So.... is Obama a war criminal yet?

Onceler said:
Not at all. You & yours are the most intellectually dishonest group I can think of; you're on par w/ Dixie & bravs now, Yurt. You should give that some thought.

Everything I have laid out is accurate; I guess at least Dixie tried to address some of the facts, but in his usual Dixified way, by denying and saying that anyone can make up anything to sell a book. The Senate investigation, which you clearly didn't read though, is clear as day. The history of the Downing St. memo, Paul O'Neil. Powell's office, Clarke, Wolfowicz, et al. is in the books, and indisputable.

I won't be accused of retreating on this one. I have presented the facts over & over again, but you, bravs & Dixie are like energizer bunnies of Bush apologism.....
Click to expand...


I posted the text from the actual hearings on this, which you claim says one thing, but indeed, says the exact opposite. You want to claim the allegations made as facts, established and proven facts.... that is simply a lie. The allegations prompted the Senate hearings, they went over every allegation, one by one... they found no credible evidence to substantiate the allegations. That means, they could not prove the allegations to be true or factual in any way. There was no manipulation of intelligence, there was no pressure to alter or change intel to fit policy, there was no coercion or illegality. The allegations were all dismissed....yet, you interpret that somehow, as being proven factual and true??? Disturbing!!
 
Bravo, you don't see it because there is some sort of variable mismatch in the software that I wrote for Groans. I'm working on it.
 
Onceler said:
Not at all. You & yours are the most intellectually dishonest group I can think of; you're on par w/ Dixie & bravs now, Yurt. You should give that some thought.

Everything I have laid out is accurate; I guess at least Dixie tried to address some of the facts, but in his usual Dixified way, by denying and saying that anyone can make up anything to sell a book. The Senate investigation, which you clearly didn't read though, is clear as day. The history of the Downing St. memo, Paul O'Neil. Powell's office, Clarke, Wolfowicz, et al. is in the books, and indisputable.

I won't be accused of retreating on this one. I have presented the facts over & over again, but you, bravs & Dixie are like energizer bunnies of Bush apologism.....
Click to expand...
You have presented opinions and accusations, not necessarily facts....
And, it is true that some people will say just about anything to sell a book..

anyway, no one denies the Downing St. Memo...and Mr. Scarlett is certainly entitled to his opinion...its your choice to believe his opinion and ignore any and all other opinions and facts about the same issues....

Same thing with Mr. Paul O'Neill. He was fired from his job as Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts. He then criticizes Bush for his Iraq policy...consider the source....
Powell's office? I assume you're referring to Wilkerson, who said some nasty shit when it became known that the source "Curveball" intelligence wasn't reliable...we NOW know that very little of the intelligence was reliable. Its not Powell's fault it wasn't ....nor was it Bush's or Cheney's or was it Tony Blair's or Mr. Chirac ....but they were ALL WRONG....everyone of them.

And Richard Clarke is a two-faced liar in so many ways ... if you want to believe his rants over the years, you're entitled...personally, I think hes a despicable lying bastard....

Anyway, no one denies their books and stated opinions, they are real...its up to each one of us to use our own resources and research to determine what value we place on what they say...just as we do with all those that take issue with their views and have come to other conclusions about the value and veracity of their accusations...there are two sides to every story, sometime more than two...

I know your views and now you know some of mine....
My rule to ask WHY something happened and WHY something was said serves me well and brings me to other conclusions than you...
The WHY is much more important to me than the WHAT....
Follow the money and consider the source, etc....
 
bravo said:
You have presented opinions and accusations, not necessarily facts....
And, it is true that some people will say just about anything to sell a book..

anyway, no one denies the Downing St. Memo...and Mr. Scarlett is certainly entitled to his opinion...its your choice to believe his opinion and ignore any and all other opinions and facts about the same issues....

Same thing with Mr. Paul O'Neill. He was fired from his job as Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts. He then criticizes Bush for his Iraq policy...consider the source....
Powell's office? I assume you're referring to Wilkerson, who said some nasty shit when it became known that the source "Curveball" intelligence wasn't reliable...we NOW know that very little of the intelligence was reliable. Its not Powell's fault it wasn't ....nor was it Bush's or Cheney's or was it Tony Blair's or Mr. Chirac ....but they were ALL WRONG....everyone of them.

And Richard Clarke is a two-faced liar in so many ways ... if you want to believe his rants over the years, you're entitled...personally, I think hes a despicable lying bastard....

Anyway, no one denies their books and stated opinions, they are real...its up to each one of us to use our own resources and research to determine what value we place on what they say...just as we do with all those that take issue with their views and have come to other conclusions about the value and veracity of their accusations...there are two sides to every story, sometime more than two...

I know your views and now you know some of mine....
My rule to ask WHY something happened and WHY something was said serves me well and brings me to other conclusions than you...
The WHY is much more important to me than the WHAT....
Follow the money and consider the source, etc....
Click to expand...

Maybe Bush didn't lie, he didn't have to as he had Cheney his personal bagman do it for him.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/09/cheney-lied.html
 
Dixie said:
If the things you said were true, they would have tried and convicted Bush and Cheney of War Crimes, after Bush's impeachment. Obviously, that didn't happen, which means you are completely full of left-wing shit.
Click to expand...

No. Dixie, that is what should have happened. The fact that charges were not brought in not proof that crimes didn't occur. This is one of the single biggest problems any true liberal has with Obama and why I personaly voted for Hilary.
 
Onceler said:
LOL - what a great example to bring up w/ Yurt. I won't try explaining to you, but I'm sure Yurtsie remembers, right Yurtsie?

What a perfect thing to say right now. Thanks bravs...
Click to expand...
Thats ok Onceler....I completely forgot about the problem with your reading comprehension....carry on.
 
Yurt said:
what? so what started in 2003 is a war, but the authorization did not authorize war, even though it did in fact authorize everything bush did.

LOL...you lefties and your hair splitting....military action does not mean war here, but, bush's military action did in fact constitute war....thats some hilarious spin christie
Click to expand...

You're nuts. I didn't support Iraq and I don't now support Libya. What's your point?
 
bravo said:
POST 86
​
I'm sorry pinhead...you probably missed post 86....the topic being discussed is the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" commonly referred to as the "Iraq War Resolution"...and in particular the phase MILITARY FORCE as used in that bill supported by a bi-partisan majority of Congress.....

Try to keep up...
Click to expand...

Ha ha, go back to sleep, meat head.

YOU wrote: "Is it your contention that the use of military force is not war?....Really?....Do you have your own special definition of war, other than the 'normal' one....
Is this gonna take another 50 posts to teach you the definition of this 3 letter word.?"

My response was yes, not every use of military force is war.

Open mouth, insert foot. :D
 
Dune said:
No. Dixie, that is what should have happened. The fact that charges were not brought in not proof that crimes didn't occur. This is one of the single biggest problems any true liberal has with Obama and why I personaly voted for Hilary.
Click to expand...

Read the damn report you pathetic little dumbass hack! There was no evidence to support the allegations! THAT is why charges weren't brought, and indeed, with the level of vitriol from the left the past decade, charges would have been made if they could have! You don't honestly expect people to believe the left had Bush and Cheney dead to rights, and let them go, do you? The case was not made! There was never any evidence of wrongdoing! No illegality occurred! No manipulation or coercion from the Bush Administration! No lies about intelligence! No pressure to alter intelligence! No fabrication of intelligence! No shaping intelligence around policy! NONE OF IT! You liberals took your biggest swings and struck out.... now you want to look back and claim some kind of fucked in the head 'victory' as if you prevailed! It's delusional beyond even your normal delusions.
 
bravo said:
You have presented opinions and accusations, not necessarily facts....
And, it is true that some people will say just about anything to sell a book..

anyway, no one denies the Downing St. Memo...and Mr. Scarlett is certainly entitled to his opinion...its your choice to believe his opinion and ignore any and all other opinions and facts about the same issues....

Same thing with Mr. Paul O'Neill. He was fired from his job as Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts. He then criticizes Bush for his Iraq policy...consider the source....
Powell's office? I assume you're referring to Wilkerson, who said some nasty shit when it became known that the source "Curveball" intelligence wasn't reliable...we NOW know that very little of the intelligence was reliable. Its not Powell's fault it wasn't ....nor was it Bush's or Cheney's or was it Tony Blair's or Mr. Chirac ....but they were ALL WRONG....everyone of them.

And Richard Clarke is a two-faced liar in so many ways ... if you want to believe his rants over the years, you're entitled...personally, I think hes a despicable lying bastard....

Anyway, no one denies their books and stated opinions, they are real...its up to each one of us to use our own resources and research to determine what value we place on what they say...just as we do with all those that take issue with their views and have come to other conclusions about the value and veracity of their accusations...there are two sides to every story, sometime more than two...

I know your views and now you know some of mine....
My rule to ask WHY something happened and WHY something was said serves me well and brings me to other conclusions than you...
The WHY is much more important to me than the WHAT....
Follow the money and consider the source, etc....
Click to expand...

Does this apply to Colin Powell also?

"However, Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterwards that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a "fine paper" during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi.[37][38] A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate.

A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery.[39] The administration came under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence, particularly what was single-sourced to the informant known as Curveball. Powell later recounted how Vice President Dick Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Powell's longtime aide-de-camp and Chief of Staff from 1989–2003, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."[40]

In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."[41]

Wilkerson said that he inadvertently participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations Security Council.[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
 
bravo said:
Thats ok Onceler....I completely forgot about the problem with your reading comprehension....carry on.
Click to expand...

Nah - it's just funny you brought up that example. Yurt made the exact same argument as maineman regarding a rape case about a month back. I mean - same argument to a T.
 
christiefan915 said:
Ha ha, go back to sleep, meat head.

YOU wrote: "Is it your contention that the use of military force is not war?....Really?....Do you have your own special definition of war, other than the 'normal' one....
Is this gonna take another 50 posts to teach you the definition of this 3 letter word.?"

My response was yes, not every use of military force is war.


Open mouth, insert foot. :D
Click to expand...
the post does have context you realize...it wasn't a stand alone statement just appearing from the ether.
It was the middle of a discussion of many many posts by many posters.....

And I repeat, the topic was military force as used in the name of the resolution.....

and EVERY use of military force against Iraq (as stated in the title) was an act of war.

like it said ...try to keep up.
 
Onceler said:
Nah - it's just funny you brought up that example. Yurt made the exact same argument as maineman regarding a rape case about a month back. I mean - same argument to a T.
Click to expand...

no i didn't...more lies...i said legally he is not a rapist, however, in reality, he likely is

typical onceler fantasy land and twist of what people say...seriously, there is no bigger liar on this board than you...
 
christiefan915 said:
You're nuts. I didn't support Iraq and I don't now support Libya. What's your point?
Click to expand...

? how does the above address my post...

what? so what started in 2003 is a war, but the authorization did not authorize war, even though it did in fact authorize everything bush did.

LOL...you lefties and your hair splitting....military action does not mean war here, but, bush's military action did in fact constitute war....thats some hilarious spin christie
Click to expand...

i didn't even mention whether you supported iraq or not....i'm sure onceler will be right along to talk to you about your reading comprehension problems :rolleyes:
 
bravo said:
Like I said....they said nothing that wasn't presented to them in the Oct. 2002 NIE....repeating bad intell. isn't lying by my moral code..nor is being wrong in predicting something about the future.....you obviously live by a different code.
Click to expand...

Cheney was lying.

"Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey said. "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
Click to expand...
 
Yurt said:
no i didn't...more lies...i said legally he is not a rapist, however, in reality, he likely is

typical onceler fantasy land and twist of what people say...seriously, there is no bigger liar on this board than you...
Click to expand...

LOL - poor Yurtsie. You made exactly the argument that bravo cited in his post.

You can never stand by your words afterward, because on some level, you know how ridiculous your arguments are. At least that represents some hope, Mr. " boots on the ground"....
 
Damocles said:
Bravo, you don't see it because there is some sort of variable mismatch in the software that I wrote for Groans. I'm working on it.
Click to expand...
Thanks dude....just wondering.....topspin groans EVERY post I make so we have war of our own going on...He was back as far as 2008....how pathetic....fun, fun, fun....
 
tom prendergast said:
Cheney was lying.
Click to expand...

"Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey said. "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
​
Okay, so logically using this example the same exact way, I can say that I feel you might be lying to us... therefore, it has been established and proven, you are a liar!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top