Iraq

[napfirst]

more good news from Iraq

[fmccap]

P.S. By the way, with Bush wanting to give us cash back, he just moved a smidgeon towards Ron Paul. This should make you happy. It will also either make the dems piss America off by denying it, piss all the liberal sheep off if congress agrees with it as they just threw them all under a bus along with their illogical logic, and it will certainly make the race for the White House THAT MUCH MORE INTERESTING, lolol.

Smidgeon is right. First think people don't realize is that it's actually giving our money back to us. The part he is far away from him is his interpretation of the size of government. I think we agree that just about anything we do they are involved somehow, mostly with there hand in our pockets.

 

What does that money really do though??? Give a temporary boost till it's gone and with the FED(scam) going to lower rates again(which is a part of the original problem) we will be back to square one but a little more worse off.

 

My biggest grip is the, sorry to say this, but the stupidity of the people. It's not all to blame on them because they were brought up and conditioned this way. Government is WWWAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY to big, agree??? Anything that goes wrong the first thing a majority of people want to know is what is the government going to do. I really thought that "Greatest Generation" Walter Williams article had a lot to say that is true. The problem now is that there are too many people like this and when you want to change things to how they are supposed to be they balk at it because it also brings Self Responsibility along with it. Most don't know the true meaning of that.

 

 

P.S. I used to be there and I think you know that. I had help from what I thought was a "crazy old guy".lol Now I like to think I have a little clue but who really knows. Live and Let Live. I'm happy, your happy, we don't bother each other and we eliminate the arguing part and enjoy life how we should. It's like watching 20 engineers trying to figure out a problem and it ends up being right under there nose when the lowly operator comes along and says we can just do this. Then everything works out great, the engineers are happy, the operator is happy and things roll much better.

Edited January 19, 2008 by fmccap

[fmccap]

Remember that German who said that if you keep telling people something eventually they will believe it??????

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

 

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

 

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

[sprinter]

Remember that German who said that if you keep telling people something eventually they will believe it??????

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

 

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."

 

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."

 

"The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes."

 

"The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."

 

All quotes from Adolf Hitler

[Trimdingman]

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."

 

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."

 

"The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes."

 

"The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. . . . The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."

 

All quotes from Adolf Hitler

 

Adolf Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. He was a socialist. Liberals are socialists. Bush is a Republican. Republicans are capitalists, not socialists. Socialism was in vogue back in the 1930s. Many intellectuals believed in it. Franklin Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor were socialists. Stalin and Hitler started off as buddies. Hitler and Mussolini were socialists. After the war started, the Allies tried to spin Hitler and Mussolini as "right wing". No. They were socialists, just like the American Democrats. People with similar political ideologies can still go to war against each other. Religions are socialist. They try to unite everyone under the same beliefs. Look at how they have always been at each other's throats. Under Capitalism, you have freedom to succeed individually, but you have to be smart and strong. Under socialism you follow a leader, and are at his mercy. Someone else determines your fate. Individuality is forbidden.

Edited January 24, 2008 by Trimdingman

[napfirst]

Remember that German who said that if you keep telling people something eventually they will believe it??????

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war

you should have done your homework on this one....this mis-information came from a george soros website.....very left wing....no credibility.....are you sure you're not a liberal???

[sprinter]

you should have done your homework on this one....this mis-information came from a george soros website.....very left wing....no credibility.....are you sure you're not a liberal???

 

OH REALLY? And what website is that nappy?

 

The Center for Public Integrity are the people who wrote the story.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx

 

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit organization dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern. The Center is non-partisan and non-advocacy. We are committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around the world.

 

Bill Buzenberg is the Center's fourth Executive Director, joining us in December 2006. He has been a journalist and news executive at newspapers and in public radio for more than 35 years. Most recently, as Senior Vice President of News at American Public Media / Minnesota Public Radio, Buzenberg launched such programming initiatives as American RadioWorks, public radio's major documentary and investigative journalism unit, and Speaking of Faith, public radio’s signature program on religion. He also began Public Insight Journalism, an innovative use of technology to draw knowledge from the audience. As Vice President of News and Information at National Public Radio from 1990 to 1997, he was responsible for launching Talk of the Nation, as well as the expansion of All Things Considered and the extension of NPR's newscasts services to 24 hours a day. During his tenure, the NPR News Division was honored with 9 DuPont-Columbia Batons and 10 Peabody Awards. He has won numerous awards, including the prestigious Edward R. Murrow Award, public radio's highest honor.

 

Since 1990, the Center for Public Integrity has released more than 275 investigative reports and 14 books. In just the last eight years the organization has been honored more than 31 times by, among others, PEN USA, Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). The Center's "Windfalls of War" report on U.S. government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan won the highly prestigious George Polk award (online category) in 2004.

 

The Center's publication, The Buying of the President 2004, built on the success of its 1996 and 2000 predecessors and again focused on the relationships between major presidential candidates and their "career patrons." The book appeared on The New York Times bestseller list several times since its January, 2004 publication. In the summer of 2004, the Center published The Corruption Notebooks, a hard-hitting collection of essays by leading investigative journalists around the world on the status of corruption in 25 countries.

 

The Center extends its dedication to public policy journalism around the world. Created in 1997, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalist network includes 92 leading investigative reporters and editors in 48 countries. The group has collaborated on numerous online and printed reports on corporate crime, arms trafficking, terrorism, U.S. military policy and human rights issues. Global Access, another international project, was launched in 2001 to systematically track and report on openness, accountability and the rule of law in various countries.

 

The Center for Public Integrity remains independent by building a strong and sustainable financial base of support, including a community of committed individuals and foundations.

 

The Center is located at 910 17th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006. The telephone number is (202) 466-1300.

 

I couldn't find Soros name anywhere, the funders or board. Now who is wrong here? Are you sure you have a lick of since at all? Because I see it as everything that disagrees with your narrow and misguided view of life is "liberal, liberal, or liberal"

http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/about.aspx?act=funders

[fmccap]

you should have done your homework on this one....this mis-information came from a george soros website.....very left wing....no credibility.....are you sure you're not a liberal???

I'm sorry it's not from the right - wing propaganda machine False News. You have no credibility. Where did you get that from, I'd like to know?

[The Drunk]

Bring em home.Republican warmoggers suck ass.

[Blueblood]

you should have done your homework on this one....this mis-information came from a george soros website.....very left wing....no credibility.....are you sure you're not a liberal???

 

How do retards like you manage to post here? Where are the WMD's then? Up your ass?

 

Talk about no credibility, that would be the Bush administration, all the right wing echo chamber websites, and imbeciles such as you.

[The Drunk]

How do retards like you manage to post here? Where are the WMD's then? Up your ass?

 

Talk about no credibility, that would be the Bush administration, all the right wing echo chamber websites, and imbeciles such as you.

how dare you?Im trying something here.

[napfirst]

How do retards like you manage to post here? Where are the WMD's then? Up your ass?

 

Talk about no credibility, that would be the Bush administration, all the right wing echo chamber websites, and imbeciles such as you.

Here ya go....you will probably find some of your heroes quoted here:

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

 

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

 

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

 

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

 

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."

John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

[napfirst]

I'm sorry it's not from the right - wing propaganda machine False News. You have no credibility. Where did you get that from, I'd like to know?

like I said you need to do your homework.....pull up your pants!

 

soros funds center for public integrity

 

so tell me...when paul drops out, will it be hillary or obama for you?

 

He's given money to some of the worst people in United States of America. ... He wants radical change in this country. ... [H]e's damaging the country. He is the single most dangerous individual in the United States of America. And his assassins, the people he hires to harm the people with whom he disagrees. And he sits back and he goes, "Oh, I don't know what they're doing." Bull.[33]

Edited January 25, 2008 by napfirst

[Imawhosure]

Here ya go....you will probably find some of your heroes quoted here:

 

Oh Nap, now you have done it!!!!!!! These quotes are DIRECT. You see, they can whine all they want but you have proven is it was JUST NOT BUSH, it was the dems too. You have burst their bubble, and may I suggest that EVERYTIME one of these people say where are the WMDs that caused this war, you repost this.

 

I might also state that Bush has not done a very good job. But I those who SUPPORT politicians who live in glass houses, should never, ever throw stones.

 

If the war in Iraq was still the hotest issue in this election, methinks Mr Cap would have a good shot at getting his wish, and having a 3rd party candidate with the ability to actually get elected. Why? Because the only reason the left gets away with this type of REWRITING OF HISTORY is----------->smart people know that once someone continuously says the same thing over and over again, when it is time and you prove them wrong, their cerdibility goes in the crapper!!!!! (just like where are the WMDs)

 

This is an election year, and watch one the candidates from both partys are chosen, how all the real brainwashing is proven false.

 

Doubt it?

 

Ask these people who thought that HILLARY was inevitable, lolololol. Now explain how little has changed, but now she is not!!!!!!!!

 

It is because politicians always take a few libertys with the truth, but those who take vast libertys run the risk of being outted, which is why we find Hilly in trouble. And guess what!!!!!!!! It is another liberal doing it!!!!!!!!

 

Just wait till it is repub against the dem, and watch all your misconceptions be shot out of the water, lolol. In todays world with media archives and things, most of the liberal mantra will be proven false by bringing back the dems own words.

 

Now of course, that will not change these staunch liberals minds, but those that are independant will be aghast to find out that much of the liberal debate is smoke and mirrors. (not all mind you, just things like that asinine statement it was all Bush) In essence, they have been mislead on many issues by liberals. That is why this race for President is a toss up!!!!!!! You see, the liberals have lied so much about what actually happened, they are over confident, but when America finds out different by replaying LIBERALS OWN WORDS to prove the point, it will become highly interesting.

 

By June or July the pols will tighten considerably, and just like Hilly, the dems have again, done it to themselves.

 

Please keep on making these obviously easy remarks to refute fellas. It is just a test case for what will happen when the general election goes into full swing.

[sprinter]

like I said you need to do your homework.....pull up your pants!

 

soros funds center for public integrity

 

so tell me...when paul drops out, will it be hillary or obama for you?

 

 

You might want to try clicking on the links referenced as 35, 36, 37 and 38. Two out of the 4 are BS references. It seems the last contribution was made in 2001. George must not be getting his money's worth because you would think his donations would not have stopped.

 

You have to be careful about quoting from Wikipedia, anyone can make edits.

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights...currentPage=all

 

The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps detailed logs of all these changes. Users who are logged in are tracked only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record of their IP address.

 

Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, as well as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.

 

The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made.

 

Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.

 

Voting-machine company Diebold provides a good example of the latter, with someone at the company's IP address apparently deleting long paragraphs detailing the security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's CEO's fund-raising for President Bush.

 

The text, deleted in November 2005, was quickly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."

 

A Diebold Election Systems spokesman said he'd look into the matter but could not comment by press time.

 

Wal-Mart has a series of relatively small changes in 2005 that that burnish the company's image on its own entry while often leaving criticism in, changing a line that its wages are less than other retail stores to a note that it pays nearly double the minimum wage, for example. Another leaves activist criticism on community impact intact, while citing a "definitive" study showing Wal-Mart raised the total number of jobs in a community.

[sprinter]

Here ya go....you will probably find some of your heroes quoted here:

 

 

Whos blog did you get these from?

[fmccap]

like I said you need to do your homework.....pull up your pants!

 

soros funds center for public integrity

 

so tell me...when paul drops out, will it be hillary or obama for you?

I think you might of found it on the sheep network.

O'Reilly tries to tie 5-year-old grants from Soros to CPI study finding Bush adminsitration lied

From the way O'Reilly was sneering I thought Soros owned the CPI lock, stock, and barrel. Turns out he made four specifically targeted grants in 2000, 2001, and 2002 totalling $1,247,400 - nothing to sneeze at for you or me, but a drop in the bucket when we're talking about these big think tank budgets. And let's not overlook that it was five years ago! Wikipedia has a list of foundations supporting the Center for Public Integrity here, which O'Reilly asserts "are all left-wing organizations." (The Ford Foundation is left-wing? Princeton Class of 1969? The Rockefeller Brothers? It is to laugh - even funnier to think that Bill O'Reilly did the copius research to come to that conclusion. He looked at the list, saw "Streisand," and that was all he needed to confirm his prejudices.)

[fmccap]

Oh Nap, now you have done it!!!!!!! These quotes are DIRECT. You see, they can whine all they want but you have proven is it was JUST NOT BUSH, it was the dems too. You have burst their bubble, and may I suggest that EVERYTIME one of these people say where are the WMDs that caused this war, you repost this.

 

I might also state that Bush has not done a very good job. But I those who SUPPORT politicians who live in glass houses, should never, ever throw stones.

 

If the war in Iraq was still the hotest issue in this election, methinks Mr Cap would have a good shot at getting his wish, and having a 3rd party candidate with the ability to actually get elected. Why? Because the only reason the left gets away with this type of REWRITING OF HISTORY is----------->smart people know that once someone continuously says the same thing over and over again, when it is time and you prove them wrong, their cerdibility goes in the crapper!!!!! (just like where are the WMDs)

 

This is an election year, and watch one the candidates from both partys are chosen, how all the real brainwashing is proven false.

 

Doubt it?

 

Ask these people who thought that HILLARY was inevitable, lolololol. Now explain how little has changed, but now she is not!!!!!!!!

 

It is because politicians always take a few libertys with the truth, but those who take vast libertys run the risk of being outted, which is why we find Hilly in trouble. And guess what!!!!!!!! It is another liberal doing it!!!!!!!!

 

Just wait till it is repub against the dem, and watch all your misconceptions be shot out of the water, lolol. In todays world with media archives and things, most of the liberal mantra will be proven false by bringing back the dems own words.

 

Now of course, that will not change these staunch liberals minds, but those that are independant will be aghast to find out that much of the liberal debate is smoke and mirrors. (not all mind you, just things like that asinine statement it was all Bush) In essence, they have been mislead on many issues by liberals. That is why this race for President is a toss up!!!!!!! You see, the liberals have lied so much about what actually happened, they are over confident, but when America finds out different by replaying LIBERALS OWN WORDS to prove the point, it will become highly interesting.

 

By June or July the pols will tighten considerably, and just like Hilly, the dems have again, done it to themselves.

 

Please keep on making these obviously easy remarks to refute fellas. It is just a test case for what will happen when the general election goes into full swing.

I understand what you say(I'm thinking both current parties suck) but wonder why people still defend the lesser of the two evils rather then actual change?

[napfirst]

I understand what you say(I'm thinking both current parties suck) but wonder why people still defend the lesser of the two evils rather then actual change?

you're kidding right about not understanding?.....paul is too weak to bring about change....he lacks the leadership skills to bring people together...he's too devisive.....he's preceived as weak and waffling.....

[fmccap]

you're kidding right about not understanding?.....paul is too weak to bring about change....he lacks the leadership skills to bring people together...he's too devisive.....he's preceived as weak and waffling.....

Do you ever stop???? I'm trying to intelligently talk to someone and again you pop in. Now as far as your Paul comment that is your opinion which is what it is. Instead of just offering all negative things could you at least provide something positive as an alternative???????????

[napfirst]

Do you ever stop???? I'm trying to intelligently talk to someone and again you pop in. Now as far as your Paul comment that is your opinion which is what it is. Instead of just offering all negative things could you at least provide something positive as an alternative???????????

anybody but paul....I'm entitled to my opinion...right....aren't you for free speech.....most liberals are!

[fmccap]

anybody but paul....I'm entitled to my opinion...right....aren't you for free speech.....most liberals are!

Your bulb is not that bright. For one you show your sheepish qualities, no matter who anyone but Paul??? Second you can have your opinion but do you have anything to back it up???? Where do you get this Liberal shit from???? At least an example????

[napfirst]

Your bulb is not that bright. For one you show your sheepish qualities, no matter who anyone but Paul??? Second you can have your opinion but do you have anything to back it up???? Where do you get this Liberal shit from???? At least an example????

one more time.....anti-war, anti-military....blame 9/11 on America.....anti- current conserative viable presidental candidates......how many times do I have to lay that out for you...other people on here have made the same assumption about you....

Edited January 25, 2008 by napfirst

[sprinter]

you're kidding right about not understanding?.....paul is too weak to bring about change....he lacks the leadership skills to bring people together...he's too devisive.....he's preceived as weak and waffling.....

 

Where do come up with this dumbfuk? Most Americans want out of Iraq, real fiscal reform, deport the illegals and downsize the government to get them out of our lives. And you consider that divisive?

[fmccap]

Where do come up with this dumbfuk? Most Americans want out of Iraq, real fiscal reform, deport the illegals and downsize the government to get them out of our lives. And you consider that divisive?

Your wasting your time asking him a question to explain something, trust me I know first hand.

 

Here is something I found interesting.

History Channel Admits Anthrax Attacks are an Inside Job

Edited January 27, 2008 by fmccap