It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rush admits the Iraq war was a sham, tries to blame the deep state...

page: 3
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

That’s because you can’t prove a negative...

Which makes any argument that asks you To irrelevant.




posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JoshuaCox

As long as the US keeps killing Arabs for Israel it's all good.


Muh appeal to emotion!

If that were true, a tank battalion would have rolled through Palestinian territory destroying people and rocket batteries.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tellurian



So after decades of Rush being one of the biggest fans of the Iraq War , he admits it was a sham, tries to blame the deep state...


Did Rush mention anything about the War on Drugs ... Limbaugh was a big fan of that also until they caught him with his own secret stash ...


You mean the 30 or 40 80mg. OxyContin™ He'd take per day that He got from His maid, who He'd also paid off for a blackmailing scheme?

•••••••••••••••••••••• Personal Rule •••••••••••••••••••••••••

Anytime a 'maid' is introduced I MUST add this to accompany My post. I present Neil Young and His song: "Every Man Needs A Maid"

www.youtube.com...

Stay Hydrated... And pick-up Your suite, the maid is coming..






posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: network dude

Yea “ helped cause”..

Not single handedly caused the war as you knowingly misspoke..


so for the clarification of your OP, are you saying that Rush Limbaugh is partially to blame for the Iraq war? Rush Limbaugh, the pundit on the Radio who has a conservative talk radio show. Did your leave out Fox news as well?

I didn't write the OP, I am just trying to decipher your intentions. Pro tip- if you don't know what the hell you are saying, don't get pissed when someone else doesn't understand the stuff you wrote, but didn't understand.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Partially to blame for gaining the public support required to prosecute the war.. yes..

Why do you think people assumed Iraq was in ANY way connected to 911??

Because of idiots like Limbaugh and Fox News..

Why did everyone assume the BS reports about yellow cake and aluminum tubes was true??

Because they lied for the bush administration.. and lied enthusiastically.


edit on 26-1-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The Young Turks? Really OP?! Are you stupid?!

Listen to what Rush said in context!

That talking cockroach (Cenk) is lying and making up quotes to make his point!



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: network dude

Partially to blame for gaining the public support required to prosecute the war.. yes..

Why do you think people assumed Iraq was in ANY way connected to 911??

Because of idiots like Limbaugh and Fox News..

Why did everyone assume the BS reports about yellow cake and aluminum tubes was true??

Because they lied for the bush administration.. and lied enthusiastically.



since you weren't fooled, and you knew the "truth" I suppose we can all blame YOU for not stopping the war from happening?



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JoshuaCox

As long as the US keeps killing Arabs for Israel it's all good.


Muh appeal to emotion!

If that were true, a tank battalion would have rolled through Palestinian territory destroying people and rocket batteries.



Easy on the logic, there are narratives to push here.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JoshuaCox

As long as the US keeps killing Arabs for Israel it's all good.


Muh appeal to emotion!

If that were true, a tank battalion would have rolled through Palestinian territory destroying people and rocket batteries.



Easy on the logic, there are narratives to push here.


Oh right, sorry.

Carry on everyone!



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Watch his face he was just a puppet left to sit there for ten minutes after being told about the attack. He is correct. It was the deep state.




posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Use some common sense. If that were the case, what possible motive would you have to tell him at that exact moment and not knowing what his reaction would be? You guys really need to think this # through before you post it.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Did you watch the video. Watch the extended one after. Watch his face for ten minutes as he is left there sitting with a camera on him. Watch his body language. The man is scared. He was told to remain in the sit and he did just that.

Does it not appear odd to you that the president remains seated and takes no action for such a long period of time.

If you really want to know what was happening that day. Look at the mock military exercises. and i dont mean just the one about flying planes into the towers. What about the nuclear option. Research!





posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

It's called anxiety. He wants to get the # out of there because a major event is happening. It's been explained why he didn't. He didn't want an already scared public watching the events on the news to have the next thing they see is a shot of the president running out of a room full of kids in a panic. You may not like the explanation but it's perfectly plausible. If this is the only "evidence" you have that it's not legit, you have nothing. Stop being so gullible. You don't have to take every cute sounding "theory" you hear at face value. You could actually apply some scrutiny and rational thought.

I won't derail the thread any further. Take your fantasies to the 9/11 forum.
edit on 26 1 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Your argument holds the exact same amount of weight as mine does.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: purplemer

It's called anxiety. He wants to get the # out of there because a major event is happening. It's been explained why he didn't. He didn't want an already scared public watching the events on the news to have the next thing they see is a shot of the president running out of a room full of kids in a panic. You may not like the explanation but it's perfectly plausible. If this is the only "evidence" you have that it's not legit, you have nothing. Stop being so gullible. You don't have to take every cute sounding "theory" you hear at face value. You could actually apply some scrutiny and rational thought.

I won't derail the thread any further. Take your fantasies to the 9/11 forum.


You really think that. He was told the country was under attack. That was the only information given to him. For all he new it could have been a nuclear strike and he may have had less than ten minutes to respond.

Sorry that narrative is rubbish. If i told you your house was on fire would you sit there with your family for ten minutes before you check!

Did you even take the time to watch the one minute video. By your response I would say not.!



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: face23785

Your argument holds the exact same amount of weight as mine does.


My argument is there's documented cases of soldiers being exposed to chemicals weapons in Iraq, chemicals that were not depleted uranium.

Your argument is "well some vets have been exposed to depleted uranium" as if that somehow proves there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.

My argument holds a lot more weight. You're brain-damaged if you think those are on the same level.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: purplemer

It's called anxiety. He wants to get the # out of there because a major event is happening. It's been explained why he didn't. He didn't want an already scared public watching the events on the news to have the next thing they see is a shot of the president running out of a room full of kids in a panic. You may not like the explanation but it's perfectly plausible. If this is the only "evidence" you have that it's not legit, you have nothing. Stop being so gullible. You don't have to take every cute sounding "theory" you hear at face value. You could actually apply some scrutiny and rational thought.

I won't derail the thread any further. Take your fantasies to the 9/11 forum.


You really think that. He was told the country was under attack. That was the only information given to him. For all he new it could have been a nuclear strike and he may have had less than ten minutes to respond.

Sorry that narrative is rubbish. If i told you your house was on fire would you sit there with your family for ten minutes before you check!

Did you even take the time to watch the one minute video. By your response I would say not.!




False. As usual, 9/11 conspiracy mythers don't even know the most basic facts about the subject. Before Bush went into the classroom, he was told a plane had crashed into the WTC, and at the time everyone assumed or at least hoped it was some kind of accident, although some folks already speculated it could be terrorism. When you see the clip of him being told in his ear while he's in the class, he was being told that a 2nd plane hit the 2nd tower and "America is under attack". So no, that wasn't the only information he had. He just received confirmation that the first plane wasn't an accident. He knew two planes had been used as weapons to hit buildings in New York, and probably assumed it was terrorism.

I can't believe I just had to explain that to you. Get educated. You don't even know the basic timeline of events, and you think you've done "research". You're grossly uninformed, and you've been tricked by people who who take advantage of your complete lack of awareness of the actual timeline of events. You've been taken for a fool. Only you can change that by actually educating yourself on what happened that day instead of just swallowing a bunch of nonsense.

I won't engage in any further discussion about 9/11 with someone who doesn't even know the basics about 9/11. You're the most pathetic "truther" I've come across in a while. You don't even know what #theofficialstory is and you think you've got it debunked. Sad.
edit on 26 1 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

No wepons of mass destruction where found in Iraq and that is a fact. Those that knew that where killed. They lied about 911, they lied about Iraq.




posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I asked you to watch the minute long video. You have not watched that and you have formed your opinion without looking at the evidence i provided.

If you dont want to look I cannot help you.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: purplemer

It's called anxiety. He wants to get the # out of there because a major event is happening. It's been explained why he didn't. He didn't want an already scared public watching the events on the news to have the next thing they see is a shot of the president running out of a room full of kids in a panic. You may not like the explanation but it's perfectly plausible. If this is the only "evidence" you have that it's not legit, you have nothing. Stop being so gullible. You don't have to take every cute sounding "theory" you hear at face value. You could actually apply some scrutiny and rational thought.

I won't derail the thread any further. Take your fantasies to the 9/11 forum.


You really think that. He was told the country was under attack. That was the only information given to him. For all he new it could have been a nuclear strike and he may have had less than ten minutes to respond.

Sorry that narrative is rubbish. If i told you your house was on fire would you sit there with your family for ten minutes before you check!

Did you even take the time to watch the one minute video. By your response I would say not.!




If it had been a nuke then they would have had to pull him into another room ,with the football open and ready to go, immediately.

No matter what he was told, whether it was an attack or not, the buildings were still standing by this time.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join