Iraq is Burning

[reddogblitz]

Bush lied his A$$ off, are you kidding me? First it was WMDs, then Saddam and Osama worked together, then Atta met with Iraqi's in Europe somewehere, then Saddam tried to kill his Dad, then Saddam was going to have a nuke within weeks not months, we don't want to wake up to a mushroom cloud, then Saddam was violating UN sanctions. I suppose there was some truth in the UN sanctions and Dad thing, but start a freaskin' war over it?

 

The level of revisionist history about both those wars by both Dems and Repubs in this election cycle so far is outlandish. It's insulting. Do they really think we're that stupid?

Edited May 27, 2015 by reddogblitz

[truth on hold]

Bush lied his A$$ off, are you kidding me? First it was WMDs, then Saddam and Osama worked together, then Atta met with Iraqi's in Europe somewehere, then Saddam tried to kill his Dad, then Saddam was going to have a nuke within weeks not months, we don't want to wake up to a mushroom cloud, then Saddam was violating UN sanctions. I suppose there was some truth in the UN sanctions and Dad thing, but start a freaskin' war over it?

 

The level of revisionist history about both those wars by both Dems and Repubs in this election cycle so far is outlandish. It's insulting. Do they really think we're that stupid?

Here's another real doozy:

 

Niger uranium forgeries

 

The Niger uranium forgeries are forged documents initially revealed by SISMI (Italian military intelligence). These documents seem to depict an attempt made by Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium powder from Niger during theIraq disarmament crisis.

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq violated United Nations Iraq sanctions by attempting to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating weapons of mass destruction.

By early 2002, separate investigations by both the CIA and the US State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit.

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

Edited May 27, 2015 by JTSP

[Azalin]

Bush lied his A$$ off, are you kidding me? First it was WMDs, then Saddam and Osama worked together, then Atta met with Iraqi's in Europe somewehere, then Saddam tried to kill his Dad, then Saddam was going to have a nuke within weeks not months, we don't want to wake up to a mushroom cloud, then Saddam was violating UN sanctions. I suppose there was some truth in the UN sanctions and Dad thing, but start a freaskin' war over it?

 

The level of revisionist history about both those wars by both Dems and Repubs in this election cycle so far is outlandish. It's insulting. Do they really think we're that stupid?

 

It wasn't UN sanctions that were being violated, it was conditions of the cease-fire from the first gulf war.

[Keukasmallies]

 

Bush lied his A$$ off, are you kidding me? First it was WMDs, then Saddam and Osama worked together, then Atta met with Iraqi's in Europe somewehere, then Saddam tried to kill his Dad, then Saddam was going to have a nuke within weeks not months, we don't want to wake up to a mushroom cloud, then Saddam was violating UN sanctions. I suppose there was some truth in the UN sanctions and Dad thing, but start a freaskin' war over it?

 

The level of revisionist history about both those wars by both Dems and Repubs in this election cycle so far is outlandish. It's insulting. Do they really think we're that stupid?

 

Of course we're that stupid; we continue to elect incumbents, don't we?

[DC Tom]

Bush lied his A$$ off, are you kidding me? First it was WMDs, then Saddam and Osama worked together, then Atta met with Iraqi's in Europe somewehere, then Saddam tried to kill his Dad, then Saddam was going to have a nuke within weeks not months, we don't want to wake up to a mushroom cloud, then Saddam was violating UN sanctions. I suppose there was some truth in the UN sanctions and Dad thing, but start a freaskin' war over it?

 

The level of revisionist history about both those wars by both Dems and Repubs in this election cycle so far is outlandish. It's insulting. Do they really think we're that stupid?

 

My favorite was when an administration official was saying "This is a UN issue, the United States can't go it alone," while simultaneously across town another administration official was saying "This is an issue of national security, and we don't need to involve the UN in it."

 

Don't confuse that level of gross incompetence with lying. The administration simply couldn't express a single, coherent rationale behind going to war, so they threw enough **** at the wall that some of it would stick.

[B-Man]

 

 

ISIS took Ramadi last week. That city once was a Bastogne to the brave Americans who surged to save it in 2007 and 2008.

ISIS, once known at the White House as the “Jayvees,” were certainly “on the run” — right into the middle of that strategically important city.

 

In Ramadi, ISIS will soon do its accustomed thing of beheading and burning alive its captives, seeking some new macabre twist to sustain its Internet video audience. We in the West trample the First Amendment and jail a video maker for posting a supposedly insensitive film about Islam; in contrast, jihadists post snuff movies of burnings and beheadings to global audiences.

We argue not about doing anything or saving anybody, but about whether it is inappropriate to call the macabre killers “jihadists.”

When these seventh-century psychopaths tire of warring on people, they turn to attacking stones, seeking to ensure that there is not a vestige left of the Middle East’s once-glorious antiquities. I assume the ancient Sassanid and Roman imperial site at Palmyra will soon be looted and smashed.

[DC Tom]

 

 

ISIS took Ramadi last week. That city once was a Bastogne to the brave Americans who surged to save it in 2007 and 2008.

ISIS, once known at the White House as the “Jayvees,” were certainly “on the run” — right into the middle of that strategically important city.

 

In Ramadi, ISIS will soon do its accustomed thing of beheading and burning alive its captives, seeking some new macabre twist to sustain its Internet video audience. We in the West trample the First Amendment and jail a video maker for posting a supposedly insensitive film about Islam; in contrast, jihadists post snuff movies of burnings and beheadings to global audiences.

We argue not about doing anything or saving anybody, but about whether it is inappropriate to call the macabre killers “jihadists.”

 

When these seventh-century psychopaths tire of warring on people, they turn to attacking stones, seeking to ensure that there is not a vestige left of the Middle East’s once-glorious antiquities. I assume the ancient Sassanid and Roman imperial site at Palmyra will soon be looted and smashed.

 

 

 

Don't insult seventh-century Muslims by comparing them to ISIS.

[reddogblitz]

 

Don't confuse that level of gross incompetence with lying. The administration simply couldn't express a single, coherent rationale behind going to war, so they threw enough **** at the wall that some of it would stick.

 

Don't confuse the lying with gross incompetence.

 

JTSP aptly noted above an out and out lie that W's intelligence people were telling him was not true, but he told the American people anyway. How is that not a lie? The same intelligence people that are now being thrown under the bus by history re writers today.

 

I'd also throw in the BS about the aluminum tubes and vial of yellow cake Collin Powell lied about in front of the UN.

 

W likes to play dumb, but he ain't dumb. He knew exactly what he wanted, and got it.

Edited May 27, 2015 by reddogblitz

[B-Man]

WELL, THAT’S BECAUSE HE IS:

 

Americans, 3-1, say Obama is losing fight against ISIS.

 

President Obama, under fire in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail for doing too little to stop the Islamic State terror group, has lost the support of America, with most now saying that the administration isn’t winning the war.

 

A new poll out Monday found that American voters believe the U.S. and its allies are losing the fight by a margin of 64 percent to 17 percent. “Republicans, Democrats and independent voters, and men and women, all agree the U.S. is losing,” said the latest Quinnipiac University national poll.

 

 

 

And you get the feeling that Obama isn’t all that bothered about it.

 

 

 

 

 

JUNIOR VARSITY: While nobody was looking, the Islamic State launched a new, deadly offensive.

 

 

 

Of course, we could always continue the charade that one poster is (laughingly) still pushing. That John McCain is to blame (because of his lousy judgment in posing for pictures..............

 

 

 

 

 

.

[keepthefaith]

WELL, THAT’S BECAUSE HE IS:

 

Americans, 3-1, say Obama is losing fight against ISIS.

 

 

President Obama, under fire in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail for doing too little to stop the Islamic State terror group, has lost the support of America, with most now saying that the administration isn’t winning the war.

 

A new poll out Monday found that American voters believe the U.S. and its allies are losing the fight by a margin of 64 percent to 17 percent. “Republicans, Democrats and independent voters, and men and women, all agree the U.S. is losing,” said the latest Quinnipiac University national poll.

 

 

And you get the feeling that Obama isn’t all that bothered about it.

 

 

 

 

 

JUNIOR VARSITY: While nobody was looking, the Islamic State launched a new, deadly offensive.

 

 

 

Of course, we could always continue the charade that one poster is (laughingly) still pushing. That John McCain is to blame (because of his lousy judgment in posing for pictures..............

 

 

 

 

 

.

Obama's not bothered by it. He has no intention of wiping out ISIS. He's never stated that as the objective and he's certainly not directing the Military to do so. He'll simply hand this problem plus every other big issue that he has not tackled to the next President in '17.

[/dev/null]

He'll simply hand this problem plus every other big issue that he has not tackled to the next President in '17.

The Obama doctrine: It's his predecessors fault and his successors problem

[DC Tom]

The Obama doctrine: It's his predecessors fault and his successors problem

 

No, it's the Clinton Doctrine: "Please be peaceful and don't make any trouble until I'm out of office." The cornerstone of his foreign policy; Obama's following it to a T.

[truth on hold]

Obama's not bothered by it. He has no intention of wiping out ISIS. He's never stated that as the objective and he's certainly not directing the Military to do so. He'll simply hand this problem plus every other big issue that he has not tackled to the next President in '17.

ISIS enabled by:

 

1. Iraq War

2. Support of Syrian "rebels"

3. Being opposed to Iran, our only effective ally against ISIS

 

 

1. Is Bush, Obama opposed it

2. Is partly on Obama and Hillary too, but certainly would have been hard to oppose when you had derelict Senators like McCain running over for photo sessions with ISIS

3. Obama is trying establish better relations with Iran, but is encountering extreme resistance from a Congress beholden to Israeli and Saudi influence

Edited June 3, 2015 by JTSP

[3rdnlng]

ISIS enabled by:

 

1. Iraq War

2. Support of Syrian "rebels"

3. Being opposed to Iran, our only effective ally against ISIS

 

 

1. Is Bush, Obama opposed it

2. Is partly on Obama and Hillary too, but certainly would have been hard to oppose when you had derelict Senators like McCain running over for photo sessions with ISIS

3. Obama is trying establish better relations with Iran, but is encountering extreme resistance from a Congress beholden to Israeli and Saudi influence

You are FUBAR.

[GG]

You are FUBAR.

 

How else would you describe a pedophile loving anti-semite?

[Tiberius]

WELL, THAT’S BECAUSE HE IS:

 

Americans, 3-1, say Obama is losing fight against ISIS.

 

President Obama, under fire in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail for doing too little to stop the Islamic State terror group, has lost the support of America, with most now saying that the administration isn’t winning the war.

 

A new poll out Monday found that American voters believe the U.S. and its allies are losing the fight by a margin of 64 percent to 17 percent. “Republicans, Democrats and independent voters, and men and women, all agree the U.S. is losing,” said the latest Quinnipiac University national poll.

 

 

 

And you get the feeling that Obama isn’t all that bothered about it.

 

 

 

 

 

JUNIOR VARSITY: While nobody was looking, the Islamic State launched a new, deadly offensive.

 

 

 

Of course, we could always continue the charade that one poster is (laughingly) still pushing. That John McCain is to blame (because of his lousy judgment in posing for pictures..............

 

 

 

 

 

.

Same public that thought Saddam was behind 9-11

[truth on hold]

[/dev/null]

Go on the record. 14 months from now if Trump is the GOP nominee and Hilary is the DNC nominee, who are you voting for?

[Who is Yuri?]

Hillary. She's uninspiring. The emails and whatever are mistakes, but minor mistakes not worth the attention they are given. I'd vote for her, because...

 

Trump is a jerk, imo. An absolute jerk. He's the dictionary definition. I respect your right to disagree.

[/dev/null]

Hillary. She's uninspiring. The emails and whatever are mistakes, but minor mistakes not worth the attention they are given. I'd vote for her, because...

 

Trump is a jerk, imo. An absolute jerk. He's the dictionary definition. I respect your right to disagree.

 

Mistakes?

 

Setting up an unsecure server that houses sensitive data is a mistake?

 

Entrusting the server's security to a company that may not have been cleared to support, let alone access, sensitive data is a mistake?

 

Physically locating a server housing sensitive data in an unsecure location?

 

Trump is a jerk.

But Hilary Clinton is not qualified to hold the office. Being President requires access to classified material. Clinton's actions, if held to the same standards as peons like you and Tom, disqualifies her from holding a security clearance