• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Did anyone see this on the news?

scottyz said:
omigod!!!! britney spears is like my total fav who is tomas jefforson?

TJ was the lesser known guy from the early days of N'Sync, fighting with Brit over Justin's love .... juice
 
Cremaster77 said:
So what in your opinion is the difference between being grossly mismanaged and just not going as planned? Does thinking that we would be greated as heros qualify as mismangement or just not going as planned? How about quoting an insurgency in it's last throes almost a year ago? How about thinking Iraqi oil would be paying for the war within 2 years? I'm curious, where do you draw the line?

Also, try reading the article last year from that liberal-rag, the New England Journal of Medicine where they analyze the number of deaths PLUS wounded and find that the reason for only 3,000 deaths this time around is due to improved medical care and body armor. The total number of casualties is on the same pace as Vietnam.

By the way, as a military man, I'm surprised you think the US had "millions of deaths" in WW2, Korean, and Vietnam. I guess since those wars were started by Democratic presidents we should multiple the death count by a factor of 50. How do you write this stuff with a straight face?

Judging from your posts you probably don't believe the holocaust did not happen but for starters 6,000,000 died there so you do the math....:roll:

Oh and I know we had 58,000 dead in Nam, 6 of which were personal friends of mine..........Do you know what total of the 3 wars mean?
 
Navy Pride said:
Judging from your posts you probably don't believe the holocaust did not happen but for starters 6,000,000 died there so you do the math....:roll:

Oh and I know we had 58,000 dead in Nam, 6 of which were personal friends of mine..........Do you know what total of the 3 wars mean?

You compared 3,000 dead to millions. Well 3,000 dead in Iraq is American soldiers. So you clearly implied that millions of American soldiers died in those 3 wars. Read your own post.
 
Total US war Dead in

WWII 407,300
Korea 33,629
Vietnam 58,238
----
Total 499,167

Millions?

Unless NP tried to compare TOTAL allied and holocaust victim deaths, which is somewhat disingenous then, because it's comparing apples and oranges.

Because the 3000 figure could not included those allied to the US in Iraq, especially Iraqi and iraqi civlians. If it's for the larger war on terrorism, we've lost 3000 civilians on 9-11 and 2000+soldiers in Iraq, and that again does not including iraqi or civilian casualties or that of coalition forces, and again, remains apples and organges at 5,000+ dead.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
You tell me but I can tell you one thing unlike your hero "Slick Willie" who did nothing to stop terrorism and refused Bin Laden on a silver platter this president will not wait until Saddam got a Nuke and used it himself or gave it to another terroist organization to use it here and kill millions.....

Thank you President Bush.........
Clinton did nothing to stop terrorism? :rofl When was Bin Laden offered to Clinton on a silver platter?

Do you have irrefutable proof Saddam was in the process of aquiring a nuclear weapon when we invaded? Why didn't Bush Sr. take Baghdad and overthrow Saddam? Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world, more weapons and more money so surely he was a greater threat.
 
scottyz said:
Clinton did nothing to stop terrorism? :rofl When was Bin Laden offered to Clinton on a silver platter?

Do you have irrefutable proof Saddam was in the process of aquiring a nuclear weapon when we invaded? Why didn't Bush Sr. take Baghdad and overthrow Saddam? Saddam had the 4th largest military in the world, more weapons and more money so surely he was a greater threat.

Everyone in the world knows this but you..Now listen I am tired of doing your work for you so start watching the news and reading the newspapers so you can see what is going on in the world scotty......

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
 
Navy Pride said:
Everyone in the world knows this but you..Now listen I am tired of doing your work for you so start watching the news and reading the newspapers so you can see what is going on in the world scotty......

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

Ijaz has never been able to provide any evidence to support that claim or any of his other claims, such as Saddam was directly connected to 9-11 and it's planning. But he does tell FNC veiwers what they want to hear. FNC rating probably go up everytime he's on.


One of Special Report’s favorite guests is Fox News analyst Mansoor Ijaz, an American investment manager of South Asian heritage. Neither a conservative nor a Republican, Ijaz plays a special role on Special Report. Leading all other guests with five appearances during the period studied—he’s appeared on Fox more than 100 times on other occasions—Ijaz regularly echoes Bush White House and neo-conservative claims about global threats, ignoring evidence while citing only shadowy, unnamed sources.

For instance, when anchor Brit Hume (11/10/03) asked Ijaz if there was “evidence of any consequence” linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Ijaz replied, “Absolutely.” But the remainder of Ijaz’s answer contained nothing even vaguely suggesting such evidence. The segment ended with Ijaz criticizing Democrats for questioning the White House’s case for war.

If Ijaz’s support for official policy is central to his current role on the show, it’s not what first made him a star on Special Report (and several other Fox shows). Ijaz came into heavy rotation as a Fox guest after charging in the Los Angeles Times (12/5/01) that President Bill Clinton blew a chance to capture Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. Ijaz claims to have brokered a deal in which Sudan would have produced Osama bin Laden in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on the African country—a deal Ijaz says Clinton failed to act on.

It was a questionable claim—in fact, the September 11 Commission later found no "reliable evidence" to support it (Hearing 8, 3/23/04)—and other news outlets noted that the Clinton administration flatly denied the allegations. Salon.com reported (8/16/02) that “the Clinton administration says there was no deal and that Ijaz never had a role in diplomatic discussions,” and quoted Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger calling Ijaz’s claims “ludicrous and irresponsible." Even Clinton critic Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror, saw fit to include a Clinton official's assessment of Ijaz as "a Walter Mitty living out a personal fantasy." But when Ijaz repeated his Clinton-let-Bin-Laden-get-away story on Special Report (11/6/03), Hume simply ended the segment, “Got you. Mansoor Ijaz, great to have you. Thanks very much.”


http://www.pakistan-facts.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20021121114844805
 
Pacridge said:
Ijaz has never been able to provide any evidence to support that claim or any of his other claims, such as Saddam was directly connected to 9-11 and it's planning. But he does tell FNC veiwers what they want to hear. FNC rating probably go up everytime he's on.


One of Special Report’s favorite guests is Fox News analyst Mansoor Ijaz, an American investment manager of South Asian heritage. Neither a conservative nor a Republican, Ijaz plays a special role on Special Report. Leading all other guests with five appearances during the period studied—he’s appeared on Fox more than 100 times on other occasions—Ijaz regularly echoes Bush White House and neo-conservative claims about global threats, ignoring evidence while citing only shadowy, unnamed sources.

For instance, when anchor Brit Hume (11/10/03) asked Ijaz if there was “evidence of any consequence” linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Ijaz replied, “Absolutely.” But the remainder of Ijaz’s answer contained nothing even vaguely suggesting such evidence. The segment ended with Ijaz criticizing Democrats for questioning the White House’s case for war.

If Ijaz’s support for official policy is central to his current role on the show, it’s not what first made him a star on Special Report (and several other Fox shows). Ijaz came into heavy rotation as a Fox guest after charging in the Los Angeles Times (12/5/01) that President Bill Clinton blew a chance to capture Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. Ijaz claims to have brokered a deal in which Sudan would have produced Osama bin Laden in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on the African country—a deal Ijaz says Clinton failed to act on.

It was a questionable claim—in fact, the September 11 Commission later found no "reliable evidence" to support it (Hearing 8, 3/23/04)—and other news outlets noted that the Clinton administration flatly denied the allegations. Salon.com reported (8/16/02) that “the Clinton administration says there was no deal and that Ijaz never had a role in diplomatic discussions,” and quoted Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger calling Ijaz’s claims “ludicrous and irresponsible." Even Clinton critic Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror, saw fit to include a Clinton official's assessment of Ijaz as "a Walter Mitty living out a personal fantasy." But when Ijaz repeated his Clinton-let-Bin-Laden-get-away story on Special Report (11/6/03), Hume simply ended the segment, “Got you. Mansoor Ijaz, great to have you. Thanks very much.”


http://www.pakistan-facts.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20021121114844805

When I did a google search I picked the first one...there are many more..maybe you can poo poo all of them too.......
 
Navy Pride said:
When I did a google search I picked the first one...there are many more..maybe you can poo poo all of them too.......

You found several people, other than Ijaz, who claim to have offered OBL to Clinton? Do any of these people have any actual evidence? Or are they just like him?

Richard Clarke claims he told the Bush adminstartion to focus on OBL, at least he's got a PDB with Rices handwriting on to support his claim.
 
Navy Pride said:
Everyone in the world knows this but you..Now listen I am tired of doing your work for you so start watching the news and reading the newspapers so you can see what is going on in the world scotty......

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

A little search reveals that you've made this claim before and had it debunked.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=60259&postcount=3
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=60326&postcount=8
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=62284&postcount=37
 
Pacridge said:
You found several people, other than Ijaz, who claim to have offered OBL to Clinton? Do any of these people have any actual evidence? Or are they just like him?

Richard Clarke claims he told the Bush adminstartion to focus on OBL, at least he's got a PDB with Rices handwriting on to support his claim.

You know I could probably google on it and get 10 different stories of him being offered to Clinton but what is really the point? If I offered you 10 you would ask for 11 so repsectfully I will just pass........

The Guy in that story was a fan of Clinton and voted for him twice....
 
Navy Pride said:
You know I could probably google on it and get 10 different stories of him being offered to Clinton but what is really the point? If I offered you 10 you would ask for 11 so repsectfully I will just pass........

The Guy in that story was a fan of Clinton and voted for him twice....


I'll take that as a no.
 
Pacridge said:
I'll take that as a no.

Take it any way you like.......I provided a creditable link....If you want more just Google on "Clinton offered Bin Laden" and you will find plenty...............There is no way I am going to convince someone like you.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Take it any way you like.......I provided a creditable link....If you want more just Google on "Clinton offered Bin Laden" and you will find plenty...............There is no way I am going to convince someone like you.....


Well you're half right. You provided a link.

You're also wrong in that I couldn't be convinced that Clinton was offered OBL. I think it's possible he was. I just haven't seen any actual evidence, other then this guy claiming he did.

Using the threshold of proof you're using here I can prove GWB snorted several grams of coke off a hookers behind...in the oval office.
 
Pacridge said:
Well you're half right. You provided a link.

You're also wrong in that I couldn't be convinced that Clinton was offered OBL. I think it's possible he was. I just haven't seen any actual evidence, other then this guy claiming he did.

Using the threshold of proof you're using here I can prove GWB snorted several grams of coke off a hookers behind...in the oval office.

Nice smokescreen, I love it when you people on the left use that tact.......
 
Navy Pride said:
You know I could probably google on it and get 10 different stories of him being offered to Clinton but what is really the point? If I offered you 10 you would ask for 11 so repsectfully I will just pass........

The Guy in that story was a fan of Clinton and voted for him twice....

10 "stories" (you mean to say articles actually) about the same person, relaying the same events, is one story relayed 10 different times.

All that was being asked for is corroboration of the one particular claim, again, not the one claim or story be reiterated 10 different ways involving the same people.
 
Navy Pride said:
Nice smokescreen, I love it when you people on the left use that tact.......


I love it when people have one threshold of proof for those things they wish to believe and an entirely different one for those things they wish to ignore.
 
Back
Top Bottom