Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack

[DeeGeMe]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The 80 something percent of Americans who fully supported the initial invasion of Iraq. That's who

Yeah---and at the time, the American people had been fed a stream of deceptions and flat-out lies by Bush & Co. that made them honestly believe that SH was somehow a threat to us. Now that the sheeple have figured out that they were lied to, you can see the corresponding drop in approval for the Iraq war and in Bush's popularity rules. How does that old saying go. . . You can fool some of the people some of the time. . .

And a special shout-out to Goldie for her excellent research abilities!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

Yeah---and at the time, the American people had been fed a stream of deceptions and flat-out lies by Bush & Co. that made them honestly believe that SH was somehow a threat to us. Now that the sheeple have figured out that they were lied to, you can see the corresponding drop in approval for the Iraq war and in Bush's popularity rules. How does that old saying go. . . You can fool some of the people some of the time. . .

And a special shout-out to Goldie for her excellent research abilities!

Well that may very well be true - and BTW "sheeple" But, are you willing to turn that powerful insight and loathing of deception on Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, and other prominent D's? They also believed and touted essentially this same information about Iraq. In fact, Kerry and many other D's voted to find Iraq in material brieach of the UN resolutions and urged Clinton to act with a military response to make SH comple - sounds like W to me Kerry also officially stated on his website in 2002 that he would have formed a coalition immdiately after 9/11 to force SH to comply with the UN resolutions (I guess just by asking SH nicely ), and then gave W carte blanche to do so. So, my point is D's holler at W and claim he is the anti-christ, a revolving liar, and hoodwinked the American people - and the D assert they are above it all and would NEVER consider doing what W did, when CLEARLY that is not the case. Yet, D's will NEVER admit that. They just throw hypocritical recrimminations at W and the R's, act pious when the light of truth is turned on them to explain their actions, and then spin it back on W by calling W an idiot and a liar for doing exactly what they had been calling for since 1998

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Nothing to see here. Move along.

While all of that may be true:

1. Why has the national press not picked up on it

2. the exit polls in GA by all news sources clearly substantiated the wins

3. Where is the smoking gun? I suppose all of the thousands of people in that branch of the state gov. are in on the conspiracy, they are all R's, and they are all able to keep their mouths shut when opening them would be highly lucrative

4. Perdue wond because Barnes pissed off the teachers and tried to take the Confed. symbol off the GA flag without a popular vote, thereby pissing off pretty much everyone in GA, esp. when we hd fat a$$ Sonny Perdue promising to allow Geogians to be able to vote on the flag issue (which in the end he weasled out of ). NOTE: I make no comment on the flag; I am just stating a fact.

5. Cleland lost because W came here like 10 times to support Chambliss and, more to my point, America was experiencing a wave we support W at any cost then. Max also voted against several of W's big anti-terror policies. So, the R's slime machine labeled him as a non-patriot (as if the D's would not have done the same thing to a R ).

So, cry about the voting machines in GA all you want, the forgoing facts do not demonstrate that these two D candidates have a chance in hell of winning reelection at that time. Sadly, today would be a different story, which was my original point to wit: America was SOLIDLY behind W in everything he did, including the invasion of Iraq. To assert otherwise is to ignore the facts Fortunately, America is not so solidly behind W now

[Hippocampus]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The same UN that SH bribed (along with France and Russia) to keep himself in power and us at bay I think the UN needs a major ass kicking to prevent that from happening again

I find this reasoning amusing. France, Germany, Russia and the rest, not to mention the UN inspection teams, were not convinced by the "WMD threats" (please don't laugh) that the US obsessed about and they didn't believe there was a case for war. They refused to authorize an unjust war so they were corrupt? No, they dared to simply disagree with the almighty and righteous US and they were vilified for it. Were they expected to swallow everything up, shut up and follow the US' lead unquestioningly? I certainly don't think so and they were proven right in the end.

Please back up your claims of corruption with serious evidence and not just hearsay and propaganda invented to punish the "traitorous" nations and drag them through the mud.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

I find this reasoning amusing. France, Germany, Russia and the rest, not to mention the UN inspection teams, were not convinced by the "WMD threats" (please don't laugh) that the US obsessed about and they didn't believe there was a case for war. They refused to authorize an unjust war so they were corrupt? No, they dared to simply disagree with the almighty and righteous US and they were vilified for it. Were they expected to swallow everything up, shut up and follow the US' lead unquestioningly? I certainly don't think so and they were proven right in the end.

Please back up your claims of corruption with serious evidence and not just hearsay and propaganda invented to punish the "traitorous" nations and drag them through the mud.

Okay - here ya go -

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=7454

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...fBs&refer=asia

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/a...4199_brief.php

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world...3158-1229r.htm

______________________________________________

There are MANY more - do a search on google and you will see. So, I guess France and Russia repeatedly agreed that SH had WMD for 11 or so years and then, in the final resolution, further agreed that he had WMD and unless he disarmed or prove that he had disarmed (a burden with which he calculatedly did not comply) or face serious consequences that everyone and their dog knew meant war. Then, I guess France and Russia suddenly changed their minds for no apparent reason when asked to perform on the resolution they agreed to. Hmmmm - could it be that they did not want egg on their face? I mean come on - again hate W all you want, I do too, but to say this is all his fault and he suddenly came of of left field with this against the intentions of the world is rubbish and clearly not supported by the facts.

BTW - David Kay was convinced and later said he was glad we went into Iraq because SH had the means to dev. WMD - who am I to argue with him. He seems like a straight shooter to me to wit: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...sprj.nirq.kay/

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Bbbut we named it Camp Redemption first.

Leave it to religious wackos to go with a religious name.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Leave it to religious wackos to go with a religious name.

AND it would have to be said with a South Ga accent

KAYMMMPPPPUH REEEEEEDUUUEEEMMMMMMMPPPPSSSHHHHHHHEEOOOONNNN!

by a lady in a cheap Chanel knock off suit with huge hair.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Start here:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm
The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/module...article&sid=28
No One Certified the Patches —
No One is Explaining the Files called "rob-georgia"

http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_...ic_voting.html
"Although most Georgians expected incumbent Sen. Max Cleland to win, the Diebold voting system declared the dark horse Republican candidate Saxby Chambliss the winner. Chambliss won 53 percent of the vote, according to the Diebold-generated tally. A similar upset occurred in the gubernatorial race in which a Republican candidate won for the first time in 130 years. The upset in Georgia was of national significance. As Chambliss says on his web site: “With our win on Nov. 5, we returned control of the U.S. Senate to Republicans and gave President Bush the tools he needs to implement his agenda for America.”

Because the Diebold system is paperless and the “counting” of the votes is done out of sight, within a networked computer system, there is no way for any voter to know if his or her vote was counted correctly."

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney4/id19.html
"Among the files, Harris also found one titled “Rob Georgia,” which contained instructions for replacing voting system files for the 2002 congressional elections.

“I knew it was illegal because I had done enough research on how they do the certification,” Harris says. “Georgia had several upsets and was using 100 percent Diebold touchscreen machines. After seeing that file, I knew we had a problem.” ...

http://archive.midrange.com/midrange.../msg00021.html
Georgia: 22,000 Voting Machines Got a Program Fix, Right Before theElection

http://www.opednews.com/voting.htm
Did E-Vote Firm Patch Election?

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20.../index_np.html
Will the election be hacked?

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=27
Who's Counting Your Vote?


Nothing to see here. Move along.

I TOLD YOU, Jason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



PS: I love Larry Flynt. He's done some fabulous things for American politics.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I TOLD YOU, Jason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



PS: I love Larry Flynt. He's done some fabulous things for American politics.

When did you tell me the voting machines could be hacked


While Larry F. has indeed and the Diebold machines may be awful, Chambliss and Perdue's wins in GA were valid. Again, the exit polls correlate with the them. And, I am not going to argue the validity of their victories, my point was the vast majority of America was solidly behind W at this point in time and that included invading Iraq. Interestingly, up until we decided to invade Iraq, the UN was behind us too.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND it would have to be said with a South Ga accent

KAYMMMPPPPUH REEEEEEDUUUEEEMMMMMMMPPPPSSSHHHHHHHEEOOOONNNN!

by a lady in a cheap Chanel knock off suit with huge hair.

Ha. More like a spiffy Susan Graver on sale from QVC and permed hair with blue and gray accents.

"That there, uh, Booooosssshhhhh is one fi-en spec'men of mayn."

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

When did you tell me the voting machines could be hacked


While Larry F. has indeed and the Diebold machines may be awful, Chambliss and Perdue's wins in GA were valid. Again, the exit polls correlate with the them. And, I am not going to argue the validity of their victories, my point was the vast majority of America was solidly behind W at this point in time and that included invading Iraq. Interestingly, up until we decided to invade Iraq, the UN was behind us too.

Put down the dope! I was talking about Chris and her articles, dumbass!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Put down the dope! I was talking about Chris and her articles, dumbass!

Ah Ha!!!!!!!

BTW - I, too, am appalled that there is no paper record of votes in Ga. I think they should make a paper print out of your vote and have you initial it before you leave. Or, keep the old punch card system and have it punch directly into the computer, etc. But, the non-accountability of the paperless system scares me, esp. considering it is not foolproof, etc.

[Hippocampus]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

There are MANY more - do a search on google and you will see. So, I guess France and Russia repeatedly agreed that SH had WMD for 11 or so years and then, in the final resolution, further agreed that he had WMD and unless he disarmed or prove that he had disarmed (a burden with which he calculatedly did not comply) or face serious consequences that everyone and their dog knew meant war. Then, I guess France and Russia suddenly changed their minds for no apparent reason when asked to perform on the resolution they agreed to. Hmmmm - could it be that they did not want egg on their face? I mean come on - again hate W all you want, I do too, but to say this is all his fault is rubbish and clearly not supported by the facts.

So these countries had oil contractors in Iraq which means their position in the final hour was solely based on greed? I find that to be a bit simplistic especially in light of the recommendations of the UN inspection teams. IMO, I don't think these articles prove anything in that regard and some of them are so biased that they cannot be taken seriously. This one is especially rich:

In a broader sense, the United States has a chance to show a doubting world how little money and oil mattered in our decision to invade Iraq. By refusing to regard Iraq's oil as patronage to be passed out to American companies and, equally, declining to honor Saddam's corrupt contracts, we can demonstrate a degree of selflessness which will stand in sharp contrast to the corrupt diplomacy of France and her friends.


That's propaganda for you. The righteous liberators are selling out the war to the public and dismissing the opposition as greedy nations with no morals. We know how it all turned out in the end... no WMDs, the liberation is a joke and the coalition is now in full control of the oil wells.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

So these countries had oil contractors in Iraq which means their position in the final hour was solely based on greed? I find that to be a bit simplistic especially in light of the recommendations of the UN inspection teams. IMO, I don't think these articles prove anything in that regard and some of them are so biased that they cannot be taken seriously. This one is especially rich:

In a broader sense, the United States has a chance to show a doubting world how little money and oil mattered in our decision to invade Iraq. By refusing to regard Iraq's oil as patronage to be passed out to American companies and, equally, declining to honor Saddam's corrupt contracts, we can demonstrate a degree of selflessness which will stand in sharp contrast to the corrupt diplomacy of France and her friends.


That's propaganda for you. The righteous liberators are selling out the war to the public and dismissing the opposition as greedy nations with no morals. We know how it all turned out in the end... no WMDs, the liberation is a joke and the coalition is now in full control of the oil wells.

Whatever you want to believe you go right on ahead. But, you cannot negate the fact that SH sold oil at a discounted price to these people. I suppose he was doing that becuase he was a nice guy. You go right on ahead and think that if you want. I, of course, will never believe that

BTW - if we went there solely for oil, why did we give, not loan, Iraq billions of dollars. Hmm France and Russia loaned them the money. I mean I get that we should not have been so quick to go to Iraq. Time would have been our unbiased ally. But, to say W got on his horse and went into Iraq on a whim is just flat out and unequivocably wrong. Again, the WORLD thought he had WMD and that he was a threat.

[strandinthewind]

Here is an article that is not exactly realted to this topic, but it illustrates my point of both R and D's are lying sacks of feces and they say and do whatever will get them elected even if they say the complete opposite thing the next time


Thursday, May 27, 2004
By David Boaz

Republicans are criticizing a decorated Vietnam (search) veteran, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry (search), while liberals are denouncing President Bush for avoiding service in what liberals called an illegal and immoral war.

That sort of reversal might seem odd if it wasn't so reminiscent of other partisan battles over the past decade. Washington has become mired in a Red Team-Blue Team battle that leads partisans on both sides into rank hypocrisy.

Just think back to the Clinton years: Conservatives used to think that sexual harassment laws were a good example of big government trying to regulate everything under the sun. Feminists, they thought, wanted to criminalize normal flirting and dating. Feminists pushed a law through Congress that allowed plaintiffs in a sexual harassment suit to examine the defendant's personal life in search of examples of similar behavior. It was the sort of thing that led Rush Limbaugh (search) to call them femi-Nazis.

Then Bill Clinton (search) -- who perhaps unwisely had signed that law -- was accused of making sexual advances to a low-level employee of the Arkansas state government when he was governor. Suddenly the conservatives were born-again femi-Nazis. Hang him, they said. It just can't be lawful for a powerful man to make a vulgar advance at a woman who works for him, however distantly. And then when the legal pursuit of that accusation uncovered a case of actual sexual involvement with a young woman in the White House, they were ready to lynch him.

And the feminists? Suddenly they discovered the virtues of laissez faire. Consenting adults, they said. Intrusive regulation, they cried. No one should be asked such questions, they insisted -- the questions they had earlier insisted powerful men must be asked in investigations of sexual harassment charges.

Would the switch be permanent? Would conservatives become the new avenging angels of shocked young ladies? Would feminists learn to say, "lighten up, flirting can be fun, women like sex, too, you know"?

It didn't take long to find out. When Arnold Schwarzenegger (search) was accused of serial groping in 2003, conservatives and feminists resumed their old positions. Feminists were shocked, shocked to discover that a powerful and testosterone-laden movie star had touched women without their consent. Republicans, meanwhile, tossed aside both their old traditional values and their newfound quasi-feminism to dismiss the charges. The allegations were old, they said, and they were just the women's word against Arnold's, and the women were Democrats, and besides, lighten up -- movie sets aren't Grandma's parlor.

Now we're seeing another example of the same Red Team-Blue Team partisanship on the issue of draft dodging in the 1960s. A dozen years ago Bill Clinton was the first Vietnam-era candidate for president. He famously evaded the draft, and conservatives and Republicans hammered him mercilessly for it. But Democrats, like wounded Vietnam veteran Sen. Bob Kerrey (search), defended Clinton, saying that Bush should "put the Vietnam memory behind us" and that politicians like Bush were responsible for the system that allowed privileged young men to duck military service. Voters didn't seem to mind whatever Clinton had done in his youth, as he defeated George Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole (search) in 1996, both of whom had served honorably in World War II.

But this year providence has delivered the Democrats a presidential candidate who had a sterling record in Vietnam -- three purple hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. So liberals are badgering the younger George Bush about his own avoidance of Vietnam. For good measure, they've noted that Vice President Cheney (search) and other leading Republicans also managed to avoid the military when it counted. They're hammering away at the question of whether Bush showed up for National Guard duty in Alabama.

And the Republicans? They're not just dismissing Bush's service record as old news. With amazing chutzpah, they've gone on the attack against Kerry: Was he really wounded all that seriously? Did he leave Vietnam earlier than he should have? Did he lie about throwing away his medals when he got back?

It's Red Team-Blue Team time again. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans throw away their principles and policies at a moment's notice to help a particular candidate. Politics ain't beanbag, and I have nothing against attack ads. But such rapid switches of position make it hard to take these charges seriously.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute (www.cato.org) and author of "Libertarianism: A Primer."


from - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121029,00.html