tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post9051477670689659285..comments2024-03-18T17:42:24.279-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Then and NowDave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-735903607644664562014-01-02T15:16:37.300-05:002014-01-02T15:16:37.300-05:00So what do "no doubt" and "no quest...So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?<br /><br />You won't answer. <br /><br />You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind. <br /><br />Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.<br /><br />...And I will once again respond:<br /><br />One more time, <br /><br />What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-14050057774218304912014-01-02T15:09:13.868-05:002014-01-02T15:09:13.868-05:00You gonna tell us these false assertions
What fal...<i>You gonna tell us these false assertions</i><br /><br />What false assertions? Even the quotes YOU provided had no false assertions. They clearly stated Iraq had no hand in 9-11.<br /><br /><i>We have Bush/Cheney using words like “no doubt” and “no question”, don’t we? </i><br /><br />If by that, you mean they clearly stated Iraq had no hand in 9-11 - well that doesn't look too good for your case does it?<br /><br /><i>the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons </i><br /><br />Chemical weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion. <br /><br /><i>members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ; </i><br /><br />Zarqaui and hundreds of his terrorists were found in Iraq after the invasion, and were found to be there BEFORE the invasion.<br /><br /><i>Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction,</i><br /><br />Everyone knows Iraq used WMD against its neighbor Iran and its own people.<br /><br /><i> Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups</i><br /><br />Notice this doesn't say "Al Qaeda," it says terrorist groups. No one can deny Iraq's support for terrorist groups. It very publicly paid money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel - and that is only one example.<br /><br />All those things were true. It would seem the only one running from the truth is you. You can't possibly argue that Iraq was in compliance with the 1991 cease fire. They didn't even cease fire. It only stands to reason, that when the other side resumes fire - you resume it also.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-71315677328765559342014-01-02T15:05:24.425-05:002014-01-02T15:05:24.425-05:00okjimm: "I can't handle Free's lack o...<b>okjimm</b>: "<i>I can't handle Free's lack of a sense of reality.</i>"<br /><br />On the contrary, I find him utterly amusing. I enjoy messing with him. He's such an easy target. <b>(</b>I wonder if the Afghanis and Iraqis thought the same thing? <b>;-)</b> <br /><br /><br />"<i>...personally, I would like to hide behind Rachael Maddow.....just in case she might change her sexual preference. just saying.</i>"<br /><br />I second the resolution!Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-53371572322559456012014-01-02T13:39:27.678-05:002014-01-02T13:39:27.678-05:00I can't handle Free's lack of a sense of r...I can't handle Free's lack of a sense of reality. I like reality, of course, though, on a limited basis. Like Woody Allen said, "I hate reality but it's still the best place to get a good steak.” <br /><br />get a steak, Free, or a cheeseburger at least. AND...personally, I would like to hide behind Rachael Maddow.....just in case she might change her sexual preference. just saying.<br />okjimmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11013002335848390765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-75342135868588176992014-01-02T12:51:33.469-05:002014-01-02T12:51:33.469-05:00Now, as promised:
Would you like to discuss the f...Now, as promised:<br /><br /><i>Would you like to discuss the falsehoods in the resolution too?<br /><br />I'd be happy to show you the lies were there too. </i><br /><br />Now I warn you, understanding “implied” is important to see why 9-11 is repeatedly mentioned in the war resolution. Free’s not going to understand, but here we go:<br /><br /><i>Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; <br /><br />Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq ; <br /><br />Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;<br /><br />Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; <br /><br />Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction<br /><br />Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; <br /><br />Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;</i><br /><br />Well? Gonna keep running from the truth? Like you even have a choice.<br /><br />So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?<br /><br />You won't answer. <br /><br />You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind. <br /><br />Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.<br /><br />...And I will once again respond:<br /><br />One more time, <br /><br />What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-11689893878016756492014-01-02T12:50:11.844-05:002014-01-02T12:50:11.844-05:00Once again,
You gonna tell us these false assertio...Once again,<br />You gonna tell us these false assertions had no effect on Bush/Cheney getting the support for their war for crony profit and political gain?<br /><br />As a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer” Free better stay away from that, eh? For a brave tough guy, beliefs trump facts, and he’s frightened and threatened by the truth. (They usually are, being authoritarian personalities.) Of course, to a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer” Bush/Cheney always told the truth. <br /><br />Never mind “some aluminum factoid”. LOL.<br /><br />So we must wonder if “some aluminum factoid” looks at all like a “nukular” aluminum tube, as we’ve certainly never seen one of either. <br /><br />How about you, Free? Got some "nukular" aluminum tubes, "biological labs", and connections to al-Qaeda? Or are you ready to admit you’re a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer”? <br /><br /><i>Where you have a non-starter is statements like "Bush lied." You have no evidence of that. You have evidence intelligence was incorrect,</i><br /><br />We have Bush/Cheney using words like “no doubt” and “no question”, don’t we? Yes, those were lies. <br /><br />Guess what else. Bush and Cheney also had evidence their statements were incorrect. They rejected it, of course. Bush admitted to "catapulting the propaganda". Instead they told us “no doubt” and “no question”. Those count as lies to everyone but a certified “Bush/Cheney Toofer".<br /><br />Since we all know by now that Free has no concept of the words “hypocrisy” and “implied”, we’ll try not to confuse him anymore with our adult level language. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-72500644144431904882014-01-02T06:39:50.348-05:002014-01-02T06:39:50.348-05:00What you can't show me Dave, was that Iraq and...What you can't show me Dave, was that Iraq and Saddam Hussein was in compliance with the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991. We already know you can't even think of how many US pilots would have to die to enforce that agreement. Certainly getting fired on over 4000 times and having 3 jets get shot down wasn't enough for you. <br /><br />And how many Presidents would have to be assassinated for you to care? Iraq tried to assassinate one of ours - that was on the authorization to use force too.<br /><br />Instead you'll pick some "aluminium" factoid in order to justify your "Bush Lied" conspiracy theory.<br /><br />And speaking of that - Jeff is still banging his head against that wall and I doubt he'll stop.<br /><br />This is what this is folks. Wild conclusions based on factless paranoid delusions. These guys are the militia weirdos of the left minus all the guns and (hopefully) belly fat Its the other side of the Birther coin. <br />Even well known leftists disregard this stuff out of hand because its so obviously false. <br /><br />You want lies? This is more like delusions. Mostly its Jeff and Dave being legends in their own minds. Heroes in their own made up story book political thriller.<br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-11419042463759211922014-01-02T06:10:31.018-05:002014-01-02T06:10:31.018-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-45144136539837221582014-01-02T06:07:44.901-05:002014-01-02T06:07:44.901-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-54696247208745109792014-01-01T09:22:50.387-05:002014-01-01T09:22:50.387-05:00Free0352: "You're right, I'm not goin...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>You're right, I'm not going to dignify a wild conspiracy theory.</i>"<br /><br />It's not a theory when there is sufficient evidence, in many areas, that puts the "official story" in grave doubt. As previously mentioned, "conspiracy theories" are evidence that the courts have refused to hear. <br /><br />By definition, we both obviously agree it <i>was</i> a conspiracy; we just disagree who the conspirators <i>were</i>. As far as the "theory" part, the "official story" was <i>only</i> a theory, also. Nothing was ever proven. Under our system of constitutional law, due process for the alleged perpetrators was never granted. <br /><br />Procedural law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in a criminal proceeding. These rules are designed to ensure a fair and consistent application of due process in the United States. This was never applied in the separate crimes that occurred on 9/11. A commission, appointed by the president and congress, was established "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks". But to date, there have been no trials.<br /><br /><br />"<i>It won't matter how much evidence you are shown - as Maddow said this isn't about evidence.</i>"<br /><br />You're totally wrong! It's <b><i>all</i></b> about evidence. Under our system of law, where due process is paramount, a person can't be convicted of a crime <i>without</i> adequate evidence. It's <b><i>all</i></b> about evidence...<br /><br /><br />"<i>You believe this because it makes you feel good.</i>"<br /><br />No, I believe this because I know justice hasn't been served. <i>This</i> makes me feel bad.<br /><br /><br />"<i>But readers can read this and see what kind of conspiracy kook you are, and that has clearly been established.</i><br /><br />I guess I'm just a part of a <a href="http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/" rel="nofollow">growing number of "kooks" who believe the official story is a fairy tale</a>. Desiring that justice is served makes me a kookie guy!Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-48126477133698701852013-12-31T13:27:00.407-05:002013-12-31T13:27:00.407-05:00Would you like to discuss the falsehoods in the re...Would you like to discuss the falsehoods in the resolution too?<br /><br />I'd be happy to show you the lies were there too.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-63701829107415622242013-12-31T13:22:07.895-05:002013-12-31T13:22:07.895-05:00You're right, I'm not going to dignify a w...<i>You're right, I'm not going to dignify a wild conspiracy theory.</i><br /><br />Not even "nukular" aluminum tubes, "biological labs", and connections to al-Qaeda?<br /><br />You gonna tell us these false assertions had no effect on Bush/Cheney getting the support for their war for crony profit and political gain?Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-23617899111775045212013-12-31T13:14:42.736-05:002013-12-31T13:14:42.736-05:00Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "...<i>Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?</i><br /><br />Go look up the 12 reasons the US authorized the President to use force in Iraq, along with the Iraqi liberation act if you want to know why we fought Iraq. Nobody cares what your personal criteria for war is. You'll have to look at why we actually fought there.<br /><br />I promise you neither document mentions aluminium tubes. That's just you. Try being relevant to the conversation Dave.<br /><br />Jeff,<br /><br /><i>This tells me that you know you can't. Once I challenge you, you hide behind Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow (and others), but you can't justify your own weak "facts".</i><br /><br />You're right, I'm not going to dignify a wild conspiracy theory. It won't matter how much evidence you are shown - as Maddow said this isn't about evidence. You believe this because it makes you feel good. And until it doesn't, you'll keep believing it no matter what. But readers can read this and see what kind of conspiracy kook you are, and that has clearly been established. You're basically Alex Jones for welfare. We established that clearly.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-62209005968676180352013-12-31T10:41:11.652-05:002013-12-31T10:41:11.652-05:00One more time,
What lies?
LOL!!!!!
Got "n...One more time, <br /><br />What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?<br /><br />-<br /><br />Well? Gonna keep running from the truth? Like you even have a choice.<br /><br />So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?<br /><br />You won't answer. <br /><br />You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind. <br /><br />Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.<br /><br />...And I will once again respond:<br /><br />One more time, <br /><br />What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-22853393413493723672013-12-31T09:30:35.374-05:002013-12-31T09:30:35.374-05:00Free0352: "...don't think the Pentagon wa...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>...don't think the Pentagon was attacked by the tooth fairy. We think Al'Qaeda did it. Along with all the other smart people.</i>"<br /><br />I personally don't think the tooth fairy attacked the Pentagon (nor did Yard Nomes, and nor did magical elves). But one thing I'm certain about is this: It <i>wasn't hit</i> by a Boeing 757. There's no proof that it was. There are no pictures -- at least there are none that have been made available to the public -- that would indicate this. Of course any proper investigation would have revealed exactly what happened. In all civil aviation crashes, the NTSB is the independent investigative agency charged with investigating and reporting the results. Except in this case.<br /><br />A recovery effort and investigation, commensurate with the scale of the disaster, would have <i>always</i> gathered and cataloged the aircraft remains with great care. This was apparently not done for the doomed "aircraft", just as it was not done for the collapsed building (or the aircraft parts and building parts that remained from the Twin Towers). The order of the day was to remove and recycle the evidence, not preserve and study it.<br /><br />It's due to this lack of evidence control and due diligence, which <i>always</i> takes place after a large aviation accident or crash -- but was not practiced at <i>any</i> of the sites involved in 9/11 -- that I believe the biggest coverup in American history was perpetrated right under the noses of every American of good conscience. <br /><br />It was a travesty in every sense of the word. The rule of law, along with every proper investigative tool and methodology, was forsaken and denied in order to create an illusion of outside "terrorism". Unfortunately, it worked. But, it won't work for long. People are finally waking up.<br /><br /><br /><b>Free0352</b> to <b>Dave Dubya</b>: "<i>And there it is. Easier to call names and throw a temper tantrum than debate issues on the facts.</i>"<br /><br />Sounds more like the pot calling the kettle black. How many times have you attempted to insult me with your name-calling during the course of this thread (and others)?<br /><br />I've presented several facts, as has Dave, but you refuse to acknowledge them -- much less respond with a clear counter-argument. I've even invited you to ask me about anything, specifically, involving crashes at both sites, but instead you choose to call me a "kook" or some other demeaning remark. But that's okay, I don't care about that. What <i>I do care about</i> is your inability to present and prove the government's explanation is airtight and foolproof. This tells me that you know you can't. Once I challenge you, you hide behind Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow (and others), but you can't justify your own weak "facts". Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-75890511207167954832013-12-31T00:29:11.111-05:002013-12-31T00:29:11.111-05:00Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "...<i>Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?</i><br /><br />Got compliance with the 1991 Cease Fire? Got a whole shit ton of violations of that? Got US planes getting shot at over 4000 times?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />Which is why we went to war with Iraq. Nobody -not even Saddam- argued that he was in compliance. But like you care if American pilots are getting shot at. You already told us you can't even come up with a number of how many of them would have to die before you would let them fight back on the ground. But of course when you want to escalate force for your own safety in your jail that's different... Hypocrisy.<br /><br /><i> what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?</i><br /><br />It means "we" (Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Noam Chomsky, Barack Obama among many other notorious right wing mouthpieces) don't think the Pentagon was attacked by the tooth fairy. We think Al'Qaeda did it. Along with all the other smart people.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-15441118176588173292013-12-31T00:24:46.329-05:002013-12-31T00:24:46.329-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-76315464965753301452013-12-30T22:46:17.022-05:002013-12-30T22:46:17.022-05:00One more time,
What lies?
LOL!!!!!
Got "n...One more time, <br /><br />What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?<br /><br />-<br /><br />Well? Gonna keep running from the truth? Like you even have a choice.<br /><br />So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult of Bush/Cheney believers?<br /><br />You won't answer. <br /><br />You'll continue to pretend to miss the quoted reference to your leaders' words. Or you won't even pretend, simply react with distraction, evasion and deliberate misinterpretation, devoid of rational mind. <br /><br />Sooo...babble away with your gibberish and nonsense.<br /><br />...And I will once again respond:<br /><br />One more time, <br /><br />What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-42622148674808242182013-12-30T22:08:51.533-05:002013-12-30T22:08:51.533-05:00You lie. Abundantly and often. In fact you MUST li...<i>You lie. Abundantly and often. In fact you MUST lie to preserve your beliefs in your authoritarian leaders. You have no free will to think or speak for yourself.</i><br /><br />And there it is. Easier to call names and throw a temper tantrum than debate issues on the facts. Best to stick to conspiracy theories that cannot be questioned - and scream names when challenged. One would think... that if I <i>were really</i> speaking for these people you clearly hate so much - that you'd relish the chance to have a logical discussion on fact based differences. But no, instead you beclown yourself in front of your readership and among other things, suggest "someone" (perhaps santa claus) shot a missile into the Pentagon on the same day some Afghan-Saudi expats decided to crash jetliners into the WTC. And then you cry when I point out how ridiculous you sound. You claim the worn out clichet "Bush lied - kids died!" and yet post quotes that back up the total opposite! And then, when all that blows up in your face - you throw a hissy fit.<br /><br /><i>Free is here to wage war between his ideological beliefs and our facts</i><br /><br />When you start presenting some facts that might be true.<br /><br /><i>So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult?</i> <br /><br />You mean the cult I'm in with Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and Barack Obama? Some bubble I'm in. For the record, I don't question if water is wet and the sky is blue either.<br /><br /><i>All that matters to true believers in your cult</i><br /><br />Ah yes, my cult that I'm in with Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Noam Chompskey, and Barack Obama. Vs you and Alex Jones. If that's my cult, I'll take it. Over here in the cult of common sense - we might not always agree - but we can at least not sound like paranoid mental patients when we do.<br /><br />"I just read from my own source that Dick Chaney, Condi Rice, and GWB said Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The Bush Admin implied Iraq was behind 9-11."<br /><br />Doublethink. Again....free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-14911230515848383132013-12-30T22:01:17.716-05:002013-12-30T22:01:17.716-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-4598669923754027622013-12-30T21:56:39.763-05:002013-12-30T21:56:39.763-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-31338225839933464922013-12-30T21:05:21.253-05:002013-12-30T21:05:21.253-05:00What lies?
LOL!!!!!
Got "nukular" alum...What lies?<br /><br />LOL!!!!!<br /><br />Got "nukular" aluminum tubes. Got "biological labs"? Got connections to al-Qaeda?<br /><br />Looks like it's time to be blunt. <br /><br />You are a liar. Plain and simple. <br /><br />You lie. Abundantly and often. In fact you MUST lie to preserve your beliefs in your authoritarian leaders. You have no free will to think or speak for yourself.<br /><br />Besides that you're "free".<br /><br />“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush<br /><br />Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength War is peace.<br /><br />"America is safer". GW Bush<br /><br /><i>"People don't need your help telling them what safe is. You're saying people are too stupid to do that without big brother's help."</i> - Free the hypocrite. <br /><br />Thanks for validating my statements:<br /><br />"Free is here to wage war between his ideological beliefs and our facts". Proven true by Free's words.<br /><br />"On the far Right, beliefs trump facts". Proven true by Free's words.<br /><br />What a cult of unthinking, obedient, true believer zombies. <br /><br />Unbelievable.<br /><br />So what do "no doubt" and "no question" mean in your cult? <br /><br />For that matter what does "implied" mean in your cult?<br /><br />Doesn't matter, does it? All that matters to true believers in your cult is "liberals are destroying America", "Bush never lied", and the corporate media is magically "liberal media".<br /><br />Literally unbelievable.<br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-88940021336001954862013-12-30T17:35:16.453-05:002013-12-30T17:35:16.453-05:00What if” is not a reason to invade a country.
The...<i>What if” is not a reason to invade a country.</i><br /><br />The Authorization to use force in Iraq cited 12 main reasons - one of which was the Iraqi Liberation Act (signed into law by a Democrat President). If you want to talk about those 12 reasons in totality instead of IMPLYING there was only one, be my guest Dave.<br /><br />In your own quotes, Dick never says Iraq was responsible for 9-11. He never said it, once. All you can do is IMPLY he's lying. The only one guilty of implication here - is you Dave.<br /><br />As Condi said in your own quote -<br /><br /><i><b>No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11,</b></i><br /><br />And they never did... at any point. Even years later - again by your own quote.<br /><br /><i>An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion <b>has found no evidence</b> that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.”</i><br /><br />The message of the Bush admin for eight years was very consistent. It basically said "Yes of course we're looking into the possibility - Hussein is a bad guy so of course he's suspect - but we see no evidence so far he was responsible for 9-11."<br /><br />And then in 2008 they basically said "Yup, we were right all along, Iraq had no ties to 9-11"<br /><br />Your own quotes lay that out.<br /><br /><i>Just lies.</i><br /><br />What lies? The war was predicated on Saddam Hussein not living up to the cease fire agreement he signed in 1991. And even HE admitted he didn't. <br /><br />But of course, its easier to claim <i>lies</i> instead of arguing the war on its factual merits. We can of course have a conversation about it being a good idea or a bad one - if only you'd drop your conspiracy theories about 9-11 and the Bush Administration and start talking about facts instead of making up your own personal thriller novel. "It was based on lies" when there are no lies, is a non-starter. Is that by design? Are you so horrible at examining the Congressional Authorization or the Iraqi Liberation Act (all signed by bipartisan majorities) that you have to revert to Alex Jones tactics?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-50593443844606187182013-12-30T12:45:16.001-05:002013-12-30T12:45:16.001-05:00"Nothing implied", again?
In January, C..."Nothing implied", again?<br /><br />In January, Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."<br /><br />In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."<br /><br />Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.<br /><br />"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on Sept. 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clearer, and we're learning more," Rice said.<br /><br />Yes, “we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue”, and “no evidence”...yet...but a “story that is unfolding”.<br /><br />“No question” and “no doubt”, they said, right? <br /><br />But still nothing implied?<br /><br />Finally by 2008:<br /><br />Exhaustive review finds <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/10/29959/exhaustive-review-finds-no-link.html" rel="nofollow">no link</a> between Saddam and al Qaida<br /><br />“ An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.”<br /><br />No link to al-Qaeda, No “Biological labs”, no nukular aluminum tubes. <br /><br />Just lies. Treasonous lies that killed thousands of Americans and will have added a trillion to our debt. <br /><br />THAT is the REAL conspiracy to investigate.<br /><br />But never mind. You are a true believer. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-56018631174997970902013-12-30T12:43:25.029-05:002013-12-30T12:43:25.029-05:00"The danger," said President George W. B...<br />"The danger," said President George W. Bush on Sept. 25, 2002, "is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."<br /><br /><i>Notice he didn't say it happened, he said it would be dangerous. And it would be. </i><br /><br />Notice what he DID say. It was fear mongering to get his war. “Danger, danger”. Remember when you said we don’t need anyone to tell us what safety is? But it’s fine for them to fabricate a danger to “keep us safe” from, right?<br /><br />This is real hypocrisy from you. <br /><br />“What if” is not a reason to invade a country. <br /><br />What if a race of highly intelligent, evil, giant mutant rodents were to attack us???? Sounds like that would be very dangerous. Better invade Iraq.<br /><br />Want more? <br /><br />Sunday, Dec. 9, 2001:<br /><i>RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?<br /><br />CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.<br /><br />Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.</i><br /><br />Nothing implied? <br /><br />Did he answer, “No”? <br /><br />No, he didn’t. Why? Because that would have been telling the truth. Truth is the first casualty of war. <br /><br />By the time Bush got his war most Americans believed Iraq and al-Qaeda were allies and Iraq was involved in 9-11.<br /><br />Why would they think such a thing?<br /><br />In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.<br /><br />"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.<br /><br />In other words, just what they wanted us to believe. Propaganda catapulted, mission accomplished. <br /><br />Mr. Bush defended his No. 2.<br /><br />"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11," he said. "What the vice president said was is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."<br /><br />"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," Bush said in 2004.<br /><br />“You can’t distinguish between Saddam and al Qaeda when you talk about the war on terror.” Bush added, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.” And later, that “Saddam is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.”<br /><br />Nothing implied?<br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.com