Democrats force Senate into unusual closed session

[DLR'sCock]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/senate.iraq.ap/index.html




Democrats force Senate into unusual closed session
Majority leader decries move as a publicity stunt

Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Posted: 3:30 p.m. EST (20:30 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Pre-war intelligence at issue
Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy. (Full story)

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

A rare move
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons -- the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Warham]

Harry Reid is a cunt.

[FORD]

The fact that Senate Repukes put their party loyalties above the fact that TREASON was committed against the United States of America, speaks volumes about their agenda.

[Warham]

Liberals think that if you say treason enough, it'll actually stick despite the reality of it all.

[ELVIS]

I guess there's a little logic in thinking something will stick...:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Liberals think that if you say treason enough, it'll actually stick despite the reality of it all.

Since when is Poppy Bush a Liberal?


"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

[Hardrock69]

The reality of it all is that Bush and his cronies ARE guilty of Treason.

I would not expect Warham to understand that though.

When you arrive in DeoCon Fantasy Land, the first thing that happens is you are handed a pair of blinders and some earplugs, so you are not exposed to reality any longer.


Elvis does not count. His self appointed job is just to say "NO! THAT'S A LIE!" when confronted with something beyond his comprehension.

He grew up wanting to be like John Cleese in Monty Python's "Argument Clinic", where he cannot make a rational argument, he can only deny the facts, and make himself look like a fool in the process.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
The fact that Senate Repukes put their party loyalties above the fact that TREASON was committed against the United States of America, speaks volumes about their agenda.

Shall I whip out the pre-Bush era Democratic Party quotes on Iraq again? Hmm? :rolleyes:

:gulp:

[Warham]

Go ahead, BBB.

These libs here need a lesson as to what THEIR party said prior to the start of the war.

[Hardrock69]

What they SAID is irrelevant.

The Democrats are not in the White House, are they?

And any statements they made before the Iraq War have nothing to do with the genocide, corruption & treason committed by the BCE.

Therefore your posts are irrelevant.

[Warham]

No, they are not irrelevant.

You may begin, BBB, to show just who was lying prior to 2003.

[Rikk]

WARHAM, clean out your mailbox!:D

[Hardrock69]

Wow! That was my 5,000th post!!

Too bad I had to waste it speaking to people whose sole quest in life is to be allowed to give an eternal rim job to George W. Bush, the trained Chimp of Dickless Cheney....
:rolleyes:

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
No, they are not irrelevant.

You may begin, BBB, to show just who was lying prior to 2003.


Oh? Now you are claiming that the Democrats lied about WMDs?

You are claiming the Democrats lied about Saddamite Hussein attempting to purchase uranium?

Man...you guys will do anything to make up some nut-job Fairy Tales...

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Rikk
WARHAM, clean out your mailbox!:D

Will do pal. LOL

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Oh? Now you are claiming that the Democrats lied about WMDs?


Yep, that's what I'm claiming.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, that's what I'm claiming.

LOL... be careful about using the word "lied"... since you repeatedly deny that Bush did that.

I don't think anybody lied, for the record. Embellished the evidence? Certainly.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL... be careful about using the word "lied"... since you repeatedly deny that Bush did that.

I don't think anybody lied, for the record. Embellished the evidence? Certainly.

Oh, I agree.

If Bush lied, like they insist, I'm going to show that everyone has lied since at least 1998, on both sides of the aisle.

[FORD]

No, it was PNAC who lied about the WMD's in the late 1990's, in this (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) letter to the President, and this (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm) letter to the Republican congressional leadership, the PNAC traitors claimed the same Iraq threat that they would with the Chimp in the White House.

But the UN inspectors proved the PNAC assertions to be untrue, and that should have been the end of it.

[Warham]

Yes, but several other countries, including Britain, also thought Hussein had WMD capabilities. No BCE over there. They have their own intel agencies. Their agencies agreed with our agencies.

Letters from PNAC to Clinton are not enough for Clinton to make all those WMD quotes over the years, without hard evidence to back it up. Clinton's not that stupid.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Yes, but several other countries, including Britain, also thought Hussein had WMD capabilities. No BCE over there.

Nope. Just BP. And that's motivation enough for them.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Shall I whip out the pre-Bush era Democratic Party quotes on Iraq again? Hmm? :rolleyes:

:gulp:


heh heh. i had a retort all ready for this. (which i'm sure i've used before;)) but to counter the "lied" claim? yeah, i'll play along.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, that's what I'm claiming.

We did not invade Iraq while Clinton was in office.

So claiming Democrats lied in 1998 is irrelevant.

[Warham]

It's irrelevant that Bush invaded. What we are discussing is who lied about WMD's in Iraq before 2003, and who said we should remove Hussein from power before the actual invasion took place.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
It's irrelevant that Bush invaded. What we are discussing is who lied about WMD's in Iraq before 2003, and who said we should remove Hussein from power before the actual invasion took place.

IT IS TOTALLY RELEVANT THAT BUSH INVADED!!!!!!!!! AND WHY!!!!!!
You were first in line for the blinders and earplugs, weren't you? :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
IT IS TOTALLY RELEVANT THAT BUSH INVADED!!!!!!!!! AND WHY!!!!!!
You were first in line for the blinders and earplugs, weren't you? :rolleyes:

Not for the purpose of this discussion. Read the whole thread, or keep your yapper shut.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
Not for the purpose of this discussion. Read the whole thread, or keep your yapper shut.

I did, and it is relevant. It is the whole reason this discussion is happening at all. See, this is why you are so confused. You miss the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees, etc.

Yap, yap! :D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I did, and it is relevant. It is the whole reason this discussion is happening at all. See, this is why you are so confused. You miss the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees, etc.

Yap, yap! :D

Again, it's not relevant, because we are discussing who said what about WMD's before the invasion. BEFORE! I don't know how much clearer I can say it.

Like I said, keep it shut.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
Again, it's not relevant, because we are discussing who said what about WMD's before the invasion. BEFORE! I don't know how much clearer I can say it.

Like I said, keep it shut.

I thought this was about manipulation of information, not about who said what....

[DLR'sCock]

Senator Harry Reid's Statement


Tuesday 01 November 2005

Sen. Reid just took the senate into closed session to discuss the body's failure to pursue 'phase two' of the senate intel investigation into the Iraq WMD intel failure.

Below the fold are his remarks, as prepared for delivery, before taking the senate into closed session.

"This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years.

"This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.

"The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

"As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.

"And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.

"Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.

"The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.

"There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.

"The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.

"Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.

"The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization."

"The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.

"What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

"Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.

"Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.

"There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.

"For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.

"Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

"This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.

"The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.

"They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?

Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?

How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?

What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?

How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions?

Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?

"Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than one and a half years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.

"At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.

"We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests

[Keeyth]

Power to the (Democratic) People! :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Power to the (Democratic) People! :D

http://www.jpgr.co.uk/r5892_a.jpg

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by blueturk
I thought this was about manipulation of information, not about who said what....

It WAS about a closed session of Congress.

Warham has not taken his meds for several days....
:D

[Warham]

You still haven't proven any of your claims in the other thread.

Get to work, bucko.

[Keeyth]

I've figured it out. You just can't process the truth when it's presented to you. Simple as that.
Speaking of other threads, you still think there is no crank epidemic sweeping this country, even with police officers, drug experts, and the media all stating it. You just don't get it... ...bucko.

How's that working out for you? :D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I've figured it out. You just can't process the truth when it's presented to you. Simple as that.
Speaking of other threads, you still think there is no crank epidemic sweeping this country, even with police officers, drug experts, and the media all stating it. You just don't get it... ...bucko.

How's that working out for you? :D

And you get to work proving that incoherent 9/11 conspiracy you believe in.

[Matt White]

Current poll on AOL:

Are the Democrats right to demand a Senate investigation into the Iraq war?
Yes 70%
No 30%
How would you characterize Tuesday's closing of the Senate chamber to the public?
A necessary step 61%
A stunt 39%
Total Votes: 105,774


Those sneaky Devils!!!:D

[Hardrock69]

Warham rides the Noe-Con Fantasy-Land Short Bus also.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=748554

I have not made any "claims" Warham.

I have only stated facts. It is up to you to disprove the facts.

Come on.

I am waiting.

:rolleyes:


But then, not for very long. I am not going to wait around for several hundred years for you to try to prove your case.

:rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

Facts based on what ??

Crap you found on some conspiracy site ??

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Warham rides the Noe-Con Fantasy-Land Short Bus also.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=748554

I have not made any "claims" Warham.

I have only stated facts. It is up to you to disprove the facts.

Come on.

I am waiting.

:rolleyes:


But then, not for very long. I am not going to wait around for several hundred years for you to try to prove your case.

:rolleyes:

Yes, you have made claims, fool.

You said the government has the power to assassinate his own president, which is obviously a reference back to JFK.

I said prove it. I won't take ridiculous claims as fact without you backing it up.

Your word alone is worthless.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
Yes, you have made claims, fool.

You said the government has the power to assassinate his own president, which is obviously a reference back to JFK.

I said prove it. I won't take ridiculous claims as fact without you backing it up.

Your word alone is worthless.

If you read the Warren commision report, you KNOW there is no way Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. But that's the problem. Like most of America, you just don't read.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
If you read the Warren commision report, you KNOW there is no way Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. But that's the problem. Like most of America, you just don't read.

I've watched many documentaries on the assassination of JFK, and indeed, it has been proven without a doubt that Oswald could have, and did do, the job on his own.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Yes, you have made claims, fool.

You said the government has the power to assassinate his own president, which is obviously a reference back to JFK.

I said prove it. I won't take ridiculous claims as fact without you backing it up.

Your word alone is worthless.

It is not my word alone, FOOL.

[Keeyth]

You're nuts, Warham. Even just from the footage, you can see his head is blown backwards, as if being shot from the front, NOT the back, where Oswald was supposedly located.

READ THE OFFICIAL WARREN COMMISION REPORT. That PROVES Oswald did not, and could not have done it.

Don't just watch some stupid TV documentary. If you want to believe a documentary, go watch Farenheit 911. Or better yet, "The Truth and Lies of 911" by Mike Rupert. Why don't you believe those then???

It is much more likely the real assasin was hiding in a sewer drain from the angle and the direction of the shot, also providing a better escape route though the sewers...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I've watched many documentaries on the assassination of JFK, and indeed, it has been proven without a doubt that Oswald could have, and did do, the job on his own.

Oh
My
GOD
:rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by FORD
Oh
My
GOD
:rolleyes:

Really puts his opinions into perspective, doesn't it? :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Keeyth
You're nuts, Warham. Even just from the footage, you can see his head is blown backwards, as if being shot from the front, NOT the back, where Oswald was supposedly located.

READ THE OFFICIAL WARREN COMMISION REPORT. That PROVES Oswald did not, and could not have done it.

Don't just watch some stupid TV documentary. If you want to believe a documentary, go watch Farenheit 911. Or better yet, "The Truth and Lies of 911" by Mike Rupert. Why don't you believe those then???

It is much more likely the real assasin was hiding in a sewer drain from the angle and the direction of the shot, also providing a better escape route though the sewers...

It was from the grassy knoll, and the shooters were CIA agents E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, under the direction of George HW Poppy Bush Sr. Oswald was setup as the patsy beforehand, and Jack Ruby met with Bush, Hunt, Sturgis, and other CIA agents 2 days before the murder, so his role in the plot, killing Oswald (and thereby avoiding a trial) was also pre-meditated.

[Guitar Shark]

LOL! I figured the BCE must be behind it somehow... ;)

[Warham]

It always is, GS.

Did you know that the BCE was behind slavery in the South as well?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
READ THE OFFICIAL WARREN COMMISION REPORT. That PROVES Oswald did not, and could not have done it.


You are an idiot, Keeyth. You've obviously never read the Report or else you wouldn't have missed this paragraph in Chapter 4:

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the evidence reviewed in this chapter, the Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired (4) killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit in an apparent attempt to escape, (5) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and attempting to shoot another police officer, (6) lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters, (7) attempted, in April 1963, to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, and (8) possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy.

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Really puts his opinions into perspective, doesn't it? :D

Your idiocy has again come through.

By the way, when are you going to prove your 9/11 conspiracy?

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
I've watched many documentaries on the assassination of JFK, and indeed, it has been proven without a doubt that Oswald could have, and did do, the job on his own.


Oh, he did, did he?

Fucking sheep.

BAAAAA!!!

You yourself said the burden of proof is on the accuser.

It is up to you to prove that our government has no power. Why are you claiming this? Are you a Communist?

I find it funny that you should jump onto the JFK thing and ignore what I was talking about. I only mentioned JFK in passing.


Oooooooo.....
:eek:

And also because you cannot refute what I was referring to (the planning of Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, & Iraq decades in advance), so instead you try to divert attention to something else....in this case The JFK Head-Explosion in Dallas.

That is ok.

You always attempt to discredit the facts, but you cannot, just as Elvis tries and fails.

You need to give up and get back on the Short Bus.

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Your idiocy has again come through.


The pot calling the kettle blacK?


So if I were to sit down with official government stationary and write out a sentence stating that The Watergate Burglars were just a figment of someone's imagination you would automatically believe it?

Simply because the "Warren" Commision happened to write the above paragraph about Oswald does not mean shit.

Now you are also claiming now that the U.S. Government NEVER lies to The People of the United States.

By claiming that, you only serve to make yourself appear even MORE retarded.



:lol:

[Warham]

I'll get back to you when you present some FACTS, not your opinion.

You saying the government planned Desert Storm back in 1865 doesn't mean anything to me. I want proof.

I'll be going now. ;)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
The pot calling the kettle blacK?


No, but I'll call you an idiot too.

How's that?

[FORD]

FACT: John F. Kennedy's head moved back and to the left as the fatal shot blew off a piece of his skull. There is no way in HELL that shot came from behind. The law of physics says so. So does the Zapruder film.

[Keeyth]

Dude, if you take any paragraph out of context in that report, it all says Oswald did it. But if you read the ENTIRE report, you find that their conclusions, based upon the facts they cite, are totally impossible. Hence, the proof this is all a cover up. They state facts that add up to one thing, and then state their conclusion as being something totally different. Read it all.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Dude, if you take any paragraph out of context in that report, it all says Oswald did it. But if you read the ENTIRE report, you find that their conclusions, based upon the facts they cite, are totally impossible. Hence, the proof this is all a cover up. They state facts that add up to one thing, and then state their conclusion as being something totally different. Read it all.

lmao, you need help.

I'd be afraid if you were my counselor.

You are a counselor, correct?

If I take ANY paragraph out of the report, then it'll say Oswald did it. That means that EVERY paragraph says Oswald did it.

Are you thick or what?

[ELVIS]

So he says...:rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
lmao, you need help.

I'd be afraid if you were my counselor.

You are a counselor, correct?

If I take ANY paragraph out of the report, then it'll say Oswald did it. That means that EVERY paragraph says Oswald did it.

Are you thick or what?

Your ignorance is showing again. You didn't read the whole thing obviously, and now that you are being proven wrong, you're trying to change the subject again.

How's you "cousin" doing there Warham??/

[Warham]

No, I'm still talking about the report you allegedly read, but in reality, didn't read.

Now, if you want to get off-topic, let's talk about you being a 'counselor'.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So he says...:rolleyes:

What step are you on, Elvis? :cool:

Have you got a sponsor? Sounds like you need someone to talk to. Why don't you do some writing? :D

[Warham]

Originally posted by Keeyth
What step are you on, Elvis? :cool:

Have you got a sponsor? Sounds like you need someone to talk to. Why don't you do some writing? :D

He's a couple ahead of you.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I'm still talking about the report you allegedly read, but in reality, didn't read.

Now, if you want to get off-topic, let's talk about you being a 'counselor'.

What do you want to know? :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Just to re-clarify...

Let's see, Keeyth suggests that if I take ANY one paragraph out of the report it says that Oswald was the triggerman.

By definition, that would mean that every paragraph in the report says that Oswald was the triggerman. It also by definition means that the whole report says that Oswald was the triggerman.

But yet, Keeyth says the report doesn't say that Oswald is the triggerman.

I don't think we need to go any further.

[Keeyth]

It just proves that Americans, for the most part, just don't read. If you read that entire report, you know there is no way the conclusions they draw add up to the facts they end up stating. What don't you understand about that? You haven't read it. You only cut and pasted the first paragraph that jumped out at you. Learn to read moron.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
He's a couple ahead of you.

You really don't want to go there. You already proved you know nothing about what you are talking about by that statement.

[Warham]

Sure I do.

You go places all the time you have no clue about.

Why shouldn't I join in on the fun?

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
FACT: John F. Kennedy's head moved back and to the left as the fatal shot blew off a piece of his skull. There is no way in HELL that shot came from behind. The law of physics says so. So does the Zapruder film.

ballistics is a tricky science. odds are the exit wound was much larger than the entrance wound, as the bullet fragments blew out. who's to say that the explosive nature of the exit wound didn't throw the head in the opposite direction from which the shot was fired?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham
Sure I do.

You go places all the time you have no clue about.

Why shouldn't I join in on the fun? \

Then by all means, follow the yellow brick road! :D

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
No, but I'll call you an idiot too.

How's that?

It is ok, you are only showing your true ignorance about political affairs of the past 50 years.

You lack the skills and/or knowledge to truly debate this subject, and are reduced to name-calling as you try to prove whatever your point is.





Originally posted by Warham
I'll get back to you when you present some FACTS, not your opinion.

You saying the government planned Desert Storm back in 1865 doesn't mean anything to me. I want proof.

I'll be going now. ;)


Hell, the United States has been planning the takeover of Saudi Arabia since the 1970s, and the BCE is still dreaming of it as we speak. On a political level, though, it is seen as an unwise move, because if you take over Mecca and Al-Medina, you automatically create a world-wide uprising against you.

So what is the next best thing? Get a country right next door, where we can build numerous permanent installations so that our military can camp out right on the front door of Saudi Arabia, and also control all the oil production in Iraq.

Being at work, I cannot access my library at this time.

Not only that, it really does not matter what evidence I provide, you will still deny reality.

But in the meantime, here are a few tidbits for you to deny the existence of:



Here....this from the London Times in 1975...

http://www.irmep.org/images/2_9_2004_Sunday_Times.jpg

The Institute For Research: Middle Eastern Policy (http://www.irmep.org/essays/ksa.htm)


Oh, and here is a brief synopsis of the way the CIA operates, by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. It is an article he wrote in 1975, though you will undoubtedly claim it is all a big lie: :rolleyes:

Here is a brief bio, as if it really matters, as you are no doubt going to claim he never existed:

Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first "Focal Point" officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


The United States Military Consists of the Army, The Air Force,
The Navy and Marines, and
THE FOURTH FORCE
By L. Fletcher Prouty
reprinted with permission of the author



The Bay of Pigs in 1961 was a large military exercise. It involved an air force, a navy, and a sizable over-the-beach force of Cuban expatriates. The insurrection against the Sukarno government in Indonesia in 1958 involved more than 42,000 rebel troops, a good-sized clandestine air force, and a navy, including submarines. In Tibet in 1959-60, more than 14,000 insurgent Khamba tribesmen were supported by a major airlift of arms over the Himalayan mountains.

All of these programs, and many more, were under the operational control of the Central Intelligence Agency. Yet the federal law that created the CIA to "coordinate the intelligence activities of other government departments and agencies" does not authorize clandestine activities such as those listed above.

Where did the CIA get its power? How could a small agency created to coordinate intelligence have grown to such a force that it assassinates rulers of governments and raises armies in support of rebel cabals around the world? Congress does not fund these operations. Yet the CIA has the power and the money to mount them.

When the CIA sought thousands of arms and tons of ammunition for India's border police, it got them from the United States military. When the CIA wanted 42,000 rifles airlifted to Indonesian rebels, it got the United States military to do it. When the CIA needed long-range transport aircraft to drop Tibetan sabotage teams on Chinese roadways in northwest China, it got the planes, the training, and the equipment from the United States military.

But the United States military is held accountable for its equipment and is banned from engaging in clandestine activities. How does the CIA arrange this? How does the CIA repeatedly defy the rest of the United States government? The answer lies in its ominous role as this country's mysterious Fourth Force.

Years ago, the War Plans scenario for a bipolar world visualized that the two great powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, would exchange massive nuclear blows. The seats of government in both nations would be destroyed, along with their industrial capacities. The armed forces of both nations would be crippled and there would be chaos because all major cities would have been annihilated and radioactive fallout would have rendered enormous areas uninhabitable. It was believed then -- and may still be -- that the war would be won by the nation that could pull itself together fastest after the initial exchange and put a force into the other country for the purpose of control and reorganization.

In the 1940s Washington came up with a War Plan that called for the creation of mobile, airlifted forces with global capability that could be dispatched immediately to areas in the Soviet Union where damage and radioactivity would be minimal following nuclear war. These forces would have the ability to form a military government and establish a communications system in the devastated areas.

But one link in the plan had to be created before the nuclear exchange. Networks of agents had to be in place in "safe zones" of the Soviet Union to form the nucleus of any command-and-control system that would be established. Furthermore, the designation of the safe zones was a function of top-level war plans and was determined by the prepositioning, during peacetime, of CIA agents as well as Russians in the Soviet Union working for the CIA. While the military was pondering this problem, the CIA came onto the scene. The United States Army had had experience in military government during World War II and it had done a good job, especially in Italy after the Germans were defeated and in Japan under General Douglas MacArthur. The Office of Strategic Services had been close to the civil affairs and military government functions and was a precursor of the CIA; so the military turned to the fledgling CIA for help with its World Plan.

At that time the CIA was assisting with the administration and questioning of tens of thousands of defectors from eastern Europe. The Agency had countless leads into eastern Europe and some, if exploited properly, would even stretch into Russia. Thus the CIA came to take an active part in this supersecret war planning. The Agency established a presence in the Pentagon and in the major United States military headquarters all over the world. The Agency had available hundreds of skilled former military men. Most retained their reserve status while others were given equivalent rank. Some CIA personnel carried letters of authority that gave them rank above that of any three-star general or admiral. The CIA was moving in.

In the War Plans game the CIA is scheduled to play the actual role of the Fourth Force -- the name given to it by the Pentagon. The CIA Fourth Force would serve under the Supreme Allied Command. The Army, Navy, and Air Force would have paramount roles in time of all-out war. Then the CIA, the Fourth Force, would go into action. This Fourth Force was not an intelligence force; the military, even before the days of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which was created in 1961, was extremely jealous of its own intelligence capability and did not want any CIA meddling. But it readily accepted the CIA as the Fourth Force in a paramilitary sense, for duty during wartime.

The CIA, under Allen Dulles, put exceptionally able operatives into each military headquarters. The over-worked planning staffs found these extra hands ready and eager to help with any odd task. Such offices as Subsidiary Plans, Special Operations, Psychological Warfare, and Unconventional Warfare began to spring up and they were all loaded with "helpful" CIA men.

The law that created the CIA specifically prohibited the Agency from building up forces for clandestine operations. The Secretary of Defense in the late 1940s, Louis Johnson, had informed the Director of Central Intelligence that if the Agency needed military equipment it would have to pay cash for whatever it ordered. In those days the CIA budget was small, so this order effectively controlled any undue clandestine use of military equipment in foreign countries by the CIA.

President Eisenhower continued the policy. One of the old Clandestine Operations documents known as NSCID 10/2 was updated to NSC 5412/2 and it set forth limitations concerning the role the CIA could play in clandestine operations. In the margin of one of the master copies of NSC 5412/2 Eisenhower had noted in his own handwriting that nothing was to be given to the CIA that would enable it to create a force that would permit it to operate over any lengthy period of time, or to be able to operate in such a manner that the operation would not remain "covert." In other words, clandestine operations were to be small and "one time" -- so said Eisenhower.

But the CIA was gathering power as the Fourth Force. It began in Europe, where military maneuvers were to be held in Germany. All the armed forces, including the Fourth Force, were to take part. Each service had its own equipment, established by the War Plan.

As the exercise took shape and the military forces began to prepare for their roles, the CIA asked for weapons, trucks, radios, jeeps, and other items it would need to "play" Fourth Force. This was a problem. The military couldn't fund the CIA and the CIA could not go to Congress itself and ask for military equipment on a permanent basis. The military forces came up with a solution. The Army, Navy, and Air Force all created "phony" CIA cover units. Then they let the CIA "equip" these units according to the War Plan and in time the CIA acquired a huge stockpile of military equipment, even aircraft, ostensibly for its formal Fourth Force mission.

Over the next few years the CIA amassed more and more equipment. Its phony Army, Navy, and Air Force units did not have the usual "equipment lists" or "tables of equipment" that other United States military organizations had; so the Agency had in effect an open-ended horn of plenty. Warehouses in England, Germany, Libya, Okinawa, and the Philippines, among others, were bulging with CIA-owned military hardware.

Then, since all of this had cost nothing, the CIA began to use its money to buy foreign weapons. For example, the CIA bought boatloads of Russian, Czechoslovak, Polish, and other weapons that the Israelis had captured from the Egyptian army in the 1956 war. The CIA soon had substantial stockpiles of foreign equipment.

By the mid-1950s the CIA was ready to exploit its new capability. It turned its back on hard-core Soviet and East European targets and began to operate secretly in the realm of the Third World. When it wanted to equip a rebel cabal to overthrow some government the CIA did not have to ask anyone for weaponry. It could ask the Air Force for planes to fly "training equipment" into some country; and the next thing anyone knew a well-equipped and well-financed rebel force would be rising up against an "enemy" government.

The United States armed forces, meanwhile, had no idea how much equipment the CIA had gleaned from them. I recall in 1962 telling Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the CIA had "hundreds of military units and that they were all well armed and equipped." He said he didn't know it had become as extensive as that. Lemnitzer -- a member of the recent Rockefeller CIA Commission -- turned to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General David M. Shoup, and asked if the Marines had such units. Shoup replied that they had a few, and added: "This must explain why I was asked by an Army unit on Okinawa for 14,000 rifles one day. I never could figure out why the Army needed 14,000 Marine rifles. Now I realize that I gave them to a CIA `Army' unit." Those rifles found their way to Meo tribesmen fighting for the CIA in its private war in Laos.

This Fourth Force technique was carried so far that it was the CIA that actually selected and purchased the first M-16 rifles. The CIA had aircraft of its own, types that it concealed in the military inventory even when the services had none like them -- such as the L-28, the U-5, and the RB-69.

The CIA sent the first sizable units of large helicopters into South Vietnam and moved in thousands of men under military cover to maintain them. These concentrations of men, ostensibly maintaining helicopters and no more, became early targets for the Viet Cong. They eventually had to be protected by United States military forces that might not have been sent if the CIA had not required them to protect its huge bases, a fact that does much to explain the early phases of the escalation of the Vietnam war.

The CIA has the world's largest private airline. It is generally known as Air America and it is part of the Pacific Corporation. But Air America itself has on occasion had more than one hundred subordinate affiliates all over the world. At one time Air America had more than four thousand men each on two separate bases. Of course, these bases appeared to be U.S. military bases and needed protection, which in turn involved the assignment of regular military forces.

Four government panels have been studying the CIA, plodding through stacks of irrelevant bits and pieces, swamped by titillating tidbits that lead nowhere. None of them knows about the Fourth Force, and they probably would not be able to identify and understand it if they found it.

The Fourth Force is a major power. It has been used to start major wars and is at full strength today. The beginnings of Fourth Force activity may already be seen in the Middle East, and when the CIA is ready, action will begin there. This is the real CIA.

The Rockefeller Commission did not look into this because it had been penetrated on behalf of the CIA by David Belin, its chief counsel and former counsel of the Warren Commission. In fact, Belin still reports to the CIA. The Senate committee will not get into this because it has been penetrated by its chief counsel, William G. Miller. Miller was recruited by the CIA in the Fifties when he was in Harvard, and the CIA assisted him by getting him a Foreign Service assignment in Iran from where he regularly reported to the CIA.

The House committee investigating the CIA will not get into this subject because its leadership has never really wanted a thorough investigation of the CIA. The committee is little known and it will not dig deeply. This committee is working on government reorganization activities and is administered by Presidential aide Donald Rumsfeld. This top committee has an active and important subcommittee on the Reorganization of the CIA. The CIA may be reorganized, but there is little chance that any of the present investigations will get deeply and significantly into the Fourth Force concept.

With the end of effective operations in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam, the CIA will be shifting its apparatus from southeast Asia back to the United States. Then it will become embroiled in some small conflagration which will rage into an inferno until we are again at war. This is inevitable. And the fires the CIA ignites are costly to extinguish. The most recent one -- the Vietnam war -- cost $220-billion and 58,000 American lives.




Ok Warham...you were saying?

:rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
We did not invade Iraq while Clinton was in office.

So claiming Democrats lied in 1998 is irrelevant.

No.

The issue of bring the Democrats into the equation is not irrelevant.

They are complicit in this Iraq.

They enabled the current Administration to do its current work over there.

They voted to give Bush the approval to use force if necessary.

THEY ARE NOT INNOCENT!!!!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue at apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec . 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D,FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ..And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),Jan.23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED ABOUT THE IRAQ WMD ISSUE. DO WE HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE?

:gun: :gun:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Keeyth
You really don't want to go there. You already proved you know nothing about what you are talking about by that statement.

My, aren't we touchy ??

I've been down that bullshit 12 step AA recovery road...

I'm not a recovering addict anymore...

I'm a new creature in Christ Jesus...


:elvis:

[Keeyth]

Cured huh? :D

[ELVIS]

No, healed and delivered...

[Keeyth]

Right on.

[ELVIS]

Thanks...

I hope you're doing well...


:elvis:

[Keeyth]

I am actually. Thanks...

[Hardrock69]

Thanks for the entertainment, Brian.

It is useless to actually explain the workings of the Federal Government to The Short Bus 3, but I can at least pretend that you guys might wish to live in the real world.

At the very least, it allows me to pass the time on an otherwise boring day...

:cool:


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No.

The issue of bring the Democrats into the equation is not irrelevant.

yaaaaawn Yes...the issue of "bring the Democrats into the equation" is irrelevant.


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
They are complicit in this Iraq.

And the Republicans are not? And what about the other Iraq?


Originally posted by BigBadBrian
They enabled the current Administration to do its current work over there.

How? They do not control Congress, nor do we have a Democratic Administrion in office.

To blame the Democrats for all this is laughable, but being daily riders of the Short Bus, I can understand how you guys might believe this fairy tale.

You and Elvis and Warham have such a blind hatred of anything "Liberal" (remember chilluns...Liberals are EVIL! :rolleyes: ) that you fail to consider that they are not responsible for a majority of this BS you are trying to pin on the Democratic Party.



Originally posted by BigBadBrian
They voted to give Bush the approval to use force if necessary.

Ahh so the Democrats are SOLELY responsible for sending our troops to Iraq?



Originally posted by BigBadBrian
THEY ARE NOT INNOCENT!!!!


Who said they were?

Haven't you figured this out yet?

The Democrats did not go on National TV and claim that Saddamite was trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa, Bush did.

Ok so Bill Clinton made a bunch of speeches blah blah about how we were not going to allow Saddamite to have WMDs, etc. back in the late 90s...

Did he go to war based on this faulty intel? NO! Bush did!


I find it rather convenient that in the list of "lies" above you fail to mention the fact that any requests for military action, etc. sent by Congress to Clinton or Bush, were not signed by ALL Democrats in Congress.....

But that is typical.
:rolleyes:


Let me guess.....The Short Bus 3 (BigBadBrucie, Elvis & Warham) believe implicitly that the Democratic Party has enough power that they ordered GW Bush and his ENTIRE BCE to go to war??


Gee...I would never have imagined that...you guys need to write some children's nursery rhyme books about your version of the way the United States political system actually works.

:D

Oh, and to digress for a moment, I am happy for anyone that beats Drug & Alcohol Demons.

:)

[Warham]

Yep, you are evil.

;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS

I'm Christ Jesus...


:elvis:


That's about right.......:D

[LoungeMachine]

For the record......


Oswald was set up as a patsy.

It was a coup you dummies

[ELVIS]

Some Christians think like that...:D

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, you are evil.

;)

How so?

For being glad people kick alcohol & drug habits?

;)

[blueturk]

I hate to change the subject, but after reading BBB's cut-and-paste banditry, I couldn't resist. Don't read these, Warham! I know how you hate quotes (unless Brian posts them).

1) "My answer is bring 'em on." —President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003

2) "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

3) "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the arm

4) "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

5) "F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion

6) "Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." –Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

7) "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." –Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, adding "stuff happens," April 11, 2003

8) "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

9) "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

10) "From a marketing point of view, you don't roll out new products in August." --White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, on why the Bush administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on war against Iraq, "New York Times" interview, Sept. 7, 2002

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Elvis does not count. His self appointed job is just to say "NO! THAT'S A LIE!" when confronted with something beyond his comprehension.

He grew up wanting to be like John Cleese in Monty Python's "Argument Clinic", where he cannot make a rational argument, he can only deny the facts, and make himself look like a fool in the process.

I have to agree with you. Elvis has very poor debating skills and reading comprehension.

[Keeyth]

?:D

[ODShowtime]

BTW, this is big time. They closed session so the rest of the world wouldn't here the crazy shit going down.

BIG things are on the horizon.

[Warham]

Sure they are.

Harry Reid's trying to grab any kind of control he can, because he knows in the overall scheme of things, the Democrats are going to lose on every major issue. They can't get their agenda through, they can't stop Dubya from putting conservatives on the Supreme Court. They've gotten histerical.

It's an attempt at a powergrab that's failed.

[DrMaddVibe]

We see through the silly games democRATs play!

[Hardrock69]

Riiiight.....more typical conservative Gestapo attitude....you don't think like we want you to, up against the wall!

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Warham


they can't stop Dubya



"Dubya" needs to be stopped. I can't believe even you neo-con shitbags can't see that by now... ...but then, I can't see why you'd be neo-con shitbags in the first place... ...there's something seriously wrong with you.