|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
NSA Has Phone Records of Tens of Millions of Americans
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| NSA Has Phone Records of Tens of Millions of Americans
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Ass Boil |
This administration lies about everything:
Quote:
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 12:30 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...sa_x.htm?csp=34 |
|
|
| armyofbees |
dumbya's been pretty honest about his true feelings on several occasions...
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001 |
|
|
| Luther |
| I thought we already determined that this NSA program does not violate the "unreasonable" clause of the 4th Amendment. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
I thought we already determined that this NSA program does not violate the "unreasonable" clause of the 4th Amendment. |
who is we? not me. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
I thought we already determined that this NSA program does not violate the "unreasonable" clause of the 4th Amendment. |
You may find this suprising, Luther, but simply because YOU claim it, does not "determine" anything except you have an opinion.
The fact is Bush has still not shown us where it says he has the power to do this, nor has he attempted to change the law so it is legal....
If they were not concerned about the legality of what they are doing, why do they keep lying about it? Just show us what gives you the power to do it, or get the law changed... Simple. |
|
|
| Hand_Solo |
| I don't agree with most of the things you say, Ass Boil, but that is a funny avatar. Very clever. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| I can't take credit for creating it, Hand. I found it and as you can imagine I instantly loved it ;) |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| Who cares? Phone comany keeps records of who you call ....its called a phone bill..whoooooooooooo |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| But asspirate, the NSA knows how many calls you make each day to your boyfriend... They could use that against you if you ever grew enough balls to enlist.... |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| oh no, im scared, lol |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| That's the spirit! Be proud of your gayness!!! |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
But asspirate, the NSA knows how many calls you make each day to your boyfriend... |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
im hard |
|
|
|
| Ferrall'sLarynx |
Next thing you know, the federal govt. will have all of our Social Security numbers.
Call me when they have my ATM pin code. |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| Quote: The secretive electronic intelligence agency does not record or listen to the conversations but uses the data -- numbers, times and locations -- to look for patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, the newspaper reported. |
holy shit watch out, there taking out freedom, lmao |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Here is the important part of the article for those who didn't use the link. It should give everyone an idea of how legal or ILLegal the NSA thought their program was:
Quote:
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events. |
|
|
|
| Ironpirate |
Omg 3 out of 4. Qwest must be ran by liberals,
ok so you dont want the government to use phone companies to look for terrorist in our own country? People calling suspected terrorist, Im mean wtf is the problem. |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
| Does this mean they are taping are phone calls? Come on libs lets here you make that charge. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by clonetrooper
Does this mean they are taping are phone calls? Come on libs lets here you make that charge. |
It doesn't matter. If they are obtaining personal identifiers and records on American citizens without warrants they are breaking the law. Contrary to what you might think, the law applies to Republicans, also. Remember how important "rule of law" was when Bill Clinton lied under oath about a blowjob? Well Bush is circumventing the constitution he swore an oath to uphold... If the law doesn't work for him, he is in control of Congress and could get it changed. What he cannot do is choose to break the law and think he can get away with it. Not in America.
Why haven't you asked yourself why they keep changing their story on this? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
Ok lets PROTECT TERRORIST brought to you by the Democrats, freedom for terrorist
You should take shame in this....... |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
| My God they are not taping our phone calls. This is shit that private compaines have been doing for a long time. Go to accuriant.com. I used to have an account there through work. I could look up your records and address for the last 10 years on there. |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
bush administration isn't the first to do this.
stop being fed bullshit by the news and learn the history.
this shit has been happening for decades |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
| Terrorist are potential voters too. If the Dems are nice to them maybe they can pick up the all important Terrorist vote. |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
^lol
Those phone companies only gave them records of where calls were being made from and to and for how long.
They are not listening to the calls. The information is nothing more than what you would find listed on your phone bill. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
You are completely lost. Do yourself a favor and read the 4th amendment...
There does not have to be "taping" going on to need a warrant. Why do you think FISA was enacted? Any type of surveillance of american citizens requires probable cause and a warrant. Until you change the law, it's that simple. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by clonetrooper
Terrorist are potential voters too. If the Dems are nice to them maybe they can pick up the all important Terrorist vote. |
Actually the terrorists probably love George Bush.
Worldwide terror attacks have tripled since he came into office and he is the best poster boy for recruiting they could ever hope for...
keep tryin :) |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| god plz get your head out your ass |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| For someone who has never submitted a single fact in one of his posts, you certainly talk alot of shit... |
|
|
| KurtB |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
^lol
Those phone companies only gave them records of where calls were being made from and to and for how long.
They are not listening to the calls. The information is nothing more than what you would find listed on your phone bill. |
How do you know they're not listening to the calls? Do you personally work for the NSA? Without any oversight you actually don't know what they're doing, that is why FISA was put into place. How many times are you gonna take it in the ass when the Republicans cry terrorism? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
did this report say they listen to them? no
can they listen yes |
|
|
| mojoreaper |
| Qwest Supports Terrorists. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Actually the terrorists probably love George Bush.
Worldwide terror attacks have tripled since he came into office and he is the best poster boy for recruiting they could ever hope for...
keep tryin :) |
This statement is a lie. It's based on attacks in Iraq counted as terrorist attacks.
How many attacks on US soil since 9/11? Or the Iraq invasion??
ZERO |
|
|
| Ponderous |
You think that's bad - you're probably being monitored right now through an RFID chip implanted in something you own, maybe even your clothing.
Privacy is dead my friends, Big Brother is here to stay.
http://www.spychips.com/ |
|
|
| sternowitz |
| Hey MC mike you fucken douche, everytime a road side bomb goes off in Iraq and kills an American service man or women, I call that a terrorist attack. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
bush administration isn't the first to do this.
stop being fed bullshit by the news and learn the history.
this shit has been happening for decades |
Yeah, they're just the first to do it without a FISA court order, warrant and review of the applicable commitee...that's all. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
I thought we already determined that this NSA program does not violate the "unreasonable" clause of the 4th Amendment. |
What are you? Gen. Hay-den?
Even if you did agree that the data mining was not "unresonable," there would still be the little matter of PROBABLE CAUSE.
The 4th amendment is very short and simple -- by design. If you don't support it in it's fullest form, you are a traitor to America.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by sternowitz
Hey MC mike you fucken douche, everytime a road side bomb goes off in Iraq and kills an American service man or women, I call that a terrorist attack. |
Me too.
And anyone who claims that there hasn't been a terrorist attack against Americans since 9-11 is undermining our National security, aiding the terrorists and is a traitor, treasonist and unpatriotic. |
|
|
| HotShotMagic |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
This statement is a lie. It's based on attacks in Iraq counted as terrorist attacks.
How many attacks on US soil since 9/11? Or the Iraq invasion??
ZERO |
Either we are fighting the "war on terrorism" or we aren't. Either they are terrorist attacks are they aren't. Perhaps just semantics, but you can't have it both ways.
That there haven't been any attacks on US soil is certainly a good thing. However It's going to be difficult to prove waging a war in Iraq is responsible for that. It's even more difficult to prove a negative.
One could make a strong case that we've really strengthened their resolve to try to hit us again at home. They will not give up until everyone of them are dead... and they are quickly breeding and training their sons and daughters in the same hate. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
This statement is a lie. It's based on attacks in Iraq counted as terrorist attacks.
How many attacks on US soil since 9/11? Or the Iraq invasion??
ZERO |
Explain to us WHY those attacks should NOT be counted as terrorist attacks. The numbers came from our own State Department....
Not to mention that you are contradicting your entire phony argument in favor of this ridiculous war... Aren't you the people who claim our troops are there to fight terrorists? So if you now say those aren't terrorist attacks, then who are our troops fighting?
LOL |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
 |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
How many attacks on US soil since 9/11?
ZERO |
Why does Bush get a pass on the attacks of 9/11. Wasn't he the President? Wasn't he warned that we were to be attacked by bin Laden? Didn't he fail to respond to the warnings? I know he was on vacation but couldn't he have done something to protect the country? |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
insert picture here to try and make people think I'm tough |
Ever been in a gunfight?
Ever see a gunshot victim in real life?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Thanks (yet again) for dumb opinion.
:gay: |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by sternowitz
Hey MC mike you fucken douche, everytime a road side bomb goes off in Iraq and kills an American service man or women, I call that a terrorist attack. |
your not alone.
mc mike's wet dream(BUSH @co.) refer to them as terrorist attacks.
and yes mcmikes' a douche |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Meet ironpirate
 |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
i got my glock ready
 |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie
Quote: lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: |
The problem is that with your statement you are attempting to deceive and create a false image or impression. And you are doing this knowingly.
You try to creat the impression that worldwide terrorism is up 300%, when in fact, the vast majority of that terrorism exists in 1 country. That is misleading at least, a willfull lie at worst.
| Quote: Not to mention that you are contradicting your entire phony argument in favor of this ridiculous war... Aren't you the people who claim our troops are there to fight terrorists? So if you now say those aren't terrorist attacks, then who are our troops fighting? |
No, you are confirming my argument. I said your statement is a lie and based that on the false impression that you intend to give the reader. I will agree that they are, in fact, terrorist attacks. However, what you are doing is confirming that there are terrorists in Iraq. And we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. (does Howard Dean know you have made this admission??) Also, if these terrorists are from foreign countries, then we don't exactly have a civil war now do we? We have terrorists from other countries going to Iraq to fight our trained soldiers as opposed to our commercial airline pilots here at home. I think we have chosen the battlefield, and done well.
It is still misleading to somehow claim that 'worldwide' terrorism is up 300%, when most of that has occurred in 1 country. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
This statement is a lie. It's based on attacks in Iraq counted as terrorist attacks.
How many attacks on US soil since 9/11? Or the Iraq invasion??
ZERO |
Retard logic.
How many terrorist attacks from 1/1/01 to 9/11/01?
NONE.
THAT MEANS THE WORLD WAS TOTALLY SAFE. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
i got my glock ready
image deleted |
...and?
 |
|
|
| Crazytree |
 |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie
The problem is that with your statement you are attempting to deceive and create a false image or impression. And you are doing this knowingly.
You try to creat the impression that worldwide terrorism is up 300%, when in fact, the vast majority of that terrorism exists in 1 country. That is misleading at least, a willfull lie at worst.
No, you are confirming my argument. I said your statement is a lie and based that on the false impression that you intend to give the reader. I will agree that they are, in fact, terrorist attacks. However, what you are doing is confirming that there are terrorists in Iraq. And we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. (does Howard Dean know you have made this admission??) Also, if these terrorists are from foreign countries, then we don't exactly have a civil war now do we? We have terrorists from other countries going to Iraq to fight our trained soldiers as opposed to our commercial airline pilots here at home. I think we have chosen the battlefield, and done well.
It is still misleading to somehow claim that 'worldwide' terrorism is up 300%, when most of that has occurred in 1 country. |
By your own definition, these quotes would also fall into that category:
Quote:
--Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
--Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush September 12, 2002
--We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003
--Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush January 28, 2003
--Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George Bush March 18, 2003
--Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003
--There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003
--We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
----------------------------
Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 7/13/2003
Quote/Claim:
"We said they had a nuclear program. That was never any debate. [Source: Waxman database]"
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
Quote/Claim:
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.” [Source: White House Web site]"
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/23/2003
Quote/Claim:
"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” [Source: White House Web site -- Speech to UN]"
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/17/2003
Quote/Claim:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” [Source: White House Web site]"
Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President
Date: 9/14/2003
Quote/Claim:
"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.” [Meet the Press transcript]"
Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President
Date: 6/25/2004
Quote/Claim:
"[Saddam Hussein] had an established relationship with al Qaeda. [Source: Fox News transcript]"
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 6/18/2004
Quote/Claim:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. [Source: Washington Post, 6/18/04]"
Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 3/9/2003
Quote/Claim:
"Now the al-Qaeda is an organization that's quite disbursed and --and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. - [Source: CBS Face the Nation, reprinted in Waxman database] "
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 5/29/2003
Quote/Claim:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” [Source: White House Web site]
|
The reason your argument falls apart is because Iraq was never a haven of terrorists, and BushCo did such a horrible job with the occupation, terrorists have turned Iraq into a training ground, free to come and go as they please, using our troops as poorly protected targets. And your logic fails to take into account the number of new terrorists created by Bush's ignorant policies and illegal invasion... You are doing wishful math that Bush has not created more terrorists than he has killed.
To say Bush is the reason there has not been another terror attack in the US since 9/11, is like saying I haven't been attacked by a tiger yet, so I must be doing something specific to prevent a tiger attack... It's silly. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
By your own definition, these quotes would also fall into that category:
The reason your argument falls apart is because Iraq was never a haven of terrorists, and BushCo did such a horrible job with the occupation, terrorists have turned Iraq into a training ground, free to come and go as they please, using our troops as poorly protected targets. And your logic fails to take into account the number of new terrorists created by Bush's ignorant policies and illegal invasion... You are doing wishful math that Bush has not created more terrorists than he has killed.
To say Bush is the reason there has not been another terror attack in the US since 9/11, is like saying I haven't been attacked by a tiger yet, so I must be doing something specific to prevent a tiger attack... It's silly. |
First of all, its not my definition, its the dictionary definition. Secondly, your tired same old same old list of quotes certainly do not fall into this category. Not only are many of them taken out of context (another lie by you actually and the site that you copied them from), but the WMD crap has been gone over again and again, and the only people who claim lies are you COnyers, and the rest of the wacko left. If they are lies, then Clinton lied, (both of them) Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and a bunch of other Dems who said the same thing. What that argument boils down to is that you trust Saddam, I don't. I'm comfortable in my position.
If terrorists are free to come and go as they please, whats all the fuss over Guantanamo about?? Who is there? There is also no proof to substantiate the created more terrorists nonsese. Its just a left wing talking point. Finally, apparantley, Al Qaeda disagrees with your assessment of their abilities in Iraq. From a recent captured document which you kinda don't see on the CBS news, or the left wing blogs:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscent...done_may_3.aspx
Some highlights
| Quote: The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities. |
| Quote: There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations |
| Quote: The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction |
.
Here is where they are winning...with the Anti Bush media, and with people like you who only look to see that type of news. You are a sucker for Al Qaeda propoganda...how does that make you feel??
| Quote: At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad. |
I thought they could come and go as they please????? Care to try again.
And why disrepect the military like that? You are basically saying that our soldiers in Iraq incabable of dealing with terrorists, and not even good enough to stop them from 'coming and going as they please' Is this your version of 'I support the troops but not the war'??? That so many on the left spout |
|
|
| Crazytree |
So if I say we lost the Vietnam War I am "disrespecting the troops" by saying that they couldn't even beat a bunch of peasants running around in black pajamas?
Fox News has convinced you all that the truth is "Unpatriotic". |
|
|
| Robinsmuff |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
First of all, its not my definition, its the dictionary definition. Secondly, your tired same old same old list of quotes certainly do not fall into this category. Not only are many of them taken out of context (another lie by you actually and the site that you copied them from), but the WMD crap has been gone over again and again, and the only people who claim lies are you COnyers, and the rest of the wacko left. If they are lies, then Clinton lied, (both of them) Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and a bunch of other Dems who said the same thing. What that argument boils down to is that you trust Saddam, I don't. I'm comfortable in my position.
If terrorists are free to come and go as they please, whats all the fuss over Guantanamo about?? Who is there? There is also no proof to substantiate the created more terrorists nonsese. Its just a left wing talking point. Finally, apparantley, Al Qaeda disagrees with your assessment of their abilities in Iraq. From a recent captured document which you kinda don't see on the CBS news, or the left wing blogs:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscent...done_may_3.aspx
Some highlights
.
Here is where they are winning...with the Anti Bush media, and with people like you who only look to see that type of news. You are a sucker for Al Qaeda propoganda...how does that make you feel??
I thought they could come and go as they please????? Care to try again.
And why disrepect the military like that? You are basically saying that our soldiers in Iraq incabable of dealing with terrorists, and not even good enough to stop them from 'coming and going as they please' Is this your version of 'I support the troops but not the war'??? That so many on the left spout |
I have said it many times & I have chased you out of many threads, but you are an idiot!!! You lie, & lie again, & you don't even know you are lying.
It is not left wing talking points, unless you are saying that our own intelligence operatives in charge of south east asia are a part of the left wing conspiracy. In a report relseased by our own CIA they supported the theory that Iraq has served to increase recruitmen for Al Qaeada. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You are little kid trying to participate in a grown up conversation.
Our troop are not able to deal with terrorist. Not in the manner that they have been asked to. I am sitting right now with a soldier that returned from Iraq 7 months ago. He has read your post & wants to know how you deal with an enemy you can't see? How you deal with an enemy when you are asked to help build not destroy? How you stop an enemy from coming & going when you do not control the borders? Here is his excact quote after reading your post, Why do you read this shit? The guy is a fucking moron. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
So if I say we lost the Vietnam War I am "disrespecting the troops" by saying that they couldn't even beat a bunch of peasants running around in black pajamas?
Fox News has convinced you all that the truth is "Unpatriotic". |
We never lost a major military battle in Vietnam. THat was a political loss, not a military loss. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Robinsmuff
I have said it many times & I have chased you out of many threads, but you are an idiot!!! You lie, & lie again, & you don't even know you are lying.
It is not left wing talking points, unless you are saying that our own intelligence operatives in charge of south east asia are a part of the left wing conspiracy. In a report relseased by our own CIA they supported the theory that Iraq has served to increase recruitmen for Al Qaeada. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You are little kid trying to participate in a grown up conversation.
Our troop are not able to deal with terrorist. Not in the manner that they have been asked to. I am sitting right now with a soldier that returned from Iraq 7 months ago. He has read your post & wants to know how you deal with an enemy you can't see? How you deal with an enemy when you are asked to help build not destroy? How you stop an enemy from coming & going when you do not control the borders? Here is his excact quote after reading your post, Why do you read this shit? The guy is a fucking moron. |
You are not smart enough, and have NEVER 'chased me out' of any threads. You usually stop posting after I destroy every one of your lame, insignificant arguments. In your wonderful words, you are a fucking joke.
If you read what he said (you must be able to comprehend also, which is the part you seem to have the most trouble with), he said that we created more terrorists than we have killed. Here his the exact quote:
| Quote: You are doing wishful math that Bush has not created more terrorists than he has killed. |
(have someone read it to you, and if they have an hour or 2 can explain to you what it means)
That statement is simply not true, and is just Left Wing talking points. The facts are that Iraq is the battleground for the war on terror. We are killing and capturing terrorists at a level far greater than our own casualties. Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies and will only grow stronger as time passes. The bombings and killings will eventually stop. I know those on the left like to hope that this doesn't happen out of their insidious Bush Hatred, but unfortunately for you, and fortunately for America, it will.
Quite frankly, given you propensity to lie and mislead, I don't believe you are sitting with anyone who just returned from Iraq, or a soldier. In any event, soldiers adapt and overcome. We are winning, and will ultimately win in the end. Ask your friend (even the one in your head) how it is that we got to this point?? 2 evil regimes removed, democracy in place. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001 [/B][/QUOTE]
Thats because he is a lazy, lying Brat. Its too much work to be President. Its easier to go to Crawford and hang out at his ranch.....
Thats why the Rich have servants.....and he has the entire Goverment to wait on him..... |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
First of all, its not my definition, its the dictionary definition. Secondly, your tired same old same old list of quotes certainly do not fall into this category. Not only are many of them taken out of context (another lie by you actually and the site that you copied them from), but the WMD crap has been gone over again and again, and the only people who claim lies are you COnyers, and the rest of the wacko left. If they are lies, then Clinton lied, (both of them) Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and a bunch of other Dems who said the same thing. What that argument boils down to is that you trust Saddam, I don't. I'm comfortable in my position.
If terrorists are free to come and go as they please, whats all the fuss over Guantanamo about?? Who is there? There is also no proof to substantiate the created more terrorists nonsese. Its just a left wing talking point. Finally, apparantley, Al Qaeda disagrees with your assessment of their abilities in Iraq. From a recent captured document which you kinda don't see on the CBS news, or the left wing blogs:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscent...done_may_3.aspx
Some highlights
.
Here is where they are winning...with the Anti Bush media, and with people like you who only look to see that type of news. You are a sucker for Al Qaeda propoganda...how does that make you feel??
I thought they could come and go as they please????? Care to try again.
And why disrepect the military like that? You are basically saying that our soldiers in Iraq incabable of dealing with terrorists, and not even good enough to stop them from 'coming and going as they please' Is this your version of 'I support the troops but not the war'??? That so many on the left spout |
I didn't say a word about what our SOLDIERS are capable of. I said they have horrible leadership. Last time I checked they do what they are told. And fuck you for implying that I somehow don't "respect" the troops as much as you because I demand their committment be honored and used only when necessary. You should be ashamed of yourself. How is it you can even ATTEMPT to position yourself as having more respect for our troops when you support a man who sent them to war and has tried more than once to CUT their medical benefits while they are gone? A man that cares so little about their lives he INVENTED a reason to invade another country and fooled sheep like followers like you into believing it was to fight terrorism....
As for the quotes, you once again show what a bush cocksucker you are by trying to claim those are not lies because they are "taken out of context" blah blah blah... THEY ARE LIES. Rumsfeld said he KNEW where the WMD was. Bush claimed he FOUND the WMD. They ALL made deliberate attempts to link Saddam to al Qaeda when they were informed by our own intelligence agencies there was no relationship. They did it because they knew Americans would support the war if they could link it to 9/11 and that's what they did... Those are declarative statements that were known to be lies when they said them. So unless you can prove those people did NOT say those things, you are once again only exposing yourself as the blind whore everyone in here believes you to be... oh, except for intellectual giants like ironpirate and IVARR, and clonetrooper... you should be proud to have them by your side on all arguments. Just hope for their sake they don't ever require an IQ test to vote.
And I would love for you to tell us who is in Guantanamo! The bulk of the people who were sent there had nothing to do with terrorism, or fighting US forces, but were fingered by local warlords trying to get rid of competition. Then, they get to Cuba and are never charged with a crime, never allowed contact with a lawyer, never allowed a day in court. If these men are KNOWN terrorists, why couldn't we charge them and convict them?
Keep trying, bud. With every post you just expose yourself as being more and more willfully ignorant. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I didn't say a word about what our SOLDIERS are capable of. I said they have horrible leadership. Last time I checked they do what they are told. And fuck you for implying that I somehow don't "respect" the troops as much as you because I demand their committment be honored and used only when necessary. You should be ashamed of yourself. How is it you can even ATTEMPT to position yourself as having more respect for our troops when you support a man who sent them to war and has tried more than once to CUT their medical benefits while they are gone? A man that cares so little about their lives he INVENTED a reason to invade another country and fooled sheep like followers like you into believing it was to fight terrorism.... |
Now you are trying to backtrack and deny what you said. You said that terrorists are walking freely, in and out of Iraq. The direct implication is that no on can stop them. The people who are there to do this are coalition soldiers, a majority of which are from the US. So what you are saying is that the US military is incabable of stopping the terrorists from walking in and out of Iraq. Nice try, come again. You not only disrepect and insult the soldiers, you and your ilk provide aid and comfort to the enemy by continually lying, attacking, ect ect the Commander in Chief. Do you think this helps morale of our soldiers, or hurts it.? DO you think it raises the spirits of the terrorists when they see that their propaganda aimed at weak minded Americans like you is working? Do you think that they enjoy watching you help their cause of destroying this country. You can dance around it all you like, but you said what you said, and words mean things.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
As for the quotes, you once again show what a bush cocksucker you are by trying to claim those are not lies because they are "taken out of context" blah blah blah... THEY ARE LIES. Rumsfeld said he KNEW where the WMD was. Bush claimed he FOUND the WMD. They ALL made deliberate attempts to link Saddam to al Qaeda when they were informed by our own intelligence agencies there was no relationship. They did it because they knew Americans would support the war if they could link it to 9/11 and that's what they did... Those are declarative statements that were known to be lies when they said them. So unless you can prove those people did NOT say those things, you are once again only exposing yourself as the blind whore everyone in here believes you to be... oh, except for intellectual giants like ironpirate and IVARR, and clonetrooper... you should be proud to have them by your side on all arguments. Just hope for their sake they don't ever require an IQ test to vote |
Why dont you list the quotes of the entire interview, and or at the very least, the entire question, and entire answer. Until you do that your 'quotes' are nothing but left wing propaganda, aimed at hurting the country in our war effort.
I have shown you in other threads that there were definate links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. However, no one ever said (Bush included) that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That is just another left wing talking point.
I doubt that you will read it, and will surely dismiss it anyway, but here is some reading material on the subject for you:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/col.../16/182446.html
| Quote: There were terrorists training in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country,” said retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John Bruce Blount, former chief of staff of Allied Forces Southern Europe, in a phone conversation on Friday. “No question about it. There also were many things Saddam was doing – money, passports, visas, you name it – to further the terrorists ability to operate in other places throughout the world.” |
Quote: Consequently, international terrorists like Jordanian-born Abu Musab al Zarqawi were able to access many locations in Iraq prior to 2003. If nothing else, Zarqawi’s direct links to both Al Qaeda and Ansar al Islam, directly linked post-invasion Iraq and Al Qaeda. There is simply no way around that.
But there is much more to consider than Zarqawi, his crowd, and their freedom-of-movement. Intelligence gathered since the U.S. invasion indicates that as early as the late 1990’s, Iraq’s Unit 999 (a special branch of the old regime’s army) was directly involved in the training of foreign terrorists inside Iraq. Intelligence about U.S. and other Western forces was shared between operatives of the Iraqi intelligence services and Al Qaeda. And foreign terrorists operating in the region (outside of Iraq) who needed medical attention or other support received it once inside Iraqi borders. |
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/P...11/990ieqmb.asp
| Quote: SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons |
| Quote: These documents add to the growing body of evidence confirming the Iraqi regime's longtime support for terrorism abroad. The first of them, a series of memos from the spring of 2001, shows that the Iraqi Intelligence Service funded Abu Sayyaf, despite the reservations of some IIS officials. The second, an internal Iraqi Intelligence memo on the relationships between the IIS and Saudi opposition groups, records that Osama bin Laden requested Iraqi cooperation on terrorism and propaganda and that in January 1997 the Iraqi regime was eager to continue its relationship with bin Laden. The third, a September 15, 2001, report from an Iraqi Intelligence source in Afghanistan, contains speculation about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda and the likely U.S. response to it. |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110005133
This is just some of what we know....Imagine what we DON'T yet know. But go ahead, keep your head buried in the sand of Bush hatred. It's easy, its lazy, and it is most surely left wing stupidity.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
And I would love for you to tell us who is in Guantanamo! The bulk of the people who were sent there had nothing to do with terrorism, or fighting US forces, but were fingered by local warlords trying to get rid of competition. Then, they get to Cuba and are never charged with a crime, never allowed contact with a lawyer, never allowed a day in court. If these men are KNOWN terrorists, why couldn't we charge them and convict them? |
You seem to know that 'the bulk of the people who were sent there had nothing to do with terrorism' How do you know this?? And if you know this, then you must kno who is there, so what is the purpose of this statement? - And I would love for you to tell us who is in Guantanamo! How is it that you have all this knowledge about most of the people at Guantanamo, yet act like it is some big secret? Care to square the conflict? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
LOL. You are completely separated from reality.
Now you are asking me to post the entire interview of every quote I posted for you, then you proceed to post quotes of your own pulled out of context to serve your own purposes....Hilarious.
Each quote has a date and a source. If you believe they are inaccurate, then do your own fucking legwork and prove them wrong. But cliaming they are not true is just making you look even more ridiculous....if that is even possible.
What you don't seem to understand is that saying he "knows" where the WMD are, requires no other context. Rumsfeld claimed he knew where the WMD were, just like Bush claimed they had found WMD after he had already been told the trailers had nothing to do with WMD. On planet earth those are considered lies... I'm sorry you are still so brainwashed you cannot admit that. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
NCMIKE06,
Are you Reilly Martin???? |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
NCMIKE06,
Are you Reilly Martin???? |
No man. Reilly at least realizes he was abducted. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
We never lost a major military battle in Vietnam. THat was a political loss, not a military loss. |
A loss is a loss no matter what the reason.
We haven't lost a major military battle in Iraq either. We're losing this one too, Einstein. |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
NCMIKE06,
Are you Reilly Martin???? |
stop being such an insulting piece of shit!!!
what the fuck did reilly ever do to you. :D |
|
|
| thoroldjames |
what's with all the guns?
you guys need to lighten up once in awhile.
holy jeez :cool: |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
A loss is a loss no matter what the reason.
We haven't lost a major military battle in Iraq either. We're losing this one too, Einstein. |
We are?? That is news to the new democratic government, the millions of people who voted 3 times, and the millions who live outside of the few areas where the terrorists still attack.
I think we are winning genius, and only liberal pessimism and Bush hatred thinks we are losing. Wonder if Saddam thinks we are losing? Or the thousands of killed or captured terrorists.
Get real. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
LOL. You are completely separated from reality.
Now you are asking me to post the entire interview of every quote I posted for you, then you proceed to post quotes of your own pulled out of context to serve your own purposes....Hilarious.
Each quote has a date and a source. If you believe they are inaccurate, then do your own fucking legwork and prove them wrong. But cliaming they are not true is just making you look even more ridiculous....if that is even possible.
What you don't seem to understand is that saying he "knows" where the WMD are, requires no other context. Rumsfeld claimed he knew where the WMD were, just like Bush claimed they had found WMD after he had already been told the trailers had nothing to do with WMD. On planet earth those are considered lies... I'm sorry you are still so brainwashed you cannot admit that. |
No, I am so free from liberal think that I am positive that all if not most quotes that you and the rest of the liberal nuts post are taken out of context. Without the entire question and answer at the very least, all your quotes are meaningless talking points to be ignored by anyone with a brain. (that excludes most on this board however) |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
We are?? That is news to the new democratic government, the millions of people who voted 3 times, and the millions who live outside of the few areas where the terrorists still attack.
I think we are winning genius, and only liberal pessimism and Bush hatred thinks we are losing. Wonder if Saddam thinks we are losing? Or the thousands of killed or captured terrorists.
Get real. |
Exhibit A of what happens to your view of reality when all you watch is Fox News. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
Exhibit A of what happens to your view of reality when all you watch is Fox News. |
Exihibit A of being a Bush Hating left wing robot. Who cant see success becuase of his blind hatred towards Bush. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
No, I am so free from liberal think that I am positive that all if not most quotes that you and the rest of the liberal nuts post are taken out of context. Without the entire question and answer at the very least, all your quotes are meaningless talking points to be ignored by anyone with a brain. (that excludes most on this board however) |
haha
Well do as I suggested and post the entire articles and show us all how the "context" will show how Rumsfeld did NOT say he knew where the WMD were during that press conference, and how Bush and Cheney and Condi did NOT make ties between Saddam and al Qaeda to sell their unnecessary war...
And it's worth noting that you have never once done what you are suggesting I do. As if the sources and quotes you use are above reproach, a "conservative" source would NEVER take a quote out of context, would they?
I just cannot believe how much computer time they give you people in asylums... Oh well, whatever keeps you busy :cool: |
|
|
| iatebethO |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
.
I think we are winning genius, and only liberal pessimism and Bush hatred thinks we are losing.
Get real. |
It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."--Senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), June 27, 2005, U.S. News & World Report.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110006876
NCMoron06, don't you just hate it when liberals like Chuck Hagel make you look like an idiot. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
It's also possible that the participating phone companies violated the law by handing over the records:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/11/telcos-liable/
Quote:
1. It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.
2. The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”
(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)
3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either. |
And given the reasonable requests of the one phone company that did NOT participate, and the NSA's refusal to accomodate those requests, we can deduct they knew what they were doing was illegal.
Quote:
there is one highly significant, and revealing, item buried in the USA Today article regarding Qwest's refusal to cooperate with the NSA’s demands (and it heroic refusal to capitulate to the NSA’s intimidation tactics and threats) that it turn over its customers' calling data:
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
|
|
|
|
| Robinsmuff |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
You are not smart enough, and have NEVER 'chased me out' of any threads. You usually stop posting after I destroy every one of your lame, insignificant arguments. In your wonderful words, you are a fucking joke.
If you read what he said (you must be able to comprehend also, which is the part you seem to have the most trouble with), he said that we created more terrorists than we have killed. Here his the exact quote:
(have someone read it to you, and if they have an hour or 2 can explain to you what it means)
That statement is simply not true, and is just Left Wing talking points. The facts are that Iraq is the battleground for the war on terror. We are killing and capturing terrorists at a level far greater than our own casualties. Iraq and Afghanistan are democracies and will only grow stronger as time passes. The bombings and killings will eventually stop. I know those on the left like to hope that this doesn't happen out of their insidious Bush Hatred, but unfortunately for you, and fortunately for America, it will.
Quite frankly, given you propensity to lie and mislead, I don't believe you are sitting with anyone who just returned from Iraq, or a soldier. In any event, soldiers adapt and overcome. We are winning, and will ultimately win in the end. Ask your friend (even the one in your head) how it is that we got to this point?? 2 evil regimes removed, democracy in place. |
You're insane. You're not even dealing in the real world. Our own CIA estimates are that the invasion in Iraq has equated to 10s of thousands of new recruits for Al Qaeda. We have not killed 10's of thousands of terrorist. Not even in Rummy's most liberal estimates. You once again don't provide anything close to the truth.
As far as my friend is concerned, he is a St Paul Police officer who joined the reserves years ago while in college. He was deployed to Iraq as an Army technician serving with a copter battalion. He will tell you himself that many wonderful things have been accomplished. He will tell you of the parks, schools, & hospitals that have been built or upgraded. But he will also tell you as he told me last night that the idea that these people will ever form a unified country is a joke. He will tell you about giving candy to little children who would than play ball & laugh with the soldiers, only to provide the enemy with the location of the soldiers a few hours later. You don't know who to trust & you can't tell the enemy from the those who truly welcome you. Worse yet, their hatred for each other is so deep that we can't comprehend it. My friend was in town for a fraternity alumni event & like most of my friends he remains a devoted republican. Unlike many of them he hates Bush & this entire administration.
You sound silly even claiming we are succeeding in this war. The fact that we have had some succeses does not mitigate the fact that our objectives are not even close to being a reality. The reality is you're to stupid to argue with. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Robinsmuff
You're insane. You're not even dealing in the real world. Our own CIA estimates are that the invasion in Iraq has equated to 10s of thousands of new recruits for Al Qaeda. We have not killed 10's of thousands of terrorist. Not even in Rummy's most liberal estimates. You once again don't provide anything close to the truth.
As far as my friend is concerned, he is a St Paul Police officer who joined the reserves years ago while in college. He was deployed to Iraq as an Army technician serving with a copter battalion. He will tell you himself that many wonderful things have been accomplished. He will tell you of the parks, schools, & hospitals that have been built or upgraded. But he will also tell you as he told me last night that the idea that these people will ever form a unified country is a joke. He will tell you about giving candy to little children who would than play ball & laugh with the soldiers, only to provide the enemy with the location of the soldiers a few hours later. You don't know who to trust & you can't tell the enemy from the those who truly welcome you. Worse yet, their hatred for each other is so deep that we can't comprehend it. My friend was in town for a fraternity alumni event & like most of my friends he remains a devoted republican. Unlike many of them he hates Bush & this entire administration.
You sound silly even claiming we are succeeding in this war. The fact that we have had some succeses does not mitigate the fact that our objectives are not even close to being a reality. The reality is you're to stupid to argue with. |
I wonder if their hatred of each other equals your hatred of Bush and Co. Possible, but doubtful.
I could link articles of anti war folks who have come back from Iraq with a different point of view, but whats the use. You wouldnt read it or believe it anyway. Hate has that effect on you. It makes you blind to the truth. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
haha
Well do as I suggested and post the entire articles and show us all how the "context" will show how Rumsfeld did NOT say he knew where the WMD were during that press conference, and how Bush and Cheney and Condi did NOT make ties between Saddam and al Qaeda to sell their unnecessary war...
And it's worth noting that you have never once done what you are suggesting I do. As if the sources and quotes you use are above reproach, a "conservative" source would NEVER take a quote out of context, would they?
I just cannot believe how much computer time they give you people in asylums... Oh well, whatever keeps you busy :cool: |
I gave you a link to the entire article...not just a list of taken out of context quotes. You list a bunch of quotes, and the link to a bunch of quotes, but fail to get the point....what was the entire question and the entire answer.?? WHat is so difficult about that.
THe very fact that you mention the Saddam Al Qaeda link again just proves that you don't even read what I link anyway. There was a link BEFORE the war, foreign terrorists WERE training in Iraq, BEFORE the war. More information comes out concerning that failry regularly now, but the left wing nutcase sites seem to miss it....go figure.
But have sand, keep head buried deep, lest you be exposed as the hypocrital hater that you actually are. WHat a joke. |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
No, I am so free from liberal think that I am positive that all if not most quotes that you and the rest of the liberal nuts post are taken out of context. Without the entire question and answer at the very least, all your quotes are meaningless talking points to be ignored by anyone with a brain. (that excludes most on this board however) |
Bashing again. You hate liberals and bash them just as much as they do to you. Blind to your faults like a good republican.
Of course if you are anything like your president you probably think that you have no faults. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
No, it's not "hate" when he does it. And all the Republicans were just all about positive thinking and puppies and kittens and sunshine while Clinton was in office...
If you believe that I have some south FL real estate I want to sell you... :p |
|
|
|
|
|
