GTMO Debate; your thoughts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
just wanted to mention that Cheney is pro gay marriage.

Over and out.
 
"I dont see what you have against rush."

If you're not a woman...

If you're not against people using drugs...

If you're also hoping that our President fails....

If you're of color and don't mind that he couldn't possibly care less about you...

If you're a supporter of his and don't mind that he calls you a "loser"...

If you don't care that he is a hypocrite among many other things...

If you're not one of many republicans/independents that writhes in pain every time you hear that Limbaugh is the "face of the republican party"....

I don't know, I guess I could see why you like him.
 
Over and out.

On a quick side note.....

Never say over AND out, you're either "over" meaning the conversation is still active however you are done with your part until they respond or you are "out" meaning the entire conversation is done.
 
Idk,

I think it's one of those sayings that people never really paid attention to, but said anyway. We humans are so smart sometimes.
 
Totally agree.

It does become an issue when you have to speak on a radio, saying both does not add much to credibility or professional "Radio Speak".
 
Wow, I thought there might have been more substance added to the debate from JAM, but unfortunately the week I was gone, nothing of value was added.

Lying is an interesting thing. I am not quite sure what you are talking about, I know you don't have all the facts and are hell bent on showing it.

On a side note, the President of the United States of American doesn't TAKE THE LEAD from his advisors. He takes into consideration their advice. I would fire some of these advisors, but I know North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China wouldn't like that... :rolleyes:


Since you asked.................
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html

The CIA analysis has wasted the time of inspectors in Iraq while not leading to any progress on exposing Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program. Inspectors have had to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for evidence to prove or disprove the CIA analysis. Faced with overwhelming negative evidence from the inspectors, the proponents of this analysis have simply ignored the negative reports or act as if the CIA possesses secret information it cannot share. If the CIA has such secret evidence, it should share it rather than producing faulty technical analysis.
By ignoring technical evidence and pushing flawed analysis, the proponents of the CIA analysis undermine the credibility of the President, Secretary Powell, and the CIA. The attacks against those who disagree serve to show their defensiveness and a mean spirit.
This case serves to remind us that decision-makers are not above misusing technical and scientific analysis to bolster their political goals. The problem is that such a strategy denigrates the process of conducting impartial technical analysis and misleads the public.
In bold - this was Dick Cheney.
If anyone is interested read the book "Fair Game" by Valerie Plame.
Excellent insight to the inner workings of the CIA and Dick Cheney's direct involvement. Outside the chain of command involvement.
History will not be kind to Dick Cheney. He should have quit while he was ahead.

LITS - The President is not an expert in everything - he is a leader. He hires experts to advise him.
When leaders begin to disregard the advice of their experts - they either quit or are fired. RE: Colin Powell.
OTOH - I am quite sure you know how to run a war better than General Petraeus or Admiral Mullen.
 
If anyone is interested read the book "Fair Game" by Valerie Plame.

And if anyone is interested in the TRUTH, read this:

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

Another fallback charge is that Mr. Bush, operating mainly through Mr. Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.

The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."

Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Mr. Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as "imminent." But this, too, is false: Mr. Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war. Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared that he would "not wait on events while dangers gather" and that he would "not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer." Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: "If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long." And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word "imminent" itself precisely in order to repudiate it:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

What of the related charge that it was still another "lie" to suggest, as Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to "meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives."
 
Haha, Valerie Plame.....might want to ask those serving in the CIA what the organization thinks of her.


Yes, the President has advisors, however, when those advisors become the leaders, there can only be problems. I realize this can be hard to understand, but the "buck stops here" idea has really been rare over the past few months.
 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13829


"Two years before the 9/11 attacks on America, George W. Bush told a Houston journalist if elected president, “I’m going to invade Iraq.”

Bush made the comments about starting an aggressive war to veteran Houston Chronicle reporter Mickey Herskowitz, then working with Bush on his book “A Charge To Keep,” later brought out by publisher William Morrow.

This disclosure was uncovered by Russ Baker, an award-winning investigative reporter when he interviewed Herskowitz for his own book, “Family of Secrets” (Bloomsbury Press) about the Bush dynasty. However, Baker says, when he approached The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times with the potentially devastating story to President Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election, they declined to publish it.

In a new book, “Media In Crisis”(Doukathsan), Baker quotes Herskowitz as telling him: “He (Bush) said he wanted to do it(invade Iraq), and the reason he wanted to do it is he had been led to understand that you could not really have a successful presidency unless you were seen as commander-in-chief, unless you were seen as waging a war.”

Bush told Herskowitz that his father (President George H.W. Bush) knew that from Panama and (President Ronald)Reagan knew that from Grenada and…(UK Prime Minister)Maggie Thatcher knew this from the Falklands.”

According to Baker, Bush told Herskowitz, “The ideal thing was a small war, and this is why Bush said nobody was going to be killed in Iraq because he thought it would be small war.”
 
Totally agree.

It does become an issue when you have to speak on a radio, saying both does not add much to credibility or professional "Radio Speak".

I'm guessing that you can look at it like ping pong...two people are playing a game, one wants to stop so he hits the ball over and walks out? Haha I don't know.:rolleyes:
 
pro-
I get to bring a 2.5 oz shampoo bottle to basic instead of a reasonable size!
 
Only good reason to keep GITMO open is to through in the Cheney, Rumsfield crowd.:thumb:
 
Or to keep terrorists in a prison, since there is no other alternative apparently.
 
Only good reason to keep GITMO open is to through in the Cheney, Rumsfield crowd.:thumb:

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what's going on. Apparently that "Crowd" includes the Democrats of Congress?

Remember, it's not campaign mode anymore.... :rolleyes:
 
LOL.
I thought it was more like Rush lost the wrestling match to Colin Powell.
This actually made me rethink defecting to the Democrats.

Good ole' Rush - same guy who calls the GI Bill "welfare" and lumps it in with food stamps and afdc.

you want to discuss Bill Clinton - start a new thread.

ciao.

I was mocking you overusing the word "liar"
 
"I dont see what you have against rush."

If you're not a woman...

If you're not against people using drugs...

If you're also hoping that our President fails....

If you're of color and don't mind that he couldn't possibly care less about you...

If you're a supporter of his and don't mind that he calls you a "loser"...

If you don't care that he is a hypocrite among many other things...

If you're not one of many republicans/independents that writhes in pain every time you hear that Limbaugh is the "face of the republican party"....

I don't know, I guess I could see why you like him.

OK Ive never actually listened to the man, and I do think hes a little off his rocker, but my point was that for every republican radical, there are two CNN talk show hosts who chase ambulances and praise code pink.
 
Limbaugh should make it official and announce he is the head of the Rethuglican Party.

He's what they represent. Bitter angry old white men who can't stand the fact a black guy is President It's been 4 months and they haven't gotten over it:thumbdown:

If you think I am exaggerating, watch these fine folks at McCain-Palin rallies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0E3kW0M2Uc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0&feature=fvw

"I am afraid if he win's the blacks will take over, this is a Christian nation, he's not a Christian"

"Palin is filled with the holy spirit"

"Obama's education was paid for by Arabs"

"arabs are dirtbags"

At least they didn't yell the n word, oh nevermind, here you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRLljAMvO2s&feature=related At 0:56.

Abraham Lincoln is rolling in his graves, that these knuckle-draggers call themselves Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top