(Video):Olberman Rant on Bush's 'Golf Sacrifice' to dead troops

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Shakesbeer
 


Shakes, there's a very interesting documentary on HBO called 'Hacking Democracy'

I sincerely wish everyone who cares about how your vote counts (or doesn't) sees it.

Specifically, how the Diebold machines are not safe, and were used to sway elections in the way desired....no co-incidence that Diebold is head-quartered in Texas......




posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have no reason to doubt that they are his true words other than him being a major TV anchor for a mainstream media outlet.

Unfortunately that alone is enough to cast a large shadow of doubt on the whole thing.

But, I guess it doesn't matter, really. The words and the way they were spoken should be the true heart of this, not who said them. The janitor could have said them for all I care, as long as those words are spoken to a wide audience. Bush needed to be blasted for his stupid and insensitive comments.

I just hope that whoever wrote what was read by Olbermann, whether it be Olbermann himself or someone else, truly believes what they put in to the teleprompter.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


NOM, me too!

And, I think I suggested (perhaps we could take up a collection?) that the 12-minute clip be put on a DVD and mailed to every member of Congress...the blank DVD's are cheap, postage will cost the most.

While we're at it, we should get a list of WH employees as well...and all Cabinet members....heck, I know I'm missing somebody here!!!

WW



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think its a good idea. Unfortunately I don't currently have the ability to contribute financially.

I think that would send a strong message though about how we feel, not just about his golf comment, but overall about Iraq.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


To my last post....635 DVDs at .42cents postage each is $266.70.

Of course, blank DVDs cost about .02 cents each, in bulk....that's another $12.70.....

(635 congressional members = 100 senators + 535 Congressman)

So, just supplies, equals about $280.

Any takers???



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I hate to kick a good man in the face but you know what, Keith Olberman? As much as I enjoy your rantings on truth, justice, and the American way--let's be really, really truthful and admit that you didn't start doing that until the public opinion on Bush began to sway. That was your green light. So until then you ignored his crimes like everyone else. Now, somehow, you get a pass.

While I find you to be genuine in your disdain for this president, I can't help but wonder what sort of hero you would be if you actually ranted on MSNBC and Chris Mathews in particular for firing Phil Donahue for speaking out against the prez and the war when it wasn't the cool thing to do.

Remember his show? Remember when he had the guts to have on the 9/11 widows who wanted the truth? And Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector who said Saddam had no WMDs? And remember when Chris Mathews went on the show and told Phil to his face that he believes Phil hates America and should be supporting the war efforts?

Keith?

Anyone?

And then what did Chris do? He lobbied to get Donahue fired and it worked.

Rant on that, Keith. And apologize. And someone explain to us why the real news is on Comedy Central and somehow that's okay.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
And someone explain to us why the real news is on Comedy Central and somehow that's okay.


That is the quote of the year. I love John Stewart and Steven Colbert.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Five minutes into the first video... my response is as follows:


OMFG...

sorry for the text speak... but seriously... OMFG... Keith nailed it. If I was a lady I would want to have his babies.


Now... Let me go finish watching it...



Coven



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



Terrorism in Iraq is provably not Bush's creation. Abu Nidal was given asylum and died in Baghdad


Excuse me?
How many Car bombs, suicide bombs, IEDS, EFP's, VBIEDS, kidnappings, airstrikes, mortar attacks, missile attacks, ambushes, rpg attacks were happening in 2000 in Iraq?

Iraq was PROGRESSING, it was becoming westernised.
It had the best education and medical aspect in the ME.
Saddam was CONTAINED, he was not attacking anyone.

Yet you throw out this unbelievably ignorant statement like
'' Terrorism in Iraq is provably not Bush's creation. "

Its his, pure and simple.
And while I do believe that Osama existed and was training I DEEPLY fear for what the next 20yrs holds, when all these well trained Iraq's with REVENGE on their mind plan against the US.

I bet you'll still turn around and say Iraq is the hive of HATE... our invasion x amount of years ago had NOTHING to do with them blowing up an airliner.


[edit on 15-5-2008 by Agit8dChop]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Obviously this has Democrat bias written all over it.

Yahoo is very liberal and censored. Most of the media is. It is because these places have heavy foreign capital in them buy countries Privy to the US like China.

Democrats let the country sleep worrying about whether to allow Smoiking in public resteraunts.

Republicans at least address threats in a serious manner.

I hate to say, but he may be right. A Democrat in office will lead to more apologetic BS, while the enemy is free to do as they please.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Obviously this has Democrat bias written all over it.


Jesus. Can you forget this Democrat vs Republican garbage? They're the SAME THING. They're there to give you the illusion that you have a choice.

Sorry, you don't.

Maybe a Democrat won't go to war with this country. Maybe a Republican won't sign that "liberal" bill.

But damn it if they both don't work towards the same end goal.

Drop the Democrat-Republican BS and start analyzing information based on, you know, the INFORMATION - not whether a democrat or republican said it; not whether the "liberal media" (not sure how in the hell they're liberal, but OK) said this or that.

Start thinking on your own.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
I hate to say, but he may be right. A Democrat in office will lead to more apologetic BS, while the enemy is free to do as they please.


And what enemy are you talking about? The ones we(America) made in both Afghanistan & especially Iraq, or what the neo-cons like to call "home grown threats" like people who post on conspiracy boards?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



Terrorism in Iraq is provably not Bush's creation. Abu Nidal was given asylum and died in Baghdad


Excuse me?
How many Car bombs, suicide bombs, IEDS, EFP's, VBIEDS, kidnappings, airstrikes, mortar attacks, missile attacks, ambushes, rpg attacks were happening in 2000 in Iraq?

Iraq was PROGRESSING, it was becoming westernised.
It had the best education and medical aspect in the ME.
Saddam was CONTAINED, he was not attacking anyone.

Yet you throw out this unbelievably ignorant statement like
'' Terrorism in Iraq is provably not Bush's creation. "

Its his, pure and simple.
And while I do believe that Osama existed and was training I DEEPLY fear for what the next 20yrs holds, when all these well trained Iraq's with REVENGE on their mind plan against the US.

I bet you'll still turn around and say Iraq is the hive of HATE... our invasion x amount of years ago had NOTHING to do with them blowing up an airliner.


[edit on 15-5-2008 by Agit8dChop]



The number of car bombs, etc, has nothing to do with the fact that Abu Nidal was given asylum in Baghdad until his death (even if that death was likely due to Saddam's orders).

Don't waste your time betting on what i will say in the future. You have obviously pigeon holed me, and you will almost certainly be completely incorrect.

yes, we should be in iraq. Not because of terror, but because Saddam violated sanctions repeatedly. We shoulda went in during the mid 90's, pick one of the times he kicked out inspectors.

But we should not have been in iraq until after we finished up afghanistan (since Clinton lacked the stones to hold saddam accountable, we needed to wait). And when we went in, we should have known that the "Shock and awe" would blow any chance of being greeted as liberators out of the water. We were destroyers.

my views on iraq are far more complex than you likely would believe. I abhor the overly simplistic view that our "sound bite" culture has bred. I have derailed this thread long enough with this post. Carry on.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
2 X's post. GRRRRR


[edit on 15-5-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




The number of car bombs, etc, has nothing to do with the fact that Abu Nidal was given asylum in Baghdad until his death (even if that death was likely due to Saddam's orders).




Terrorism in Iraq is provably not Bush's creation. Abu Nidal was given asylum and died in Baghdad


Not bush's creation?
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies,

So tell me, when did Abu nidal threaten, or USE force in Iraq?
compare that to when America threatened, used force, occupied and invaded to intimidate and oust a government and place its society under foreign rule.

Your right, sad but true, the second you said terrorism in Iraq has nothing to do with Bush, I immediately put you in the '' spewing crap '' catergory.
... you cant say this is a mistake now can you?

why should we be in Iraq? because saddam continued to violate sanctions?

Tell me, was he building WMD's against the UN's orders?
Tell me, wernt the US, UN and other western nations GUILTY of HELPING saddam in his oil for food SCANDAL?
Tell me, when SADDAM asked for DIRECT DIALOUGE to DISCUSS the charges put against him by the USA ( without UN backing ) does this count as a violation?
Isnt it more of a violation for us to REFUSE this? and just start bombing?

Secondly,

When are we packing troops and sending them into Israel?
What about North Korea?
Hell, technically we've already got troops on the ground in the USA, being they too, have violated the UNITED NATIONS....

But, keeping in mind that the United States dismissed the United Nations because they didnt BACK them in the WMD claims, yet now use them as an excuse because saddam didnt listen to them?

Which is it, is the UN wrong and worthless and not to be listeneed too?
Or is right and worthy, and should be obeyed?

Cant have it both ways there.

The 90's?

The same PNAC prix who pushed Bush into this war tried pushing Clinton, but he refused, and rightly so.
You can just pick a reason to go bombing and invading someone, the REAL world hasnt worked like that since the 40's.
Clinton said that airstrikes and no fly zones were working.. and guess what , THEY DID.

Tell me, why was Colin and Condelezza saying in 2000 that Saddam had been CONTAINED, and had NO MEANS OR ABILITY to get his wmd's back?

Your views may be complex, but unfortunaetly your justification is neither correct nor complex.

We shouldnt of touched Iraq, we should of waited because Saddam didnt have long left.
The people were westernized, and all we have done is CREATE TERRORISM by TERRORISING THEM!

if this is overly simplistic then I apologise..
but id hate to know what '' we should be in Iraq because saddam didnt listen to the UN '' is...
especially when the USA did the same, Israel continue's to do the same...

but thats to complex...

lets get simplistic.

We are in a bucket load of CRAP in Iraq for 1 reason.

We had no reason to wage war and occupy them, and the Iraqi people know it, that is why they are defending and fighting for their home land so vicously, because they know, that we lied to get in, and we arent there to help them!




So Bush stoppped playing Golf huh?
Wow, what a hero, what a leader.
At my desk i have a print out of a photoshopped nuremburh trial. its a black and white photo looking at the defendants, and everyone of them has been replaced by a member of the Bush or blair administration.

He should play golf, because one day soon, he's either going to be dead, or on death row... both beacuse of this crime.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Not bush's creation?
Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies,

So tell me, when did Abu nidal threaten, or USE force in Iraq?
compare that to when America threatened, used force, occupied and invaded to intimidate and oust a government and place its society under foreign rule.



Abu Nidal committed terrorist acts for which he was never brought to justice. Hence, he is a terrorist. Therefore, Saddam had terrorists in Baghdad. I am not bothering to look any further, as it is a "yes/no" question that is answered "yes".




Your right, sad but true, the second you said terrorism in Iraq has nothing to do with Bush, I immediately put you in the '' spewing crap '' catergory.
... you cant say this is a mistake now can you?

why should we be in Iraq? because saddam continued to violate sanctions?



Yes, that is how it works. you surrender in a war under conditions. you fail to meet those conditions, you are removed. seems fairly simple, and it was overdue.

this is the very thing UBL talks about: we don't have the stomache to finish any war. we rattle our sabre, but no one takes us seriously. like a parent who yells, but never gets up. "This is your last, last, last, LAST chance, and i mean it".





Tell me, was he building WMD's against the UN's orders?



I don't know. Some say yes, and they were moved to Syria. Some say that isn't true. No need to argue that, as they found some buried in the desert. Yes, they were old, and possibly degraded. But the fact that they were there shows not only intent, but a blatant violation of the sanctions. A perfect example of why we should have gone in long before.




Tell me, wernt the US, UN and other western nations GUILTY of HELPING saddam in his oil for food SCANDAL?



No, the US was not guilty. People from the US were guilty, however (and the UN is not a nation). I can assure you that the American people did not approve any participation in these scandals, and i believe that the US has been the chief party pushing for investigation and accountability for the oil for food scandal.




Tell me, when SADDAM asked for DIRECT DIALOUGE to DISCUSS the charges put against him by the USA ( without UN backing ) does this count as a violation?



Too little, too late. He had 12 years to comply, and failed.




Isnt it more of a violation for us to REFUSE this? and just start bombing?



No, that was not part of the terms of surrender. Besides, i am not sure that Saddam wanted direct dialogue with us....can you post a link?




Secondly,



"Secondly"??? LOL....i have put a million quote tags already....and you say "Secondly"?






When are we packing troops and sending them into Israel?
What about North Korea?
Hell, technically we've already got troops on the ground in the USA, being they too, have violated the UNITED NATIONS....



What does this have to do with Iraq? The US has not violated sanctions. We HAVE used our influence unfairly, and with held money irresponsibly. But that is US policy for every president, just about. But this has little to do with us being in Iraq. Leave the straw men alone, they didn't do anything to you!!!






But, keeping in mind that the United States dismissed the United Nations because they didnt BACK them in the WMD claims, yet now use them as an excuse because saddam didnt listen to them?



No, that is incorrect. We parted opinions with the UN because we litstened to the intelligence (as faulty as it was) from most of the nations on Earth. They all blew it, basically.

But the UN was unduly influenced by France and Germany, who we have since seen have their hands very dirty in the aforementioned Oil for Food scandal.




Which is it, is the UN wrong and worthless and not to be listeneed too?



Well, that is obviously very true.




Or is right and worthy, and should be obeyed?



No, they are not our government. The point of sanctioning, however, is that the whole world theoretically tells you to either mow your yard, or yoiu get kicked off the block. If the UN sancitoned us, you would have an arguement.

As well, if Bush wasn't a representative of a world givernment, you could compare him to a terrorist. However, being a legitimate leader (regardless of what half of the nation wants to say), it provides a VERY real difference.




Cant have it both ways there.



See above. Sanctions are voted on by the world. Then they want to pussyfoot around 12 years later, after Saddam and greased their palms with millions of dollars? Yeah, something stinks in Manhattan.




The 90's?

The same PNAC prix who pushed Bush into this war tried pushing Clinton, but he refused, and rightly so.
You can just pick a reason to go bombing and invading someone, the REAL world hasnt worked like that since the 40's.
Clinton said that airstrikes and no fly zones were working.. and guess what , THEY DID.



Worked so well that inspectors were repeatedly kicked out of the country and denied access to facilities. THAT was what it was about: stopping the chemical and nuke's. The "no fly" zones were to protect the neigbors, but represented a secondary aspect. But Saddam was constantly violating the No Fly zones and shooting at our planes. I think you forget about that.




Tell me, why was Colin and Condelezza saying in 2000 that Saddam had been CONTAINED, and had NO MEANS OR ABILITY to get his wmd's back?



I don't know. The intelligence (as unintelligent as it may have been) didn't support that.




Your views may be complex, but unfortunaetly your justification is neither correct nor complex.

We shouldnt of touched Iraq, we should of waited because Saddam didnt have long left.
The people were westernized, and all we have done is CREATE TERRORISM by TERRORISING THEM!



do you have a health report i am unaware of? Another 20 years of Saddam, willing to sell his technology to any wild eyed Saudi millionaire? No thanks. Had he played nice, and follwed the rules he agreed to in order to retain his power, then possibly. But he didn't, and he knew the consequences.




if this is overly simplistic then I apologise..
but id hate to know what '' we should be in Iraq because saddam didnt listen to the UN '' is...
especially when the USA did the same, Israel continue's to do the same...



the key difference is that in Iraq's case, abiding by the UN sanctions was the condition of their surrender. That is the key difference. We used the UN sanctions in order to ensure that we had worldwide support continue after the multinational action of Destert Storm. Unfortunately, or world neighbors were deep in Uncle Saddams pockets and didn't have our backs. Double crossed for a few dollars.




but thats to complex...

lets get simplistic.

We are in a bucket load of CRAP in Iraq for 1 reason.

We had no reason to wage war and occupy them, and the Iraqi people know it, that is why they are defending and fighting for their home land so vicously, because they know, that we lied to get in, and we arent there to help them!



we are there, that's where all those soldiers are. we are in a bucketload of crap because we used Shock and Awe, killing lots of iraqi's. we compounded that by not securing the nations from a police standpoint, so the terrorists moved in and intimidated the citizens. of course, some were happy to join them, as we had blown up a lot of stuff.

the issue we have here, then, is execution. That is why we are struggling right now. had we executed properly, we wouldn't have bombed the crap out of baghdad. we would have removed saddam and baath party leaders, and kept non baath loyalists around to ensure security and continuity of government services. instead, we started over from the stone age, and have had to fight off our enemies, who moved in to make it harder for us.

your statements, while mostly factual, also leave out several other facts. you cannot ignore the parts that don't support what you want to believe. yes, gw is a moron. but not the way you think, and certainly not a criminal.

perhaps you could research news clippings from the 90s to get a better view. it seems as if you were too young then, and may not remember it so well.

I have spent a considerable amount of time replying to you in detail. please make sure you read and research what i say. i likely will not go into any further detail. However, you seem to omit so many key pieces of info that it hardly looks like the same story to me.

edit: lots of quote tags!!!

[edit on 16-5-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Abu Nidal committed terrorist acts for which he was never brought to justice. Hence, he is a terrorist. Therefore, Saddam had terrorists in Baghdad. I am not bothering to look any further, as it is a "yes/no" question that is answered "yes".


So, on that thinking, the United States is a terrorist state?
Being at one stage they had terrorists IN their country?
Big difference isn’t there, Did Saddam ask him to come to the country, to plan train and execute attacks?
Could we also then accuse Israel, being there are many terrorists in Israel attacking daily?
But, your saying then its justified in what we’ve done to Iraq, to get this man? For something he did a long time ago?


Yes, that is how it works. you surrender in a war under conditions. you fail to meet those conditions, you are removed. seems fairly simple, and it was overdue.

this is the very thing UBL talks about: we don't have the stomache to finish any war. we rattle our sabre, but no one takes us seriously. like a parent who yells, but never gets up. "This is your last, last, last, LAST chance, and i mean it".


So what about Israel?
The reason the world hates us, is because we DO go around murdering people and allowing Israel to do as it pleases.
THAT IS WHY THEY HATE US!
So, on your thinking.. instead of STOPPING my bullying on a kid to get him to go along with me, I should just punch his lights out? And all his friends who back him up?

That’s the stupidest thing ive heard.



I don't know. Some say yes, and they were moved to Syria. Some say that isn't true. No need to argue that, as they found some buried in the desert. Yes, they were old, and possibly degraded. But the fact that they were there shows not only intent, but a blatant violation of the sanctions. A perfect example of why we should have gone in long before.


Moved to Syria? That’s total and utter BS.
There were NO WMD’s.. why cant people just swallow that they were lied too.
How on earth did the United States government have concrete proof of weapons facilities and stockpiles, when NOTHING EXISTED?
Why do people still talk this nonsense.
THERE WERE NO WEAPONS!
EVERYONE HAS SAID SO! EVEN THE CRIMINAL HIMSELF.
How can one be so bloody niave and ignorant to claim the half dozen 1980’s mortar shells found buried in the desert shows INTENT and a VIOLATION?
What, you think saddam was going to unearth these half dozen shells, lob them at Israel then sit back laughing about it?
Or do you think he sat there snickering and laughing at the UN, about how he had 6 meazly mortar shells that he was hiding.

Absolute filth, ones mind truly needs education if this suggests intent.

And regardless, we went in with proof he was BUILDING NEW WEAPONS and STOCKPILING them, half a dozen forgotten about mortar shells do not constitute stockpiles, no matter HOW BADLY YOU WANT IT TOO!


No, the US was not guilty. People from the US were guilty, however (and the UN is not a nation). I can assure you that the American people did not approve any participation in these scandals, and i believe that the US has been the chief party pushing for investigation and accountability for the oil for food scandal.

No, the world see’s this as the UNITED STATES! Because, after this long no one has taken the appropriate steps to OUST THIS CRIMINAL
You think Osama or all the Iraqi’s who have LOST families are sitting in their mud huts thinking

‘’ Its ok American’s, we don’t blame you. We only blame your leader ‘’

NO, they want to know why their blood should be spilt over American ‘cowardice’THE US is pushing for harsh light on the United nations to DISCREDIT THEM.The United Nations TOLD the world that Iraq had no WMD’s, Koffi Annan stated the United STATES WAR is illegial under the guise of the United nations CHARTER.The United States is not pushing to prosecute the UN over its OIL for FOOD scandal, because they too are guilty.



Too little, too late. He had 12 years to comply, and failed.



1. Saddam ALLOWED US IN

But Firstly, what did BUSH SAY?


"... We worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it."
—President George W. Bush
March 21, 2006


What did the OTHERS say?




U.N. weapons inspectors entered Iraq on November 27th, 2002.
Source: PBS Newshour,
citing Associated Press, quoting UN Weapons Inspector Dimitri Perricos



Inspectors searched for illegal weapons, finding few and only minor violations, "no evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapons program," and "no mobile facilities for producing weapons."
Source: Arms Control Today, the publication of the Arms Control Association, citing UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix


Their work still incomplete but progressing, weapons inspectors fled Iraq in March 2003 when the U.S. advised them to leave, because an American attack was imminent.
Source: USA Today, carrying an Associated Press article, citing Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency

After the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration would not allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.
Source: Sydney Morning Herald, quoting White House spokesman Ari Fleischer


Israel has had decades…
Once again, Saddam didn’t have anything.. it’s a cold person to declare that all the suffering in Iraq is justified, because Saddam did too little to late. Your beginning to make me sick.


No, that was not part of the terms of surrender. Besides, i am not sure that Saddam wanted direct dialogue with us....can you post a link?

Saddam asked for dialogue
www.e-thepeople.org...

RhoadsCBS reported Monday that Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, requested that President Bush join him in an open discussion via satellite. Hussein reportedly feels this live debate may clear the air between the leaders, possibly putting diplomacy ahead of war.

Regardless of what ANYONE THINKS, you should TALK before you militarily INVADE.

NO, You violated the UNITED NATIONS.
When they said saddam had nothing , and to NOT use force, you did.
Your influence? Your bribed nations to join, trade incentives, financial incentives, and when big nations didn’t follow you chucked a hissy fit and renamed French Fries to FREEDOM FRIES.


No, that is incorrect. We parted opinions with the UN because we litstened to the intelligence (as faulty as it was) from most of the nations on Earth. They all blew it, basically.


You parted because they went in, found nothing and told the world so.
But your leader didn’t care, he couldn’t have anyone listening to this, he needed to keep telling the world what they needed to hear to allow it to happen.
Its like Iran now
‘’ NIE : Iran is not purusing nuclear weapons “
“Bush: I don’t care what the NIE says, I believe they are “



But the UN was unduly influenced by France and Germany, who we have since seen have their hands very dirty in the aforementioned Oil for Food scandal.


As well, if Bush wasn't a representative of a world givernment, you could compare him to a terrorist. However, being a legitimate leader (regardless of what half of the nation wants to say), it provides a VERY real difference.

You mean MAJORITY of the US who DIDN’T vote him in?
Legitimate leader?

Sorry, but you get thrown back in the garbage pile with that.

Worked so well that inspectors were repeatedly kicked out of the country and denied access to facilities. THAT was what it was about: stopping the chemical and nuke's. The "no fly" zones were to protect the neigbors, but represented a secondary aspect. But Saddam was constantly violating the No Fly zones and shooting at our planes. I think you forget about that.

See above, inspections OCCURRED.



I don't know. The intelligence (as unintelligent as it may have been) didn't support that.

WRONG, the evidence DID support that and to this day STILL SUPPORTS THAT.
HOW CAN YOU honestly say that the intelligence is wrong here.

They said saddam had nothing and was contained,
We lied, waged war saying he wasn’t and he did.
Turns out he didn’t, yet… they are still wrong?



do you have a health report i am unaware of? Another 20 years of Saddam, willing to sell his technology to any wild eyed Saudi millionaire? No thanks. Had he played nice, and follwed the rules he agreed to in order to retain his power, then possibly. But he didn't, and he knew the consequences.


HE HAD NOTHING. Christ almighty, your pathetic. We are selling more weapons to Saudi than Saddam could of dreamed.
We’re supplying Israel with EVERYTHING.
Man I give up, if that’s honestly how you think, you’re a waste of time.



[edit on 16-5-2008 by Agit8dChop]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
as i said, i will not bother with such detail any further. You seem to have a level of vitriol that i prefer to not interact with on this matter (nothing personal).

Besides, we are in Iraq to sieze control of an ancient stargate.
There, try to fit THAT theory into your belief system.


All you and i have done is present two sides of a false story.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I was jumping up and down shouting YES... YES... YES!!! When I heard Keith's rant... It was right on the money.

What we need in this country is for more in the media to just this kind of thing... We need another Cronkite moment....

(for those of you who are too young to know what a Cronkite moment is... in 1967 (I believe) Walter Cronkite (the most trusted man in America at the time) went to Vietnam to find out for himself what was actually going on. When he got back he gave a withering report to the American people via his evening news program about the real circumstances in Vietnam... and is personally credited with doing more than anyone else, to turn public opinion against the war. If Brian Williams or Katie Coric tried that today the broadcast would be yanked and we would never hear from them again.)

I love my country but I am chronically embarrassed by our seeming incapacity to get beyond the fluff and spin to anything of real substance or to elect anyone strong and brave enough to be honest with us.

If Obama, or Hillary or McCain, or anyone else tried, their political career would be over.

If we accidently elected anyone with any brains and a spine to the oval office... we wouldn't know how to handle it.

We (most of us anyway) live in a coccon and are afraid to rupture its comforting falacies.



[edit on 16-5-2008 by grover]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Dammit, grover, you just had to remind me of my age!

Couldn't agree with you more, and couldn't have said it any better.
Those that have ears, or in this case eyes, take note!

Look up the definition for righteous anger, and you'll find a picture of Keith Olbermann.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join