This is so very true

[Tommy Callahan]

Dems treat the tax payers as a piggy bank. 

 

 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Starr-Bills said:

Bush/Cheney made up WMD to go into Iraq. 
 

Absolute nonsense.

Further, it didn't "take "Obama to get bin Laden."

The CIA had been working on it for years, and story and the result is obvious.

 

Obama approved it. 

Biden disapproved it, though nobody paid attention to him, thankfully, and nobody cared.

 

 

[Starr-Bills]

5 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Absolute nonsense.

Further, it didn't "take "Obama to get bin Laden."

The CIA had been working on it for years, and story and the result is obvious.

 

Obama approved it. 

Biden disapproved it, though nobody paid attention to him, thankfully, and nobody cared.

 

 

Eh, semantics, Bush’s CIA had 7 years, no Bueno, guess you could argue it’s a fair trade for the ***** economy he left for Obama, I wouldn’t but you could.
“Bush and senior members of his administration then spent more than a year outlining the dangers that they claimed Iraq posed to the United States and its allies. Two of the administration’s arguments proved especially powerful, given the public’s mood: first, that Hussein’s regime possessed “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD), a shorthand for nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; and second, that it supported terrorism and had close ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, which had attacked the U.S. on 9/11.As numerous investigations by independent and governmental commissions subsequently found, there was no factual basis for either of these assertions. Two decades later, debate continues about whether the administration was the victim of flawed intelligence, or whether Bush and his senior advisers deliberately misled the public about its WMD capabilities, in particular.”

 

“Debate” is doing a lot of heaving lifting.

[sherpa]

2 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

Eh, semantics, Bush’s CIA had 7 years, no Bueno, guess you could argue it’s a fair trade for the ***** economy he left for Obama, I wouldn’t but you could.

 

Bush didn't run the CIA bin Laden thing, the CIA did.

It took time and a bit of luck, but they eventually found the courier who led them.

You seem like a high school kid to me.

No knowledge of how this is done or how it worked out, simply Tibs level of political nonsense.

[Starr-Bills]

2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Bush didn't run the CIA bin Laden thing, the CIA did.

It took time and a bit of luck, but they eventually found the courier who led them.

You seem like a high school kid to me.

No knowledge of how this is done or how it worked out, simply Tibs level of political nonsense.

So is the CIA a shadow government or do they roll up to the president? If the ***** up (bay of pigs for one example) do they or the President bear the brunt of the fall out? 
 

of ***** course they (cia) were running the operation, AT the direction of the president. Bush appoints the head, so did Obama. (Maybe tora borra could have been handled differently and we’d be having a different conversation)

 

i realize you are pilot, and checklists & precision is import, but I’m not high school kid, and I do understand how things work. I am already very long winded  so forgive my not speaking out every step or detail. And if you read the article from Pew (also not high school kids) they said much what I said, there was no evidence of WMD and it is debated if it was bad intel (CIA running things) or the administration knowing there were no weapons. I have read the latter, that the intelligence about the yellow cake was questionable at best, but it fit the narrative that Cheney/bush wanted to act on. Invading Iraq, that was NOT involved in the 9/11 attack. 
 

like I said everyone gets an opinion. What I have read and experienced leads me to believe, they saw an opportunity and went for it with disastrous results (and big profits for Halliburton).

 

p.s. I watched the Powell presentation live, I watched the invasion, I watched the mission accomplished and it was almost 17 years before we were “done”. Oh and the “nation building” was all the bush admin “as a way to remake the Middle East” etc. 

[sherpa]

31 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

So is the CIA a shadow government or do they roll up to the president? If the ***** up (bay of pigs for one example) do they or the President bear the brunt of the fall out? 
 

of ***** course they (cia) were running the operation, AT the direction of the president. Bush appoints the head, so did Obama. (Maybe tora borra could have been handled differently and we’d be having a different conversation)

 

i realize you are pilot, and checklists & precision is import, but I’m not high school kid, and I do understand how things work. I am already very long winded  so forgive my not speaking out every step or detail. And if you read the article from Pew (also not high school kids) they said much what I said, there was no evidence of WMD and it is debated if it was bad intel (CIA running things) or the administration knowing there were no weapons. I have read the latter, that the intelligence about the yellow cake was questionable at best, but it fit the narrative that Cheney/bush wanted to act on. Invading Iraq, that was NOT involved in the 9/11 attack. 
 

like I said everyone gets an opinion. What I have read and experienced leads me to believe, they saw an opportunity and went for it with disastrous results (and big profits for Halliburton).

 

p.s. I watched the Powell presentation live, I watched the invasion, I watched the mission accomplished and it was almost 17 years before we were “done”. Oh and the “nation building” was all the bush admin “as a way to remake the Middle East” etc. 

 

I'm more on the taciturn side of he loquacious/taciturn spectrum.

 

I have no interest in discussing this, but to state that the entire US intel operation thought the Iraqi's had WMD, which they had used before.

Not a doubt.

 

Suggesting that Obama was responsible for finding bin Laden is the same as suggesting Nixon was responsible for Apollo 11. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26 by sherpa

[Scraps]

13 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm more on the taciturn side of he loquacious/taciturn spectrum.

 

I have no interest in discussing this, but to state that the entire US intel operation thought the Iraqi's had WMD, which they had used before.

Not a doubt.

 

France and Germany were skeptical that Iraq possessed WMD.  Maybe the Bush administration had a bunch of people who wouldn't tell the President something he didn't want to hear.

[Starr-Bills]

12 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm more on the taciturn side of he loquacious/taciturn spectrum.

 

I have no interest in discussing this, but to state that the entire US intel operation thought the Iraqi's had WMD, which they had used before.

Not a doubt.

 

They did, on their own people and the Iranians.  I’m still pissed we abandoned the Kurds. But they also lost a war and those programs thanks to Bush I (I mean general Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.)

[phypon]

5 hours ago, Starr-Bills said:

Bush/Cheney made up WMD to go into Iraq. Congress authorized it based on that lie. US military answered the call. Still in the end thousands of Americans died, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Because of that lie. They also neatly kneecapped any political aspirations Powell may have had. They (Cheney) are not dumb just mean and greedy.

 

Afghanistan was the base of operations for the attack by the Saudi nationals, including Osama bin Laden against the United States on 9/11 (and the Cole, etc) and seems quite justified. If the US hadn’t been distracted by the lie, that was the invasion of Iraq, maybe Afghanistan could have gone differently, though it did take till Obama to get Osama. The problem in both was not the military. It was the leadership. And Bush/Cheney initiated and was leader for 7 years for both. so not sure how that a dem problem.

 

Iran is a bad actor theocracy (this should give everyone here pause for all this god/Christianity in government nonsense talk lately), as is, and as I continue to state, Russia. 

 

the fact stands that the felon, let 5000 Taliban go. He set the date, he wanted to meet with them at camp David on 9/11. He does not care about this country, the military or anything that does not benefit him. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I absolutely agree that WMD's were a complete lie and that Bush/Cheney are criminals.  How do you feel about Bush endorsing Kamala?

[Scraps]

25 minutes ago, phypon said:

 

I absolutely agree that WMD's were a complete lie and that Bush/Cheney are criminals.  How do you feel about Bush endorsing Kamala?

When did Bush endorse Kamala?

[SectionC3]

3 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm more on the taciturn side of he loquacious/taciturn spectrum.

 

I have no interest in discussing this, but to state that the entire US intel operation thought the Iraqi's had WMD, which they had used before.

Not a doubt.

 

Suggesting that Obama was responsible for finding bin Laden is the same as suggesting Nixon was responsible for Apollo 11. 

 

 

 

 

Obama is responsible for making the call to go get him.  He was a risk. 

[phypon]

10 minutes ago, Scraps said:

When did Bush endorse Kamala?

Typo on my part.  do = would.

 

 

[SectionC3]

15 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Dems treat the tax payers as a piggy bank. 

 

 

Phony P thinks cops should be treated as punching bags.  You too, apparently, since you’re comrades in the insurrection. 

[Starr-Bills]

10 hours ago, phypon said:

 

I absolutely agree that WMD's were a complete lie and that Bush/Cheney are criminals.  How do you feel about Bush endorsing Kamala?

Not sure my opinion matters, but…

bush/Cheney criminals no doubt, unfortunately that ship has sailed

not sure Kamala has much control over who endorses her and an endorsement would be of her not his policies, but if Bush’s endorsement help garner a few more votes fine, just like Cheney (daughter) not a fan of hers in any stretch, but I appreciate she doesn’t want to (and recognizes the threat) destroy/sell out the country.

[phypon]

5 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

Not sure my opinion matters, but…

bush/Cheney criminals no doubt, unfortunately that ship has sailed

not sure Kamala has much control over who endorses her and an endorsement would be of her not his policies, but if Bush’s endorsement help garner a few more votes fine, just like Cheney (daughter) not a fan of hers in any stretch, but I appreciate she doesn’t want to (and recognizes the threat) destroy/sell out the country.

 

I appreciate your opinion here and I agree with you.  And, you're right, she doesn't have control over who endorses her.  My point was not aimed at you.  My post was a follow up to L Ron about which prominent Republicans are supporting Harris that are on the level of RFK and Tulsi.  He came up with aides from the Bush era from 20 years ago.  Personally, I don't think either candidate wants any of those people endorsing them.  Like you said, they can't control who endorses them, but I think it would hurt them more than help them.  Those WMD lies and Powell holding up a fake vile anthrax to convince people of a threat that didn't exist, criminal.  Quite frankly, I'd be very wary if they endorsed the candidate I'm interested in. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Phony P thinks cops should be treated as punching bags.  You too, apparently, since you’re comrades in the insurrection. 

 

Hi BillsLime!  I can't wait to read the next fake post you make about me.  You're still very entertaining.  You still got it!!

[SectionC3]

22 minutes ago, phypon said:

 

I appreciate your opinion here and I agree with you.  And, you're right, she doesn't have control over who endorses her.  My point was not aimed at you.  My post was a follow up to L Ron about which prominent Republicans are supporting Harris that are on the level of RFK and Tulsi.  He came up with aides from the Bush era from 20 years ago.  Personally, I don't think either candidate wants any of those people endorsing them.  Like you said, they can't control who endorses them, but I think it would hurt them more than help them.  Those WMD lies and Powell holding up a fake vile anthrax to convince people of a threat that didn't exist, criminal.  Quite frankly, I'd be very wary if they endorsed the candidate I'm interested in. 

 

 

I actually agree with this.  And I understand why there's a generation of Americans--particularly those deeply affected by the second Iraq war--who don't trust anything or anyone and who want to burn the establishment.  What I don't understand is why Trump--a prolific liar, a self-centered buffoon, and a hopeless narcissist disinterested in improving anything other than himself--is a standard bearer for those emotions. 

22 minutes ago, phypon said:

 

I appreciate your opinion here and I agree with you.  And, you're right, she doesn't have control over who endorses her.  My point was not aimed at you.  My post was a follow up to L Ron about which prominent Republicans are supporting Harris that are on the level of RFK and Tulsi.  He came up with aides from the Bush era from 20 years ago.  Personally, I don't think either candidate wants any of those people endorsing them.  Like you said, they can't control who endorses them, but I think it would hurt them more than help them.  Those WMD lies and Powell holding up a fake vile anthrax to convince people of a threat that didn't exist, criminal.  Quite frankly, I'd be very wary if they endorsed the candidate I'm interested in. 

 

 

 

Hi BillsLime!  I can't wait to read the next fake post you make about me.  You're still very entertaining.  You still got it!!

Hoax.  The posts are real.  You're pro-J6.  Which means you're pro-beating cops with fire extinguishers.  Sick and weird.  

Edited August 27 by SectionC3

[All_Pro_Bills]

14 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I actually agree with this.  And I understand why there's a generation of Americans--particularly those deeply affected by the second Iraq was--who don't trust anything or anyone and who want to burn the establishment.  What I don't understand is why Trump--a prolific liar, a self-centered buffoon, and a hopeless narcissist disinterested in improving anything other than himself--is a standard bearer for those emotions.

I don't expect any member of the professional political class, Democrat or Republican, wants to fundamentally change much of anything about how the government, the country, and the US global empire are run. While Trump is certainly less than ideal, who would you suggest that is outside the political class be the standard bearer of a populist movement or agenda that wants to refocus our time and energy on America's problems? Rather than outward while our own house crumbles around us.

[phypon]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  The posts are real.  You're pro-J6.  Which means you're pro-beating cops with fire extinguishers.  Sick and weird.  

 

This is what you are getting wrong.  I'm against violence against cops or protesters.  I'm also for peaceful protests whether I agree or disagree with what the protest is for.  As long as people aren't getting hurt or buildings being burn, protest away.  It's one of the fundamental rights we have as American citizens.

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, phypon said:

 

This is what you are getting wrong.  I'm against violence against cops or protesters.  I'm also for peaceful protests whether I agree or disagree with what the protest is for.  As long as people aren't getting hurt or buildings being burn, protest away.  It's one of the fundamental rights we have as American citizens.

Nothing about J6 and the Capitol was a protest.  It was an insurrection.  That’s the key.  You don’t and won’t say the insurrection was wrong.  And, until you do, you’re pro-smashing cops with fire extinguishers. 

[phypon]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Nothing about J6 and the Capitol was a protest.  It was an insurrection.  That’s the key.  You don’t and won’t say the insurrection was wrong.  And, until you do, you’re pro-smashing cops with fire extinguishers. 

 

It 100% was a protest.  It was not an insurrection.  No matter how much you try your best to spin it and follow the liberal media's playbook, you are wrong. All of your virtue signaling isn't going to change that FACT.  You can call me any name you want to, you can try to label me as anything you want to, but feelings are not facts.  It's pretty sad that you have to resort to making stuff up in your own mind to justify things that you inherently know are wrong.  That's called cognitive dissonance.  Your argument is completely illogical.  That is not how logical deduction works.  You are taking a page right out of the propagandist playbook, like the Left always does, and it's not working.  People have woken up to your grift and you are only exposing yourself as someone with a low IQ.  Using your logic, you are all for police brutality.  Are you for police brutality?  Because with your line of thinking it seems that you are all for police using extensive force against minorities and executing them.  Is that what you are saying?