Fat hurts wrote:
Its all there wrote:
This is probably all new to you folks on the Left, but here you go.....
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fusion-gps-and-the-insurance-policy-to-prevent-trump-from-becoming-president_2417742.htmlWhy is it that the tin foil hat crowd always produces charts like that?
We also always produce those weirdly edited videos splicing snippets outside of context and putting it all to bizarre paranoid-sounding music. So give us credit where credit is due!
PIO!!!! wrote:
Neither Racket nor I are in the habit of defending Trump..
LOL . . . ^FAKE news of the day winner!
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Who do you mean when you say "we?" The general public or the US intelligence? And what's the timeline for "And it wasn't that hard to see what was going on with the Bush administration's lies?" A lot of people bought in when Colin Powell staked his reputation on it in front of the entire UN. Seemed like a reasonable idea at the time until the Plame affair which was more or less after we had already invaded
I mean the general public.
There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:
* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.
* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.
* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.
* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.
* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.
* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.
* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.
* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.
* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.
* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.
* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.
* The UN refused to authorize use of force.
Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.
For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.
Yup. It was VERY obvious at the time. The only people who supported it were either A) Stupid or B) Neo-nazis
;-)
Adult wrote:
PIO!!!! wrote:
Hey dude - just wanted to let you know it is good to see an adult posting on here.
Cheers
Racket is childish, as are you. Immature children love to see themselves as adults which is why they slobber over Trump.
lol
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Who do you mean when you say "we?" The general public or the US intelligence? And what's the timeline for "And it wasn't that hard to see what was going on with the Bush administration's lies?" A lot of people bought in when Colin Powell staked his reputation on it in front of the entire UN. Seemed like a reasonable idea at the time until the Plame affair which was more or less after we had already invaded
I mean the general public.
There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:
* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.
* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.
* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.
* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.
* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.
* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.
* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.
* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.
* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.
* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.
* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.
* The UN refused to authorize use of force.
Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.
For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.
Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.
According to a Gallup poll, support for the war was up to 72 percent on March 19, the day the fighting began. Positive opinion on the war was not only present, it was strong. Out of the 72 percent who reported supporting the war, 59 percent reported supporting the war strongly, and although allied commanders said they had not yet found evidence of weapons of mass destruction days after the initial invasion, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that the United States would find evidence of these weapons
Powell sold out to the UN and it convinced a bunch of people in the US who were on the fence. When the war started people thought it surely wasn't because an idiot president let his VP walk all over him and because it was something we needed to do.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I mean the general public.
There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:
* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.
* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.
* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.
* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.
* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.
* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.
* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.
* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.
* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.
* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.
* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.
* The UN refused to authorize use of force.
Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.
For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.
Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.
According to a Gallup poll, support for the war was up to 72 percent on March 19, the day the fighting began. Positive opinion on the war was not only present, it was strong. Out of the 72 percent who reported supporting the war, 59 percent reported supporting the war strongly, and although allied commanders said they had not yet found evidence of weapons of mass destruction days after the initial invasion, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that the United States would find evidence of these weapons
Powell sold out to the UN and it convinced a bunch of people in the US who were on the fence. When the war started people thought it surely wasn't because an idiot president let his VP walk all over him and because it was something we needed to do.
I don't think that it is reasonable to dismiss things as "hindsight". What was going on at the time was indeed quite obvious to me and to many people I know.
At the same time it is true that the war was initially supported by most. It is shockingly and terrifyingly easy to rile up the general public into losing whatever critical capacities they may possess simply by talking about "monsters", "terrorists", "WMDs", "invaders", . . .
But that doesn't mean some did not keep their heads and see the war build-up for what it was. And dismissing their foresight as hindsight does not do them justice and does excuse others for losing their heads at the time.
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I mean the general public.
There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:
* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.
* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.
* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.
* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.
* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.
* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.
* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.
* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.
* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.
* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.
* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.
* The UN refused to authorize use of force.
Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.
For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.
Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.
All of this stuff was obviously happening and could be easily followed in real-time for anyone who was paying attention.
WTF^n wrote:
Racket wrote:
Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.
Powell sold out to the UN and it convinced a bunch of people in the US who were on the fence. When the war started people thought it surely wasn't because an idiot president let his VP walk all over him and because it was something we needed to do.
I don't think that it is reasonable to dismiss things as "hindsight". What was going on at the time was indeed quite obvious to me and to many people I know.
At the same time it is true that the war was initially supported by most. It is shockingly and terrifyingly easy to rile up the general public into losing whatever critical capacities they may possess simply by talking about "monsters", "terrorists", "WMDs", "invaders", . . .
But that doesn't mean some did not keep their heads and see the war build-up for what it was. And dismissing their foresight as hindsight does not do them justice and does excuse others for losing their heads at the time.
Sure, there were some skeptics at the time and when we dismissed the UN by not waiting for the Security Council to weigh in a lot of people got pissed. A lot of respectable people stood up for the war and helped push it through though and it wasn't until after the Plame affair in regards to WMDs. They also managed to link Iraq to al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda until that was debunked, also after the war. If we're saying it was "obviously" a bad idea, I guess it depends on how wide you consider obvious to be.
Sue the shite out of those democrat pieces of trash.
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
Who do you mean when you say "we?" The general public or the US intelligence? And what's the timeline for "And it wasn't that hard to see what was going on with the Bush administration's lies?" A lot of people bought in when Colin Powell staked his reputation on it in front of the entire UN. Seemed like a reasonable idea at the time until the Plame affair which was more or less after we had already invaded
I mean the general public.
There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:
* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.
* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.
* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.
* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.
* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.
* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.
* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.
* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.
* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.
* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.
* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.
* The UN refused to authorize use of force.
Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.
For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.
Just because you post this nonsense does not make it true. Nothing was debunked, everything you post it here is nonsense.
The UN is anti US, anti Semitic and corrupt. UN members nominated Libya to head the UN human rights commission.
The WMD ended up in Syria, or do believe Obama lied about that. It is amazing how crazy liberals are.
_its_baddude wrote:
Just because I post nonsense does not make it true. Nothing was debunked by me, everything I post here is nonsense.
I needed to fix you own post.
Trump-style winning . . . LOL . . . . LOL . . .
Federal prosecutors subpoena Trump inaugural committee
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PU02M
AND for the braindead Trumpers -- Faux News:
https://fox40.com/2019/02/04/federal-prosecutors-subpoena-trump-inaugural-committee-source-says/
Just because you post this nonsense does not make it true. Nothing was debunked, everything you posted here is nonsense.
I needed to confirm my own post.[/quote]
Thanks for agreeing with me brother Flagpole:)
[quote]BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
Trump-style winning>>>go Donald!!!!
Federal prosecutors subpoena Clinton's Presidential losing committee
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PU02M
AND for the braindead Clintonettes -- CNN News:
LOL>>> Liberals are still whining!!!!!
Hi Flagpole!
_its_baddude wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I mean the general public.
There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:
* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.
* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.
* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.
* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.
* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.
* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.
* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.
* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.
* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.
* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.
* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.
* The UN refused to authorize use of force.
Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.
For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.
Just because you post this nonsense does not make it true. Nothing was debunked, everything you post it here is nonsense.
The UN is anti US, anti Semitic and corrupt. UN members nominated Libya to head the UN human rights commission.
The WMD ended up in Syria, or do believe Obama lied about that. It is amazing how crazy liberals are.
What WMD ended up in Syria?
It’s possible some of the pre-91 stockpile did prior to ‘03 or during the Iraq war.
It’s more likely a former Iraqi scientist worked with ISIS.
It’s also likely some of the Syrian stockpile was never destroyed.
They would explain the here and there use of mustard or sarin. It hasn’t been used in large scale, just small attacks to scare civilians and create chaos.
Crude mustard is easy to make.
Alan
BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
[quote]BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
Trump-style winning>>>go Donald!!!!
Federal prosecutors subpoena Clinton's Presidential losing committee
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PU02MAND for the braindead Clintonettes -- CNN News:
LOL>>> Liberals are still whining!!!!!
Hi Flagpole!
Oh, my! A frightened Trumper.
HI JAMINLOPER!!!
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
[quote]BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
Trump-style winning>>>go Donald!!!!
Federal prosecutors subpoena Clinton's Presidential losing committee
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PU02MAND for the braindead Clintonettes -- CNN News:
LOL>>> Liberals are still whining!!!!!
Hi Flagpole!
Oh, my! A frightened Clintonette!
HI FLAGPOLE!!!
WE LIBERALS Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect ONCE WE ARE DEFEATED
BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
[quote]BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
Trump-style winning>>>go Donald!!!!
Federal prosecutors subpoena Clinton's Presidential losing committee
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1PU02MAND for the braindead Clintonettes -- CNN News:
LOL>>> Liberals are still whining!!!!!
Hi Flagpole!
Oh, my! A frightened Trumper.
HI JAMINLOPER!!!
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
I do agree that we on the left love to deflect. Sadly, our candidate sucked worse than Trump, so we should have lost.
Fiagpole wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!!! wrote:
Oh, my! A frightened Trumper.
HI JAMINLOPER!!!
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
Deflect
I do agree that we on the left love to deflect. Sadly, our candidate sucked worse than Trump, so we should have lost.
Hehehehehe . . . that was me,
-- jamin
.jamin wrote:
Fiagpole wrote:
I do agree that we on the left love to deflect. Sadly, our candidate sucked worse than Trump, so we should have lost.
Hehehehehe . . . that was me,
-- flagpole
TRUE^