a well planned terrorist
>>>>> attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which nobody knew until much later. The Administration
> wasn't
>>>>>>> hiding
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. At the time nobody knew what was going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. They sure as hell knew the following morning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Watch the hearings, dumbass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They had no good intel on the ground. They had no warning,
>>>>>>>>>> nobody claiming responsiblity. Contradictory reports from on
>>>>>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't until days later all the facts came out and even then
> they
>>>>>>>>>> weren't completely sure of what the truth was. There was no
>>>>>>>>>> deceit
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> deception. Only a breakdown of intel and communications in a
>>>>>>>>>> very difficult time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Must be why all the aliterations on the reports while the
>>>>>>> Administration
>>>>>>>>> claims only one change and it was purely 'sylistic'. ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once again this is nothing but a bunch of Republicans
>>>>>>>>>> monkeys flinging feces hoping some will stick to Obama.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently some of that stuck to you since you seem to be full
> of
>>>>> shit
>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They have no proof. Just Obama haters' opinions. Another
>>>>>>>> Republican witchhunt, and they are dragging out anybody they can
>>>>>>>> find who will try to blame everything on Obama.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds just like you guys on Bush.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, except, of course, Bush actually did most of the stuff we
>>>>>> blamed on him. Hell, lots of it, he was (and is) proud of.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, he didn't. He did not falsify intel although he may
>>>>> have misread it.
>>>>
>>>> What about the claims that they knew exactly what WMDS Saddam
> possessed
>>>> and where they were located a few days before the war? Obviously they
>>>> were lying then.
>>>
>>> As were Kerry, both Clintons, and several other folks believed just
> like
>>> Bush did that Saddam did, in fact, possess WMDs. After all, it had
> been
>>> Saddam's claim for long, long time and he did use WMD against the
> Kurds.
>>
>> Now you're trying to conflate remarks made between one and five years
>> earlier with the immediately-before-the-attack lies and deceit of the
>> Bush administration.
>>>
>>>> He saw the same intel the committees did
>>>>
>>>> That turns out not to be the case. A lot of intel showing that Saddam
>>>> did not have WMDs or the capability of making any was held back. And
>>>> the Senate did not declare war.
>>>
>>> Nor did I claim that they did. I said that passed a resolution....a
>>> feat that you repeat directly below.
>>
>> "and the Senate passed a war resolution" Your words, are they not?
>
> Yep, see the word, "resolution" or do you see the word, "declaration" or
> "declared"?
Nitpicking again. A resolution for war would be a declaration of war.
>
>>> They simply passed a resolution
>>>> telling Bush to start a war if he felt like it, on the understanding
>>>> that he wouldn't do so without backing from the UN Security Council.
>>>> That was another thing Bush lied about.
>>>>
>>>> and the Senate
>>>>> passed a war resolution supported by statements from John Kerry,
> both
>>>>> Clintons, etc..
>>>>
>>>> Again, false. Most of the quotes right wingers love to cite came
> from
>>>> 1998, or 2002, before the UN inspectors, led by an American joint
> task
>>>> force, determined that Saddam was in complience.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> He did NOT do the deregulation attributed to him. He
>>>>> did not give a taxcut to the rich that the middle class didn't also
>>>>> receive. In fact, Obama not only extended that taxcut and added
>>>>> another 2% from payroll taxes.
>>>>
>>>> Boy, you're just chock-full of lies, aren't you? Over 90% of his tax
>>>> cuts went to the rich, who have since basically gutted the American
>>>> economy. And yes, Obama extended much of that tax cut, another
>>>> disgraceful cave on his part.
>>>
>>> His taxcut was extended to all.
>>
>> Sure did. "One dollar for you, One hundred dollars for me..."
>>
>> Obama extended them and added his own
>>> 2%
>>> taxcut from payroll taxes. You have a short memory or a selective
> one?
>>>
>>>> Assuming you AREN'T in the top 1%, why are you applauding the massive
>>>> screwing you're getting?
>>
>> Crickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was Bush a good president? I don't think so but I do think that
>>>>> history will judge him a much better president than the current
> media
>>>>> does.
>>>>
>>>> I think he will go down as the first post-coup President of the
> former
>>>> United States.
>>>
>>> Perhaps.
>>
>>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
