XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
From: dead@gone.com
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?
>
> 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)
|
