Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

How did they spin Iraq taking in weapons inspectors on an unfettered uninhibited tour of the country? Hiw did they spin sadam holding up his hands saying come look and see i have nothing to hide?


How much haliburton stock did it take for sadam to fake a confession that he would have persued nuclear weapons given the chance?

Wouldn't saying that he would have given the chance essentially do nothing to prove that he actually had them? Married or not, I would sleep with Emma Stone if given the chance.

 

JJ, you know I respect your opinions, even if I disagree with them, but this whole "Saddam's stock in Haliburton" argument is just weaksauce to the point of comedy.

It's not my argument.  It's your argument.  The argument that you and other member of the left have made is that DUE TO PROFIT MOTIVE members of the bush administration willfully allowed the planes to hit the towers on nine eleven to start their "PET" wars.  I am simply pointing out that this argument doesn't hold water because you would have to count on a dictator in a foreign country who has no financial or personal interest in said war to cooperate with the run up over an 18 month period that would culminate in his death by hanging!  

 

The argument is fundamentally absurd.  Furthermore, this obsession with Profit motive is a little bit silly.  The Bush family has been wealthy for a while, the Walker family has been part of the country's elite for longer than i can remember.  Bobby Jones played on the WALKER CUP team for crying out loud.  And contrary to popular belief, oil has been profitable for a long time.  If Bush's sole motivation was to drum up the price of oil, then why did he implement the policies that lead to increased exploration on private lands that has lead to one of the biggest long term depreciation cycles  in the history of the commodity?

 

If someone wants to disagree with the policy of invading Iraq then that's fine.  We can argue about long term stability and cost risk analysis all the day is long and there are some credible arguments to be made for pursuing a different strategy.  In the case of Afghanistan, the idea that they were a training ground and harbored terrorists connected with a plot of that magnitude constituted and act of war and couldn't go unanswered even if the plot was thwarted on 9/10.  

 

The idea that this was a conscious decision would be like someone saying that the slow response to Katrina was a weapon of Mass Destruction against black people or something.  oh wait, some far left crazies tried to make that argument too what am i thinking about?

Quote:It's not my argument.  It's your argument.  The argument that you and other member of the left have made is that DUE TO PROFIT MOTIVE members of the bush administration willfully allowed the planes to hit the towers on nine eleven to start their "PET" wars.  I am simply pointing out that this argument doesn't hold water because you would have to count on a dictator in a foreign country who has no financial or personal interest in said war to cooperate with the run up over an 18 month period that would culminate in his death by hanging!  

 

The argument is fundamentally absurd.  Furthermore, this obsession with Profit motive is a little bit silly.  The Bush family has been wealthy for a while, the Walker family has been part of the country's elite for longer than i can remember.  Bobby Jones played on the WALKER CUP team for crying out loud.  And contrary to popular belief, oil has been profitable for a long time.  If Bush's sole motivation was to drum up the price of oil, then why did he implement the policies that lead to increased exploration on private lands that has lead to one of the biggest long term depreciation cycles  in the history of the commodity?

 

If someone wants to disagree with the policy of invading Iraq then that's fine.  We can argue about long term stability and cost risk analysis all the day is long and there are some credible arguments to be made for pursuing a different strategy.  In the case of Afghanistan, the idea that they were a training ground and harbored terrorists connected with a plot of that magnitude constituted and act of war and couldn't go unanswered even if the plot was thwarted on 9/10.  

 

The idea that this was a conscious decision would be like someone saying that the slow response to Katrina was a weapon of Mass Destruction against black people or something.  oh wait, some far left crazies tried to make that argument too what am i thinking about?

Quote:

Kanye is just crazy, regardless of which direction he swings lol

 

It's clear to me that there are a lot of Bush apologists out there who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the evidence pointing to the likely circumstance that Bush and his administration knew well in advance of 9/11 that it was going to happen and deliberately did not act to prevent it. If Bush had been far left instead of far right, I can say with 100% confidence that the same information that is being dismissed by members of this forum now would be used as justification for calls to hang Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others as traitors and war criminals. Instead, they choose to target Hillary Clinton whose greatest crimes were poor judgment and political spin. Why? Because it's politically convenient for the right to whip their base into a frenzy over it.

 

If the generalized "you" want to continue sticking your heads in the sand and ignoring the reality that the federal government began systematically depriving us of our rights on September 12th, 2001, and that they continue to do so today with the thanks and respect of the "anything for security/Uncle Sam knows what's best" mentality exhibited by members of this very board, fine. If you choose not to recognize that the Bush administration wasted little time spinning the attack into wars and destabilization in the Middle East, including a war against Iraq that we have lost more convincingly than any war in American history--a war that has been extremely good for oil futures and defense contractors like, you know, Halliburton--and you would rather go on thinking that a man who was part of the group that orchestrated the greatest act of treason in American history is some kind of hero, fine. Just remember this conversation when the party line becomes a bread line right out of 1984, and the Bill of Rights goes from the foundation upon which this country is built to a document worth little more than a roll of toilet paper.

Quote:Kanye is just crazy, regardless of which direction he swings lol

 

It's clear to me that there are a lot of Bush apologists out there who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the evidence pointing to the likely circumstance that Bush and his administration knew well in advance of 9/11 that it was going to happen and deliberately did not act to prevent it. If Bush had been far left instead of far right, I can say with 100% confidence that the same information that is being dismissed by members of this forum now would be used as justification for calls to hang Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others as traitors and war criminals. Instead, they choose to target Hillary Clinton whose greatest crimes were poor judgment and political spin. Why? Because it's politically convenient for the right to whip their base into a frenzy over it.

 

If the generalized "you" want to continue sticking your heads in the sand and ignoring the reality that the federal government began systematically depriving us of our rights on September 12th, 2001, and that they continue to do so today with the thanks and respect of the "anything for security/Uncle Sam knows what's best" mentality exhibited by members of this very board, fine. If you choose not to recognize that the Bush administration wasted little time spinning the attack into wars and destabilization in the Middle East, including a war against Iraq that we have lost more convincingly than any war in American history--a war that has been extremely good for oil futures and defense contractors like, you know, Halliburton--and you would rather go on thinking that a man who was part of the group that orchestrated the greatest act of treason in American history is some kind of hero, fine. Just remember this conversation when the party line becomes a bread line right out of 1984, and the Bill of Rights goes from the foundation upon which this country is built to a document worth little more than a roll of toilet paper.

Quote:Bush had been told that there was an Al Qaeda plot to hijack American planes. The FBI also knew of students at a flight school they suspected of ties to Bin Laden (citing him by name), and recommended an immediate review of all flight schools nationwide to find out if anyone else was involved. Want more? FBI agents in Minnesota were aware of a Middle Eastern flight school student who was planning to crash a hijacked plane into the WTC.

 

So, to recap, the Bush administration was aware of an Al Qaeda plot to hijack airliners. They were also aware of a handful of Middle Eastern students in American flight schools with ties to Bin Laden, and another who was believed to be plotting to crash a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center. To any American with a shred of common sense, that's more than enough information to, at the very least, detain all of the flight school students under suspicion and bring their family, friends and acquaintances in for questioning. George W. Bush had all the information he needed to be aware of the 9/11 plot and prevent it from happening. For whatever reason, his administration willfully ignored that information and used the attacks as justification for starting multiple wars that have been great for the bank accounts of several senior Bush staffers, their families and the companies they sat on the board of.

If memory serves me correct the intel was there however the various agencies were not talking to each other.  Had all the pieces of the puzzle been provided  prior to the attacks then perhaps something could have been done.  In hindsight it is easy to say we had the information but did nothing but that is not full story.

Quote:Kanye is just crazy, regardless of which direction he swings lol

 

It's clear to me that there are a lot of Bush apologists out there who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the evidence pointing to the likely circumstance that Bush and his administration knew well in advance of 9/11 that it was going to happen and deliberately did not act to prevent it. If Bush had been far left instead of far right, I can say with 100% confidence that the same information that is being dismissed by members of this forum now would be used as justification for calls to hang Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others as traitors and war criminals. Instead, they choose to target Hillary Clinton whose greatest crimes were poor judgment and political spin. Why? Because it's politically convenient for the right to whip their base into a frenzy over it.

 

If the generalized "you" want to continue sticking your heads in the sand and ignoring the reality that the federal government began systematically depriving us of our rights on September 12th, 2001, and that they continue to do so today with the thanks and respect of the "anything for security/Uncle Sam knows what's best" mentality exhibited by members of this very board, fine. If you choose not to recognize that the Bush administration wasted little time spinning the attack into wars and destabilization in the Middle East, including a war against Iraq that we have lost more convincingly than any war in American history--a war that has been extremely good for oil futures and defense contractors like, you know, Halliburton--and you would rather go on thinking that a man who was part of the group that orchestrated the greatest act of treason in American history is some kind of hero, fine. Just remember this conversation when the party line becomes a bread line right out of 1984, and the Bill of Rights goes from the foundation upon which this country is built to a document worth little more than a roll of toilet paper.

 

Quote:If memory serves me correct the intel was there however the various agencies were not talking to each other.  Had all the pieces of the puzzle been provided  prior to the attacks then perhaps something could have been done.  In hindsight it is easy to say we had the information but did nothing but that is not full story.

 

Monday Morning Quarterbacks are always the best quarterbacks.

Quote:What does the w in george w bush stand for?

Tony Blair used to call him Wanker, so maybe thats it?

Quote:Kanye is just crazy, regardless of which direction he swings lol

 

It's clear to me that there are a lot of Bush apologists out there who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the evidence pointing to the likely circumstance that Bush and his administration knew well in advance of 9/11 that it was going to happen and deliberately did not act to prevent it. If Bush had been far left instead of far right, I can say with 100% confidence that the same information that is being dismissed by members of this forum now would be used as justification for calls to hang Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others as traitors and war criminals. Instead, they choose to target Hillary Clinton whose greatest crimes were poor judgment and political spin. Why? Because it's politically convenient for the right to whip their base into a frenzy over it.

 

If the generalized "you" want to continue sticking your heads in the sand and ignoring the reality that the federal government began systematically depriving us of our rights on September 12th, 2001, and that they continue to do so today with the thanks and respect of the "anything for security/Uncle Sam knows what's best" mentality exhibited by members of this very board, fine. If you choose not to recognize that the Bush administration wasted little time spinning the attack into wars and destabilization in the Middle East, including a war against Iraq that we have lost more convincingly than any war in American history--a war that has been extremely good for oil futures and defense contractors like, you know, Halliburton--and you would rather go on thinking that a man who was part of the group that orchestrated the greatest act of treason in American history is some kind of hero, fine. Just remember this conversation when the party line becomes a bread line right out of 1984, and the Bill of Rights goes from the foundation upon which this country is built to a document worth little more than a roll of toilet paper.

 

Lol...  you mad bro.  "I can tell with 100% confidence that if this person was far left!"  That's rediculous.  1.) You're not a mind reader.  2.) We have patiently chronicled the difference in specificity between the pre 9-11 data and the pre-benghazi lintel.  In the one case even the links that YOU YOURSELF POSTED outline the fact that while there was significant chatter in 01 that the specifics of the attack had not been outlined.  In the case of HRC there was an online post detailing a desire for an attack against a specific target, 600 separate requests for greater security, a direct cable intended for the Secretary of state that were all DELIBERATELY IGNORED for political gain and COVERED UP.  3.)We have DIRECT EVIDENCE of the cover up.  There are E-mail of Hillary Clinton admitting that the video story was bogus.  Not to mention the fact that it happened in a forward theater of operation under a regime change that she herself championed.  Any attempts to compare or equate the two instances are at best misguided and at worst outright lies.  

 

And you talk about oil futures but you negate to mention the fact that the Bush administration pioneered the very policies that triggered a major depreciation cycle in said oil futures markets.  You still haven't explained how its burying my head in the sand to ask the basic question of "Who paid sadam to sacrafice his life and the life of his family for the bottom line of a defense contractor."  If you can't answer that then how are we ever going to get to a point where you can confront the fact that Haliburton wasn't a new government contractor.  Beyond that it might be weeks before we can talk about the fact that the only real executive intervention in their benefit came when Bill Clinton awarded them a bid that they should have lost.  

 

Don't worry TJ.  This really isn't your fault.  Thanks to the mainstream media, we have created an environment that doesn't really require people to do real in depth analysis when criticizing a republican administration.  All you have to do is spout off the words BLOOD FOR OIL, HALIBURTON, BUSH LIED etc. and automatically most people clap for the heavens.  Unfortunately that puts you at a great disadvantage when you have to defend your baseless accusations against people who are actually paying attention.  Its a shame that you have to resort to name calling "Bush apologist, burying out heads in the sand," etc.  Just know that when you get done you're still going to have to provide a factual basis for accusing an administration of felony homicide.  

 

I know its not that fun when your outlandish prejudices are met with the cold truth of reality.  But don't worry.  This is where the healing begins.

I find it quite interesting that a thread based on the Benghazi situation/aftermath suddenly turns into a "Bush's fault" thread.  It's actually a classic liberal tactic that seems to work.  When losing an argument, spin the subject matter and deflect from the topic at hand.

 

This came out a couple of days ago, but didn't get much attention.

But she lied so well

Quote:I find it quite interesting that a thread based on the Benghazi situation/aftermath suddenly turns into a "Bush's fault" thread.  It's actually a classic liberal tactic that seems to work.  When losing an argument, spin the subject matter and deflect from the topic at hand.

 

This came out a couple of days ago, but didn't get much attention.

I don't particularly care about Benghazi one way or the other at this point. Hillary's a snake regardless of her role in it, and she has no business being President. I'm just overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of Republicans who want to burn her at the stake for it while celebrating Bush as some kind of hero for his actions following a disaster he came within inches of engineering.

Quote:I don't particularly care about Benghazi one way or the other at this point. Hillary's a snake regardless of her role in it, and she has no business being President. I'm just overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of Republicans who want to burn her at the stake for it while celebrating Bush as some kind of hero for his actions following a disaster he came within inches of engineering.

Trying to understand what you perceive as a hypocritical witch hunt? Typical liberal deflection.

Quote:I don't particularly care about Benghazi one way or the other at this point. Hillary's a snake regardless of her role in it, and she has no business being President. I'm just overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of Republicans who want to burn her at the stake for it while celebrating Bush as some kind of hero for his actions following a disaster he came within inches of engineering.

 

You should.  That area of the world has become a very dangerous place, and the fact that so many "refugees" are spreading into Europe as well as into our own country is very troubling.  What is also disturbing is how our President is addressing the situation, but that's a whole other topic.

 

You can try to continue to deflect from the topic all you want, but the situation had almost nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11/01 or the response of the former administration, other than the fact that the former administration acted on the intelligence that they had at the time.

 

Regarding the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, there were certainly warning signs, messages asking for higher security, etc. directed specifically to the State Department.  There was no doubt that it wasn't a matter of "if" something was going to happen, it was a matter of "when".  It happened on 9/11/12.  Coincidence?

 

Of course, the media can't report on the incompetence of a Secretary of State running in an election for President.  The media runs with the same playbook and downplays everything, and what is worse is that the general public buys it.  How much of the public really believes that this attack was the result of a video posted on Youtube?  My guess is sadly, many do because of the low information voter.

 

The real battle within the region is complicated, but it boils down to the people in the region want to be more "westernized" or more "European" while some of the leaders want strict Islamic (Sharia) law everywhere.

Quote:You should. That area of the world has become a very dangerous place, and the fact that so many "refugees" are spreading into Europe as well as into our own country is very troubling. What is also disturbing is how our President is addressing the situation, but that's a whole other topic.


You can try to continue to deflect from the topic all you want, but the situation had almost nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11/01 or the response of the former administration, other than the fact that the former administration acted on the intelligence that they had at the time.


Regarding the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, there were certainly warning signs, messages asking for higher security, etc. directed specifically to the State Department. There was no doubt that it wasn't a matter of "if" something was going to happen, it was a matter of "when". It happened on 9/11/12. Coincidence?


Of course, the media can't report on the incompetence of a Secretary of State running in an election for President. The media runs with the same playbook and downplays everything, and what is worse is that the general public buys it. How much of the public really believes that this attack was the result of a video posted on Youtube? My guess is sadly, many do because of the low information voter.


The real battle within the region is complicated, but it boils down to the people in the region want to be more "westernized" or more "European" while some of the leaders want strict Islamic (Sharia) law everywhere.

I know you have to back up the right because you are just as biased as you claim the media and other people are but you're not dumb. Why pretend you don't understand the similarities in the situation coming from the question he's riasing?


Claiming two situations as different when they are so very similar based purely on the side of the person involved with each and trying to say itsnt about that is the oldest play in the book. Don't be that guy. You are better than that I think.

Quote:I know you have to back up the right because you are just as biased as you claim the media and other people are but you're not dumb. Why pretend you don't understand the similarities in the situation coming from the question he's riasing?


Claiming two situations as different when they are so very similar based purely on the side of the person involved with each and trying to say itsnt about that is the oldest play in the book. Don't be that guy. You are better than that I think.

 

Yeh, using objective fact is so biased and wrong!  Who does that?

Is what happened in Benghazi important or not?  That's the original question. 

 

I think almost everyone would agree that what happened is important.   How important?   That is the bone of contention.   The problem is, the Republicans have destroyed their own credibility with their over-the-top demonization of Democrats, liberals, Obama, the media, and everyone else who disagrees with them or publishes facts they don't like.   So they can shout from the hilltops about how important Benghazi was, but there is a very large segment of the population who has tuned them out.   

 

The deny evolution, they have claimed the President is a Muslim, or not a citizen, or that he is a Marxist, or out to destroy the country on purpose, they send out viral emails with ridiculous claims all the time, and on and on and on.   They had an 11-hour interrogation of Hillary Clinton which everyone on both sides of the aisle says was a complete fiasco, so now, when some of them say, wait! wait! we have more new evidence, a majority of people say, just shut up.   Can we talk about what we're going to do about Social Security or Medicare or something else that is important, and stop trying to demonize the people on the other side of the argument?  

 

I don't think we'll ever arrive at a conclusion on Benghazi, what happened, why it happened, because no one has any credibility any more.  It's all totally partisan.  

Quote:Is what happened in Benghazi important or not?  That's the original question. 

 

I think almost everyone would agree that what happened is important.   How important?   That is the bone of contention.   The problem is, the Republicans have destroyed their own credibility with their over-the-top demonization of Democrats, liberals, Obama, the media, and everyone else who disagrees with them or publishes facts they don't like.   So they can shout from the hilltops about how important Benghazi was, but there is a very large segment of the population who has tuned them out.   

 

The deny evolution, they have claimed the President is a Muslim, or not a citizen, or that he is a Marxist, or out to destroy the country on purpose, they send out viral emails with ridiculous claims all the time, and on and on and on.   They had an 11-hour interrogation of Hillary Clinton which everyone on both sides of the aisle says was a complete fiasco, so now, when some of them say, wait! wait! we have more new evidence, a majority of people say, just shut up.   Can we talk about what we're going to do about Social Security or Medicare or something else that is important, and stop trying to demonize the people on the other side of the argument?  

 

I don't think we'll ever arrive at a conclusion on Benghazi, what happened, why it happened, because no one has any credibility any more.  It's all totally partisan.  

 

Here's your credibility, proof, and reason why someone should be going to jail.

 



 

But hey,