Obama's Speech August 31, 2010

[Jetboogieman]

That's the best you can do?
No rebuttal? It's OK, I understand why... it's difficult typing from under a rock.

.

What Rebuttal.

You've just sat there calling half your country traitors... using nothing more then your own warped logic and opinions.

 

[Boo Radley]

WARNING: TRUTH ALERT!!!
Bush Lied, People Died Dems reading this must have telephone at the ready to dial 911 in case serious health problems emerge from reading what follows.
Note: The UN Inspecteurs de la UN were kicked out less than 1-year later.



CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
January 28, 2004 Wednesday
COMMITTEE: SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE


Now on to the Dems selective memory:

Harm Bush was doing? Seems Obama said it was a success.
To think you actually believe the Left didn't turn on Bush is hilarious... absolutely one of the biggest larfs on this site. Check their votes for the war, then check their projectile vomit rhetoric, supported by the equally vile Journolists.

More revealing poison: Their lives were not wasted. They did not die in vain. Their mission was not reckless. What was reckless was the Dems and their leadership scoring huge headlines for folks like al Jazeera. None worse than a Democrat declaring "the war is lost" while our troops are on the battle field. Calling them Nazi's... air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians... all from the lips of Dem's treasonous leaders.

With your logic, pre-911 we should have left bin Laden alone. Taking him out (Clinton had the opportunity and balked) would have saved 3000 lives and all the destruction in NYC, DC and the plane that went down in PA. But we need more evidence to take care of business... even though Saddam lost Gulf War 1 and agreed to disarm.

Yes, you have to care... and Bush did... but the bigger picture is we had a guy that lost Gulf War 1, was supposed to disarm and hadn't after 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. Post 911... Bush gave Saddam a chance. Now we have a democracy established, where Dems claimed it couldn't happen. Just go back and listen to the crap out of Biden's mouth alone. Wrong and disgusting... the entire lot of you SAPs.


ROTFLMFAO... played stupid? You folks and your leadership acted in a treasonous manner and now want to be forgiven. Your side voted on this TWICE... and asked for the second vote... so... Screw you. Your record is clear... just as it was in Vietnam... but this time your aiding and abetting the enemy didn't work.

There was ONE democrat who went against the perverted mania of your party, and look what happened to Lieberman? Look at what Dems tried to do to him. Why? Because he was the lone wolf supporting the mission fully.

It's not as if Americans couldn't vote on it either. They did in 2004, and Bush's stay the course won... vs. Dr. Flip Flop.

A lot of speculation... ROTFLOL.

Who else did he use WMD against... ROTFLOL... like we need further proof he would use them... or perhaps hand them off to terrorists. He only tried to assassinate a former president; I guess that was a love note to America?

Have you forgotten Saddam invaded a neighbor, lost Gulf War 1 and was supposed to disarm? Not in 12-years, not play hide-and-seek... as noted by Hans Blix. Also noted by Blix was his belief the programs would be reconstituted. Not anymore they're not.


Your critical thinking is awash in poison.
There is nothing critical about it. You cannot face facts:

1. Dems voted for the war, asking for a second vote of support and getting it. These votes were for political expediency.
2. Foreign governments agreed he had WMD.
3. Blix believed he had WMD.
4. Congress for years warned about Saddam, with POTUS Clinton and VP Gore claiming he was a threat and threatening action (war).
5. The Dems turned on the troops and the mission for political expediency.
6. Democracy has taken hold in Iraq, a nuke blackmarket stopped, and terrorist influence in the country reduced.
7. Dems now seek to rewrite their treasonous past.



Didn't ask us to intervene? Unbelievable... LOL... yeah, I guess not... 100% of the folks voted for Saddam in his last "election". We intervened during Gulf War 1, and from there the job of disarmament was not finished after 12-years and 16 UN resolutions. You see, there is a history and reason we were there.

Do you recall George Tenet claiming the WMD case was a "Slam Dunk"? Of course not... Bush should ignore the reams of evidence that Saddam's closed, brutal society had WMD... especially post 911, and post 911 ANTHRAX attacks on the Capitol.

Blix stated the case; weaponized VX and ANTHRAX... playing hide-and-seek. David Kay adds to Blix's case:



.

Still misrepresenting the quotes I see. The Clinton quotes are before Cohen declare the threat over. Keep that in mind, he declared the threat over. Others were made in opposition to the war. So, check out snopes and get context and quite pretending such misrepresentations make every equal to the decider, the one who decided to invade.

 

[Objective Voice]

Zimmer,

Congratulations! You have successfully hijacked this thread turning it from the overall tenor of the President's speech into a rehash of history concerning the merits for going to War w/Iraq.

I'll make my final statement on the matter and then I'm done.

Again, all you've provided are speculations whether from the Clinton administration or the GW Bush administration. Neither side had the absolute "proof" they needed to justify going to war with Iraq.

Yes, I am very much aware of why GH Bush toppled Saddam's Army during the Gulf War - a lessor militerized nation asked for his help directly to oust Saddam out of his country. I was on active duty at the time. But that was different!

Now, we all knew Saddam had chemical weapons, but they weren't the big threat GW Bush used to justify going to war. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the obvious - THERE WERE NOT WMDs...i.e., NUKES! But even if all U.S./U.N. forces were suppose to find were stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, even they didn't exist to the numbers this country - THE WORLD - was led to believe from the speech/presentation former SecofState Powell gave to the U.N.

Dirty bombs...a "relationship" btwn Saddam and a known 9/11 hijackers (1 meeting that proved to be FALSE!)..."depleted" yellow cake, no weaponized chemical or biological weapons...

Nothing that we were told to "prepare for war against" involving Iraq has proven to be accurate other than there did appear to be remnants of chemical and biological weapons production/munitions left behind, but NOTHING substantial even to go to war over. NOTHING!!!!

My position stands where justification for going to war w/Iraq is concerned. That doesn't mean I didn't support our troops once they were there. But it does mean that as a prior service Navy veteran, I want to know that my Commander-in-Chief is sending myself and my fellow comrades in arms into a fight over a just cause, not trumped up charges over...?

To defend his father's honor...?

To suppliment his Administration's energy policy (i.e., Iraqi oil...?)

To feed his ego for world dominance (because that's exactly what Hitler and Stalin tried to do and they both failed)...?

None of it made sense, not even the idea of "nation building" or "regime change". It wasn't our job to do these things. That remained a U.N. problem for humanitarian reasons; it should never have been our country's place alone to stop genecide in a country that wasn't causing us problems directly.

Still, as I've said, it's over...done...finished. I just hope history proves me wrong because I'd hate to think all those American lives were lost for nothing.

 

[zimmer]

What Rebuttal.

You've just sat there calling half your country traitors... using nothing more then your own warped logic and opinions.

Yes, you're correct. I did frame them as traitors. They are.
Even worse, their leadership is as low and scummy as you can get. Sending troops to battle, and then crapping on them and their mission at every turn, and encouraging the idiocy.

And it isn't half. It's less than half, but a significant mass.

.

 

[zimmer]

Zimmer,
Again, all you've provided are speculations whether from the Clinton administration or the GW Bush administration. Neither side had the absolute "proof" they needed to justify going to war with Iraq.

Ahhhh... genius... in a closed society you never will know unless they cooperate. They didn't... and that with 12-years and 16 Resolutions.

Yes, I am very much aware of why GH Bush toppled Saddam's Army during the Gulf War - a lessor militerized nation asked for his help directly to oust Saddam out of his country. I was on active duty at the time. But that was different!

Yes, it is different. It is cleaning up a mess he agreed to do... and didn't. We're not talking used cars... we're talking about WMD. Sec. of Defense Cohen spelled it out quite clear.

Now, we all knew Saddam had chemical weapons, but they weren't the big threat GW Bush used to justify going to war.

You are insane.
I suppose if someone said people would fly planes into NYC you'd say... nah... never been done... impossible.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore the obvious - THERE WERE NOT WMDs...i.e., NUKES!

ROTFLOL... Nice try.
ANTHRAX and VX (of which Blixreported they had weaponized) are WMD.

But even if all U.S./U.N. forces were suppose to find were stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, even they didn't exist to the numbers this country - THE WORLD - was led to believe from the speech/presentation former SecofState Powell gave to the U.N.

The UN, German, French, Russians, Brits all believed he had WMD. Powell believed he had WMD, and he's no country bumpkin... he was only the Joint Chiefs General during GW1.

Nothing that we were told to "prepare for war against" involving Iraq has proven to be accurate other than there did appear to be remnants of chemical and biological weapons production/munitions left behind, but NOTHING substantial even to go to war over. NOTHING!!!

Years of reports going back to Clinton had folks believing he had WMD and would use them. Kay believed we might not have dodged the bullet. Clinton had Cohen make the public aware of the threat.

Saddam had 12-years to come clean... about 8 too many.

My position stands where justification for going to war w/Iraq is concerned. That doesn't mean I didn't support our troops once they were there. But it does mean that as a prior service Navy veteran, I want to know that my Commander-in-Chief is sending myself and my fellow comrades in arms into a fight over a just cause, not trumped up charges over...?

Trumped up charges... you accusing Clinton, Gore, Cohen, Kennedy, Daschle, Albright... as they made the case years before Bush did, and they made the claim when Saddam chucked the Inspecteurs out.

None of it made sense, not even the idea of "nation building" or "regime change". It wasn't our job to do these things. That remained a U.N. problem for humanitarian reasons; it should never have been our country's place alone to stop genecide in a country that wasn't causing us problems directly.

We defeated Iraq, and we were to see to that he disarmed because it was in our interests. The UN failed to get the job done, and Clinton failed to help them get the job done.

His wife made the case for war to no other than Code Pink.
The start of the vid is gut splitting funny.
She starts flapping her gums at the 7:00 min mark.

Still, as I've said, it's over...done...finished.

As long as there are folks like you... it's never over... because we can't let your rewrite of history stand.

I just hope history proves me wrong because I'd hate to think all those American lives were lost for nothing.

They weren't. That a government stands in Iraq, that people can vote, don't have to fear rape rooms or speaking ill of the despot, that they are at peace with their neighbors, and that we have the seed of democracy planted in the ME... is huge. And we don't have to deal with that trouble maker again. It could have been so easy... all HE had to do was live up to his end of the deal and disarm.

He didn't, and Bush 43 didn't flinch.

.

 

[zimmer]

Jet:

One more thing:

Patriotic Americans weren't on the side of Sheehan, Code Pink, calling our troops Nazi's, war criminals, Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians, revelling in the death toll daily, claiming the "war is lost", singing in chorus "the surge is failing", or taking out full page ads calling our great general BETRAYUS.

No, that was the traitors.

.

.

 

[Mustachio]

Jet:

One more thing:

Patriotic Americans weren't on the side of Sheehan, Code Pink, calling our troops Nazi's, war criminals, Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians, revelling in the death toll daily, claiming the "war is lost", singing in chorus "the surge is failing", or taking out full page ads calling our great general BETRAYUS.

No, that was the traitors.

You keep saying "terrorizing civilians." That wasn't the quote. The quote was "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." That doesn't sound "treasonous" to me but then again, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth.

You consider anybody who doesn't support the mission a traitor. I consider anybody who doesn't even stop to think about the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis inhuman. If your argument centers around what Democrats did and what Democrats said, you haven't actually said anything. And you've wasted a whole lot of time saying nothing.

 

[danarhea]

Aside from the speech largely sounding self-congratulating for he and his base, it was a mediocre speech that failed to give strategic credit to his predecessors and failed to deliver a message with how a War on Terrorism will continue to be unleashed.

Ah, yes.......

1) We invaded Iraq after cherrypicking intel that said Saddam was developing nukes.

2) We were told that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons.

3) We were told that Saddam was developing missiles that could hit the US.

4) We were told we would be greeted with flowers, and be seen as liberators.

5) We were told the war would last less than a month.

6) We sent too few troops to do the job, and it wasn't until years later that a troops surge was sent.

7) We abanoned the war against those who attacked us on 911.

8) We were told to go shopping.

9) We were told to watch what we say.

10) We were told that Saddam was working with al-Queda.

Yes, Obama should have given the credit for everything to the man who deserves ALL the credit for this disaster - George Bush.

 

[zimmer]

You keep saying "terrorizing civilians." That wasn't the quote. The quote was "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." That doesn't sound "treasonous" to me but then again, I'm not the one frothing at the mouth.

You consider anybody who doesn't support the mission a traitor. I consider anybody who doesn't even stop to think about the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis inhuman. If your argument centers around what Democrats did and what Democrats said, you haven't actually said anything. And you've wasted a whole lot of time saying nothing.

You're right, it is air raiding villages and killing civilians, not terrorizing.

"Enough troops"... and then Obi is against the Surge.

If you think it is frothing at the mouth bringing up what the left did... OK... because what they did shouldn't be forgotten.
Some here are coy, and play as if their side were a patriotic lot. No... they were vile political opportunists that sent troops to war and then turned on them.

I like to keep it in their faces so the vile amongst us will ponder what they had done.

It may be frothing, but beside inserting terrorizing instead of killing... is there something I misapplied to the traitors on the left?
Nope, there isn't.

As for inhuman... a million died (500,000 children) during sanctions and Maddie Albright of the Clinton Clan claimed it was worth the price. What price... what did they achieve? Zero.


.

 

[pbrauer]

Zimmer,

Please name one thing that Colin Powell said in his UN presentation about WMD that turned out to be true.

 

[Your Star]

Yeah let's pull the cover off and expose the crap underneath.

Support the troops but not the mission?
ROTFLOL... means you do not support the troops. You harm their mission, and thereby harm the troops. You embolden the enemy. That is not supporting the troops. Nothing remotely close. And it's not as if you folks were silent about this... you folks were rabid.

But "you can support the troops, without supporting the war"... that's Liberal "Logic" for ya.

In fact, you folks were hostile, and your leadership irresponsible at best, treasonous at worst. Your party is the favorite of al Jazeera... why?

Dems leaders claiming to the world:
"The surge isn't working". (This mantra was party wide)
"The war is lost".
"Nazi's".
"Air raiding villages and terrorizing civilians".

This about our own troops while they are fighting on the battle field!!!

"Bush lied, people died"...

Some support.

Now, go crawl back under your rocks; treasonous lot.

.

What the hell are you talking about? It's not that hard to support the troops without supporting the war. Everytime a soldier died, I grieved a little inside, just like every other American. I wanted, and prayed for all the troops to come home safely, and quickly. I had family over there. Ever think that wanting the troops to come home, is a better way of supporting them than wanting them to stay in a war zone?
And how the hell is not supporting the war, emboldening the enemies? That kind of logic is why no one here takes you seriously.
Also the treason stuff, is too funny. Since when was disagreeing with the government treasonous?

“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” -James Baldwin

 

[apdst]

I don't think there has been any American president that has delivered a bigger slap in the face to American servicemen, than our current president.

 

[Your Star]

I don't think there has been any American president that has delivered a bigger slap in the face to American servicemen, than our current president.

Why?

10 characters

 

[pbrauer]

I don't think there has been any American president that has delivered a bigger slap in the face to American servicemen, than our current president.

There are many American servicemen who are dead today or severely injured because of Obama's predecessor. That is fact.

 

[Moot]

OV:That's all we need to quote. Saddam had and used WMD, and from here I'll let Hans Blix blow your ass out of the water on your error fueled claim.....

[edit for length]

Blix reveals uncertainties, asks questions that should have been answered a decade earlier. It was 12-years and 16 UN Resolutions. How many does a despot get after losing a war and agreeing to disarm? 3 decades and 30 resolutions? Perhaps not enough for the Libs... I don't know... I'm asking.

Blix specifically mentioned: VX, weaponized VX, ANTHRAX, all unaccounted for according to Hans. Of course... Saddam would never, ever use WMD... nor would he pass it off to a terrorist, especially in the euphoria after 911. No... he'd never do that...

...Disney music... it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all, it's a small world after all... it's a small, small world...

.

Yes, it is a small world for small minds.....

"...Iraqis Truthful about VX - Later evidence and inspection findings show that the Iraqi scientists had been truthful: they had never succeeded in stabilizing VX, and had never filled any warheads with the nerve toxin. The lab results are later shown to be severely flawed. Ritter will write, “In the end, I was wrong to have pushed so hard to have the lab results made public.” [New Yorker, 6/7/2004; TruthDig, 3/17/2008]
Madeleine Albright

The above link is a very good account of what transpired during the Clinton administration leading up to 9/11. Ever since the first Gulf War the only thing the US was interested in was regime change in Iraq. The extreme sanctions on Iraq were meant to force Iraqis to do the regime change themselves but that was unlikely without outside support. Even the UN inspections were manipulated toward this goal of regime change and by 1998 Saddam realized this when he discovered CIA were posing as UN weapons inspectors.

So the harsher the sanctions became, the more resentment throughout the Arab world against the US became and terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s on US interests and embassies abroad increased substantially. The Clinton Administration simply called it "collateral damage" and any attempt by Arab nations to co-operate in capturing these terrorists were ignored and they became politically isolated. There were many chances before 9/11 to capture OBL but for some reason it was all ignored or prevented as the price of doing business in the ME.

Soon world opinion started to denounce the Iraq sanctions especially after Madelyn Albriet's statement that the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children were worth it to keep the sanctions in tact. There is evidence she may have even personally prevented the UN inspectors from delivering a final report that Iraq was clean of WMDs which would have lifted the sanctions in 1998.

Then due to pressure from a Neocon group called Project for the New American Century, Clinton illegally bombed a pharmaceutical company inside Iraq (Desert Fox) so he could falsely claim it was making WMDs. This was the justification the US used for not lifting sanctions. At this same time, the NeoCons were plotting to do regime change themselves but they knew they couldn't do it without someone to replace Saddam and thats where Chalabi and his IRC came in.

After Bush took office he ended the protocol for UN inspections in favor of aerial surveillance and heavy bombing operations by US and British air forces over the No Fly Zones which encompassed over 2/3 of Iraq. The NeoCons contrived entire justification for the war on Iraq, and I have no reason to believe they didn't know before hand about 9/11 and simply let it happen so they could it use it as the justification to invade Iraq. Which is exactly what they did.

 

[Boo Radley]

I don't think there has been any American president that has delivered a bigger slap in the face to American servicemen, than our current president.

Unless you call wasting their lives for nothing a slap in the face. If you think lives are of value, honored, then spending them needlessly is a slap in the face of all service men, so Bush would have delievered not only a bigger slap, but the worse possible slap.

 

[LizardofOz]

I like how the conservative media wants the Obama administration to give Bush credit for the surge and all this other ****. Why in the hell would they give them credit for something that just pissed off insurgence more and gave our troops more of a hassle? Why should we give Bush credit he didn't fight the war. Obama has done what he set out to do with Iraqi and is winding down the war in a good way and giving the Iraqis back their power after going through a **** storm the past 7 years. Now that they have a democratic government and the help of America and it's allies things should be getting better.

Obama's speech was fine. There wasn't anything really wrong with it. My only complaint is he tried to cover to many topics at once, when it should have been just specifically about the wars and the troops. I think he needs to start getting more aggressive on his stances on the economy and not just assume people know what he is talking about because obviously some people aren't getting the right message, they are getting the "right" message.

 

[Fiddytree]

Then due to pressure from a Neocon group called Project for the New American Century, Clinton illegally bombed a pharmaceutical company inside Iraq (Desert Fox) so he could falsely claim it was making WMDs. This was the justification the US used for not lifting sanctions. At this same time, the NeoCons were plotting to do regime change themselves but they knew they couldn't do it without someone to replace Saddam and thats where Chalabi and his IRC came in.

After Bush took office he ended the protocol for UN inspections in favor of aerial surveillance and heavy bombing operations by US and British air forces over the No Fly Zones which encompassed over 2/3 of Iraq. The NeoCons contrived entire justification for the war on Iraq, and I have no reason to believe they didn't know before hand about 9/11 and simply let it happen so they could it use it as the justification to invade Iraq. Which is exactly what they did.

A think-tank armed with a fax machine and less than a dozen employees did not dictate Clinton's foreign policy. Iraq was creating numerous problems for the administration and the administration was merely enforcing its containment policy.

You were saying something about small minds?

 

[LizardofOz]

On the topic of Saddam and Iraqi, I really think anyone here that already hasn't should watch the HBO mini-series House of Saddam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia it shows just what an evil man he really was but it also puts in perspective a lot of the relations USA and CIA had with the Saddam Regime throughout the years.

 

[Objective Voice]

JohWOlin,

I saw that HBO special some time ago and thought it very inlightening. We created Saddam and when he got too big for his britches, we took him out.

 

[Moot]

A think-tank armed with a fax machine and less than a dozen employees did not dictate Clinton's foreign policy. Iraq was creating numerous problems for the administration and the administration was merely enforcing its containment policy.

You were saying something about small minds?

It's pretty naive to think all it was, was a think tank armed with a fax machine and less than a dozen employees when those same employees became the heads of state and had control over the CIA and military and a media outlet to broadcast their propaganda 24/7.

But I totally agree Saddam was a problem, but he was a contained problem and the actions taken to deal with him were so exaggerated and costly that this country won't recover from it for decades to come.

 

[Fiddytree]

There is a difference between the media world and the policy world, as well as having people inside levels of government being able to actually dictate policy decisions. The vast majority of those who received the faxes and gave their names were not in control of the government during the Clinton administration. Furthermore, it is simply idiotic to believe that these small number of "neocons" (most of whom, again, were not in the Bush administration at the time, and even afterwards, and furthermore, a number of them were not even 'neocons') somehow "let" 9/11 happen.

Your argument would have only been slightly amplified had you pointed to the office space PNAC was renting from: The American Enterprise Institute.

 

[Moot]

There is a difference between the media world and the policy world, as well as having people inside levels of government being able to actually dictate policy decisions. The vast majority of those who received the faxes and gave their names were not in control of the government during the Clinton administration. Furthermore, it is simply idiotic to believe that these small number of "neocons" (most of whom, again, were not in the Bush administration at the time, and even afterwards, and furthermore, a number of them were not even 'neocons') somehow "let" 9/11 happen.

Your argument would have only been slightly amplified had you pointed to the office space PNAC was renting from: The American Enterprise Institute.

Well, there was one particular AEI member who stands out in my mind, Danielle Pletka. She was a senior staff member for Near East and South Asia with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1992 to 2002. She was also married to Stephen Rademaker, who was Bush's Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control.

The reason I remember her was because she was on TV quite forcefully pushing her agenda for war and saying that Saddam had WMDs and that was the first time I had ever heard of AEI. Obviously, she had lots of contacts in high places, such as James Woolsey head of the CIA who along with her were at that meeting with Chalabi and Ritter concocting their little plan for Iraq regime change.....

'My Friend Ahmed' - The small group is joined by Danielle Pletka, Rademaker’s wife and a staunchly conservative staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former CIA director James Woolsey. Over dinner, the group moves from discussing the military plans for overthrowing Hussein to a broader discussion of Chalabi’s political future. Woolsey, a vocal supporter of Chalabi, has no patience with the CIA’s objections to earlier actions by Chalabi and the INC (see January 1996). “This [criticism] is all bunk,” Woolsey says. “Chalabi is an Iraqi patriot and visionary who intimidates many lesser thinkers in Langley. My friend Ahmed is a risk taker who understands the reality of Iraq, unlike the desk-bound analysts and risk-averse operators at the CIA. Chalabi scares these people, so they have created false accusations in order to denigrate him and ultimately destroy him.” Pletka agrees: “We cannot allow this to happen. Ahmed Chalabi has many friends in Congress, and it is our goal to make sure Ahmed Chalabi gets the support he needs to not only survive as a viable opposition figure to Saddam Hussein but more importantly to prevail in Iraq.” Ritter is increasingly uncomfortable with what he will later call “a political strategy session.” It is clear, Ritter will write, “that Chalabi was being groomed for another run at power” (see March 1995).

Madeleine Albright

Danielle Pletka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AEI - Scholars - Danielle Pletka

Clearly, it was a lot more serious than "just a little fax machine and a few employees at a think tank."

Richard Perle, Michael LeDeen, Paul Wolfowitz, John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Lynn Cheney, Jean Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, David Frum, John Bolton, the list goes on and on of people connected with AEI and who had a hand in pushing for an illegal war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

IMO, they should all be tried for war crimes and treason, but hey, this is America and only the "small people" get charged with crime, right?

 

[jujuman13]

As for not making us safer... you really have to be kidding. You're not!:doh

Not safer? Seems you disagree with Obama. After all, he wouldn't be ending this if we weren't safe... would he?

I wonder why his party didn't vote against the war, the principle'd lot (ROTFLMAO), instead of voting for the war, and then turning on our troops when they needed their help most?

No, instead the Dems sought our defeat in Iraq, and the Journolists piled on. And for what? Political power... not national security... political power.

Talk about a sick lot.

Tell me, what did we do to deserve 911?
Tell me, do you recall Gulf War 1?
16 UN resolutions? Connect-the-dots?
Dems wanting and getting a second vote to go to war.
Hillary schooling Code Pink about what she knew from The Impeached One's years at the helm?

BTW, you forgot a couple Dem talking points for Zombies... Halliburton, Cheney, Neocon, Rumsfeld.

Perhaps next time.

.

Which impeached one are you jabbering on about?