Do you honestly believe that a evil tyrant like Sadam Hussein would NOT have WMDs?
Posted By: Lu on 2009-01-26
In Reply to: Oh yes, closer attention to their oil assets in the Middle East.....remember those invisible weapons - Cyndiee
He used chemical warefare on the Kurds in the 1980s. They exist. They were well hidden and are probably now well hidden just across the border into Iraq or Syria. Stop kidding yourselves!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Oh, please read this, Evil Clinton and WMDs, what?..........sm
NAFTA was built upon a 1989 trade agreement between the United States and Canada that eliminated or reduced many tariffs between the two countries. NAFTA called for immediately eliminating duties on half of all U.S. goods shipped to Mexico and gradually phasing out other tariffs over a period of about 14 years. Restrictions were to be removed from many categories, including motor vehicles and automotive parts, computers, textiles, and agriculture. The treaty also protected intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and outlined the removal of restrictions on investment among the three countries. Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1993.
In 1989 Gearge H.W. Bush was president, right???
The Congress of the United States narrowly approved NAFTA in November 1993, during the term of President Bill Clinton.
The most innovative yet controversial aspects of NAFTA are its environmental provisions, which are included in the agreement itself as well as in a separate Supplementary Agreement on the Environment. These provisions make NAFTA the most environmentally conscious trade agreement ever negotiated. The Supplementary Agreement established a Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), composed of senior environmental officials from each North American country. All three countries are prohibited from relaxing their environmental regulations in order to attract additional investment, and both citizens and governments are permitted to file complaints with the commission if they believe that a country is not enforcing
Is that not a good thing? Was it perfect, no, we wanted to open free trade four our countries; unfortunately, the GREEDY CEOs took advantage by moving production facilities overseas. The same GREEDY guys with the Golden parachutes that have flourished over the past two terms (and yes, even before that, but banking deregulation had so much more to do with this).
As for the WMDs, we brought in NATO, we went in with bipartisan group, we search with a multi-national group, and found none. Okay, you can hyposthesize all you want about HIDING THEM in other countries, anyone get any proof of this at all over the past eight years????? They are not too easy to hide, by the way, and Iraq has many enemies. I think that was the biggest RED HERRING in history to get over there, give Halliburton Billions in contracts without bids, and preserve our oil interests. There are horrible dictators in other countries, N. Korea has been threatening, taunting, and postulating, even testing weapons,,,,are we going there next for more trillions????
Evil is as evil does. You can't hide evil. Nope. nm
This Bush is evil Cheney is evil garbage.
nm
Well gee, let's see...do we believe there were WMDs in Iraq?
Do we believe Bush was actually elected by the American public in 2000 or 2004? Do we believe terrorists lurk in every street here in America? Do we believe our troops have been given the best equipment with which to do their jobs? Do we believe Repubs want to fix Social Security? Do we believe Jeff Gannon was an accredited reporter?
Well, looks like you're going to have to find another explanation for yourself - we're obviously not believing everything we hear and apparently aren't half as gullible as you.
WMDs were found in Iraq...
WMDs Were Found In Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarti...x?id=15918
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01837.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006...414-3312r/
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/...60123.aspx
Saddam was a threat to his own people and people of the world. Here is a list of what he did.
Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October-November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known |
The truth about WMDs in Iraq...
http://www.discovery.org/blogs/discoveryblog/2008/01/truth_about_wmd_in_iraq_uncove_1.php
CBS' Sixty Minutes devoted most of its Sunday program to one revealing story, an account of the remarkably productive seven month long interrogation of Saddam Hussein by FBI agent George Piro, an Arabic speaking American of Lebanese descent. According to the way the story was handled on the air and in the CBS online account of it, as well as the way the international press picked it up, the big news was that Saddam got rid of his WMD in the 1990s, but refused to prove it--even when threatened by U.S. attack. The reasons, he said, were that he feared revealing Iraq's weakness to its real enemy, Iran, and that he needed the perception of WMD to maintain his prestige at home. He also believed that the worst that President George W. Bush would do to him was to drop some bombs, the way President Clinton had done in 1998.
But that story, interesting as it might be, is not altogether new. Moreover, it does not compare to the golden news nugget lodged deep within the Sixty Minutes segment; namely, that Saddam expressly told Piro that he had planned to restart the WMD program in all phases--"chemical, biological and nuclear"--within a year after the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The 9/11 attacks and the reactions to them set back his plan, but didn't eliminate it.
This stated intention of Saddam constitutes fresh justification for the American-led invasion in 2003. Had the United States accepted the view that Iraq lacked WMD and no longer posed a threat, it would have been only a matter of time before new WMD efforts by Iraq were undertaken. And, once the West had stood down in 2003, the second round of WMD development would have been far harder to stop. By now--in 2008--Saddam could well have had the WMD he wanted all along. Iran, meanwhile, would have been given urgent incentive to move forward more quickly on its own WMD program. The Bush Administration knew all this, but now we have a report of Saddam himself confirming it.
There is little reason in this case to doubt either the veracity of Piro or the candor of Saddam. Certainly in its Sixty Minutes program, CBS and reporter Scott Pelley, demonstrate complete faith in Piro and the FBI reports. The FBI, says the CBS story, rates the Piro interrogation as one of the top achievements of the Bureau's past 100 years of existence. If, then, the Piro interrogation can be trusted, Saddam's plain statement that he had planned to construct WMD again also must be credited. In fact, it is credited in the Sixty Minutes program. However, it also is completely played down there, both in the program itself and in the CBS news account derived from it. The press stories that covered the program followed CBS' lead and lede. Most press stories that I found online omitted altogether Saddam's statements that he had always planned to restart his WMD program.
How could CBS News step on its own big story, and produce a minor story instead? Perhaps the answer is that for over five years now CBS and most Western media have followed the liberal party line has discounted President Bush's concerns about WMD, judging them either a deceit or a delusion. The American president was either malign ("Bush Lied, People DIed") or a dunce. As a third option, charitable interpreters on the left (and some on the right) have described Bush as sadly misinformed by his intelligence services and led to make the tragic mistake of invading Iraq. It took a long time, with day after day of news twists, but variations on these views finally suffused public opinion and persuaded a majority of Americans against the wisdom of the Iraq War. Who can doubt that those views are largely responsible for Bush's relatively low public approval ratings and his difficulty mobilizing public and Congressional support for prosecuting the war?
To showcase its program properly, Sixty Minutes would have led with something like this: "Revelations from a six month long FBI interrogation of Saddam Hussein conducted before his trial indicate that while the Iraqi dictator lacked weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American and Coalition attack in 2003, he fully intended to restart his WMD projects as soon as U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted. After months of elaborate interrogation by an Arabic speaking FBI agent, Saddam candidly acknowledged his plans. It would seem now that the US may well have had ample reason to attack Iraq, after all, though not for the exact reasons emphasized at the time."
Instead of that kind of news story, Scott Pelley leads Piro--an appealing, intelligent FBI agent of the kind that brings great credit to the bureau--on a somewhat rambling review of the extensive mental and emotional seduction of Saddam. Piro is presented as the FBI agent operationally in charge of Saddam's interrogation, but he clearly was part of a large team. The saga told on TV ruminates on such matters as Saddam's distrust of Osama bin Laden, the problems the FBI has finding Arabic speakers, and the terrible poetry Saddam wrote in prison and the way Piro flattered him about it. Then it turns finally to the gassing of the Kurds in 1998, a genocidal act for which Saddam told Piro he took personal responsibility and pronounced "necessary".
Only then does CBS have Pelley drop in this little handgrenade: "In fact, says Piro, Saddam intended to use weapons of mass destruction again someday.
"'Saddam had the engineers. The folks he needed to reconstruct his program were still there,'" FBI agent Piro reports.
"'That was his intention?'" asks Pelley.
"'Yes.'
"'What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?'
Answers Piro, "'He wanted pursue all of W.M.D. (sic)'
"'He wanted to reconstitute all of his W.M.D program--chemical, biological, even nuclear?'
"'Yes.'
And that is all there is of that!
As a matter of news judgment, I submit that if Saddam had told Piro that he really had no plans to start a new WMD program after the old one was dismantled, that would have been played up big by CBS and the mainstream media. But the fact that he said the opposite has been all but buried. The whole Piro interrogation of Saddam cries out for much more extensive coverage and maybe a Congressional hearing. Eventually, the whole story would make a fine documentary showing how the Iraq War, bad as it has been, probably spared Iraq and the world a much worse fate.
Meanwhile, even the conservative media seem to be missing the significance of this story. Most are simply ignoring the Piro interrogations altogether. The conservative online news service, NewsMax.com, does write about the CBS program, but mainly to take credit for having had it before CBS, citing an article from a new book by Ronald Kessler (The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, Crown Forum books). NewsMax relegates Saddam's stated intention to reconstruct his WMD program to a minor theme in its story, the major theme of which is the fascinating interrogation project itself.
Am I alone in recalling the weight put on the WMD issue when we invaded Iraq? I remember, in fact, thinking that the WMD threat should not have been forced to carry so much of the argument, since it was only one of several reasons to remove Saddam (e.g., his continued threats to his neighbors, his provocative attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush, his financial support of terrorism against Israel, his succor for assorted terrorists-on-the-lamb, and especially his many violations of the Gulf War truce terms). Most of these reasons, alone, would have constituted a justifiable casus belli. But, largely for diplomatic reasons at the United Nations, the threat of WMD was emphasized. Later, after the investigation, that threat seemed to be discredited and with in, in many eyes, the whole justification for the war.
I'll bet the FBI and its agent George Piro have very good knowledge and memories on the subject. So, undoubtedly, does George W. Bush.
They couldn't get WMDs straight - what makes you so sure the exterminated were "terrorists?
Everything they did is suspect - all under layers upon layers of secrecy. If it was correct, legal and moral - WHY DID THEY HIDE IT?
Rick Santorum's claim of finding WMDs is just more false propaganda.
(I can't understand why they must keep lying.)
Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006; A10
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.
We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons, Santorum said.
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.
The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
-- Dafna Linzer
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
yea? well someone w/middle name Hussein
I'm not voting for Hillary but....
know that it scares the heck outta me and others, Obama.......his middle name is hussein.....
one of the bibles say something to the effect of when the *stuff* happens (the bad stuff) - it's going to happen from the *inside out* -
but glad you are ALL so trusting.......i trust nobody 100%.
i cannot stand ALL of these candidates this time around......
JMHO - no flames please
Obama Hussein - Is that the best you can do.
How completely ignorant.
Saddam Hussein set the example
of how the UN's ''stern warnings'' are to be regarded. One simply ignores them and does as one wishes. In time, a ''sterner warning'' is issued, which one pays no attention to, etc. This can go on for years, the warnings becoming more and more urgent, the UN doing nothing about the situation, except hold meetings, blather and warn and sanction. The difference? Oh, NK now has nuclear weapons. Give them several years' worth of warnings and their nuclear program should progress very nicely. They may actually be able to hit something with a missile eventually.
Saddam Hussein would provide anyone...
with anything if he thought it would be used to help bring down the United States and would make a "deal with the devil" (Al Qaeda) in order to attack the US, and I think anyone who thought differently would be disingenuous to say the least. Mortal enemies are often joined together by their hatred of some other entity....in this case of the United States, and Americans.
As to the 18 generals lined up behind Obama...what about the hundreds not lined up with him?
We will definitely disagree on this one.
Have a good night.
Anyone purposely pointing out Hussein
Is just a stupid loser. You are a racist. Obama is not Muslim but what if he was???? Timothy McVeigh was a Christian and he blew up government buildings. There are many good muslims and good Christians AND good atheists. Can you wrap your hands around that? Anyone drawing attention to the middle name HUSSEIN is trying to cause trouble or fear that it sounds like a terrorist name. How small minded you are. Did you even graduate high school? I won't be looking for your reply. I'm busy planning a victory party for Obama.
As in Barry Hussein Obama.
xx
Barrack Hussein Obama
"This is the greatest country on the face of the Earth. Join with me as we change it." -- Barrack Obama 2008
Who else called for change in this fashion?
Karl Marx.
Joseph Stalin.
Adolf Hitler.
Benito Mussolini.
Fidel Castro.
And you want Obama for president? Are you NUTS!
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam Hussein
Rumsfeld is full of history (among other substances), but he neglected to share this piece of history with the American majority he criticized.
(I suggest Breaking Up Is Hard To Do as the perfect background music for this.)
Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by CommonDreams.org |
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam |
by Norman Solomon |
|
Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?
Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.
As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it, the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father.
The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.
On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country. A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a senior American official who said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis.
On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name. Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million. And while no results of the talks have been announced after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq.
A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years. The story recalled that Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here, and the dispatch mentioned in passing that State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state.
Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.
As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. In response to the gassing, journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States, writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas against Iranians and Kurds while the United States looked the other way.
Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.
Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.
A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com. |
I disagree...I do not think Saddam Hussein left to do what he would in Iraq....
would have helped this country's security. I still believe there was WMD and I believe it is in Syria. He obviously had WMD in form of chemicals, he used them on his own people. That all had to go somewhere. But people totally discount that. What if Hussein had given AL Qaeda a container of Ricin that they released in New York City in the subway system?
I want a man in the white house that AL Qaeda is afraid would retaliate and will keep their feet to the fire. I don't think that man is Obama.
I respect your take on it...I just have a different take on it.
Oops, left out Barack Hussein Obama
in the above post.
PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ! ! ! ! ! !
x
Ever heard of Barack Hussein Obama before he started running?
that argument doesn't play out either! and she's the VP not the president!
Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein
Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........
Honestly?
I pray our country will not be sold out from under us. Sorry, but this election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 20 03, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?
And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.
Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?
A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!!
Tell me you don't honestly believe that. How sad.
bulldinky
Honestly,
They feel no more entitled than pretty much any other person in this country. I actually like Bush's speech and Obama's as well. I didn't care for Lowery's one bit tho.
Honestly,
I was looking for someone that wasn't going to try to use smokescreens and magic tricks. I would like for the US to stop sending aid to other countries for awhile so that we can fix our own issues. We have families here in the US that are hungry but yet we send millions overseas without expectation of repayment. I would like a president that is not going to use his position as president to feel he has the right to invade other countries as Bush did with Iraq. We are not the fix all for every countries problems. I would like a president that is truly going to make our military the best in the world again. I would like the welfare systems fixed. I could go on and on but I have work to do. I truly do hope Obama can come up with new solutions to fix old problems this country has had. What we are going through now is nothing new, but past lessons have not been learned.
I honestly don't know what should be done.
First of all, I don't understand why they haven't been brought to trial yet - why can't they be tried in the Hague - isn't that supposed to be the neutral territory for that sort of thing?
I'm not saying that it's not the right thing to do, all I'm saying is that a lot of thought has to go into this because these people have a whole lot to gain by attacking America again. Think how highly they would be revered by their country if they survived Gitmo prison only to be released and succeed in attacking America! What the answer is, I don't know, but just to blindly say we're gonna close it down without any plan of how to actually do it just doesn't make sense to me.
Are you honestly that stupid
that you can't tell the difference between someone hoping someone burns in hell AFTER they die (having had nothing to do with their death) and openly and publicly encouraging America to ASSASSINATE the leader of a country?
Are you really that much of a moron, and as Gadfly said, why in the world do you WANT to openly reveal that to others? Some of you people need some SERIOUS professional help.
I have to say, honestly, I am just not interested.
That is my true feeling on the matter. I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame. Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies. I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind. I am sure it has to be hard for them.
I'm honestly not sure what was inapproprite
sorry!
Honestly, how can you overlook this? Where were you when they were (sm)
passing out brains? Or did yours just get washed by Obama?
I just watched this. Can honestly say it was
nm
honestly i don't care
where the questions came from. if you have nothing to hide, why not ANSWER THE QUESTION?
Honestly, as our system is now, there is no
reason for anyone to be homeless. Before you tell me, I understand about mental illness and all, and, perhaps, those people are not making a choice, but anyone without enough money to afford a home can get one through our current welfare system--they must only ask.
Honestly wondering
I didn't vote for O, but I think he wants to be a honest, decent president. What I'm wondering is, what is all this hoopla doing to his ego? Who wouldn't be swayed by the fawning, adoring fans, the coronation-like atmosphere in the media and the comparisons to Martin Luther King and Lincoln? How can this NOT give him an inflated sense of self-importance?
So, I'm wondering, when it comes time for him to enter the White House, is his head going to be too big to fit through the door?
He has a serious and important job to do. I wish this day would be treated with the importance it deserves, but not with the carnival atmosphere I've seen displayed.
Honestly, Shelly.
You and I almost never see eye to eye on issues (except I agree 100% with your above comment about filibuster) and sometimes the content of sources you post drive me up a wall, but I've been reading your posts long enough to know that you do not typically get nasty and personal and, for the most part, you try to keep yourself out of the attack mode. At least you do a better job of than than I do.
I guess I'm just feeling old, tired, scared and a little sad. Old enough to remember when the country was not so divided. Tired of feeling like I have to be on the defensive all the time and not being able to talk issues instead of constantly having to wade through a mine field of slams and insults when expressing an opposing view. Scared of getting back on the job market after 6 months of unemployment. Sad because I'm missing the good ole days, which I know deep down in my soul will never be coming back.
I forgot frustrated. Frustrated that I find myself full of sarcasm and anger, sometimes for reasons I cannot even understand myself. I've been active in politics since 1966. More than anything, I love a good healthy debate aimed at exchanging differing points of view and oriented toward common ground and goal-setting, destined toward workable solutions. I used to know how to do that and do it well. Now I'm not so sure I will ever regain that part of myself and I really, really miss that one simple pleasure. Any suggestions?
Honestly, it's all about power
for the democrats in office, in my opinion. They want people to depend on the government so they have more power. That's what should scare the heck out of all of us much more than if they are helping someone in need or not.
Evil...........
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
Romans 12:9
You honestly believe the junk you spew
wholeheartedly. You can't believe that even some liberals may be offended at your far leftist projectile vomiting. You are paranoid of anyone who isn't patting your back and affirming you every step of the way. You aren't a mainstream liberal. I know you're not, because I have shared some of your pukings with some liberal acquaintances of mine (yep, believe it or not I pal around with some liberals), and they classify you as a wacko. I read where you are from California. Well, you are probably pretty affirmed in California, but in most of the rest of the country you are far out of the liberal mainstream.
Well, honestly Democrat, the times that has been tried here. sm
I have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail by everyone but you.
Honestly, you didn't miss much.
It was not one of his better shows, but he still cracks me up!
you honestly think that was a worthwhile post?
nm
Is this honestly how most Dems treat others?
nm
Oh honestly, how often do you get it "shoved down your throat"?
If it's on a forum, don't read it. If it's on TV, change the channel. I'm sure you don't get Christianity shoved down your throat anymore than we get "Go Obama" shoved down ours and "oh you right wing crazies" and all that other mess!
You honestly think Obama will pray to God before he...
makes a decision? Oh, don't let the liberals hear you say that. They will be calling him Bush Jr. LOL.
Seriously...he CAN make it worse than it already is.
I do pray for the country, continuously...does not mean I need to check my brain at the door and you shouldn't either.
Do u honestly think that was planned overnight?
it would be while Clinton was in office, when he had bin laden handed to him on a silver platter along with other terrorists and didn't take them out THEN.......
You can thank Clinton for that one......the butt kisser
If you honestly studied O's plan, you should be
nm
please answer a sincerely honestly sm
asked question if you don't mind. Who IS YOUR gOD? You never say who your god is?
never said rich were evil
I never said the rich were evil. I said there are many who dont care about the working class and yet you defend them. As an example, I just read a news article earlier this week that Dr. Phil pays his transcriptionists $7.00 to $8.00 an hour!!!!!!!!! Have you ever seen Dr. Phil's house in LA? I have passed it a few times..OMG!!!! Let me tell ya, the guy can afford to pay his transcriptionists better than that. If it wasnt for Oprah, he would still be working in Texas and not a celebrity but does it even make him realize, hey, I got a stroke of good luck thanks to Oprah, maybe I should take care of my staff better. Obviously he is one of the rich who does not get it. Sure there are some who care and give back, as they realize how lucky they are and there but for the grace of God go I. I have seen personally some rich give back greatly, some volunteering at jobs every one else would be paid for, giving to charities and so much more. The good ones realize they must give back, cause that is just the way it should be in a moral caring upright society. The others, they cant get enough money. Their religion is money. The more millions they have, they are worrying about how to make millions more.
Yes, the brain is evil.
I don't know what else you could call it. Just the fact that Bush relies on a man with Rove's kind of history says all there is to say about this administration - the addition of the rest of the Nixon-era chickenhawks is icing on that sh**cake. It's creepy beyond belief how some Bush supporters actually applaud that kind of dirty business and call it political saavy. Let's call it what it really is - just plain amoral and reprehensible sociopathic behavior.
The notion of evil
Sometimes evil comes in many forms - not always neatly packaged in the guise of someone of middle-eastern descent. Sometimes evil is found in people who refuse to find alternative solutions to the human conflict other than killing....
Because I feel war/killing needs to be a last resort does not mean I do not not stand up for myself or my family. It also does not mean I am pro-terrorist. This is a childish, ignorant notion that I see the right perpetuating repeatedly. Not that the left is perfect, by any means!
Evil THEYs they? There you going being
all ubiquitous again! Touche.
|
