WND same source that claims Mohamar Ghadaffi is
Posted By: an expert on US political candidates on 2008-10-20
In Reply to: Secret Service Shows Up At Texas Mom's Door... - sm
rasberries
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
Of course you are, dear. Mohamar Ghadaffi on the other hand
x
everyone claims to have
abandoned this place and return monthly just to see if the posts have changed. Did all y'all coordinate to arrive on this date to check it?
Dodd claims he did not put that in there -
at least, I read that he said the date he had included was changed so that those bonuses would still be paid. He said his date would not have allowed those bonuses to be paid. ???
Validation on your claims
Okay, name all these supposed lies that Fox is telling. What exactly is the "garbage" you keep referring to. Do tell me. Then, tell me all the great things that MSNBC, CNN, and Huffington Post and other liberal rags are saying that is supposedly the truth.
Claims and Facts: The War in Iraq
Rep. John Murtha (from Huffington Post)
Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection
CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there. -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
CLAIM: The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies. [National Journal, 8/9/03]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
CLAIM: We found the weapons of mass destruction. -- President Bush, 5/29/03
CLAIM: We know where the WMDs are. - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - President Bush, 1/28/03
CLAIM: Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03
FACT: A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]
FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
FACT: Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
War on Terror/Bush Doctrine
CLAIM: All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.
Pre-War Cost Estimates
CLAIM: Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion. -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
CLAIM: In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this. -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03
FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.
FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.
Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.
Post-War Planning
CLAIM: I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed. -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process in which officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq. [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]
Length of Military Operations
CLAIM: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. -- President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after major combat operations supposedly ended than before.
Troop Deployment Needs
CLAIM: What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark. -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03
CLAIM: The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish. -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03
FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take several hundred thousand troops.
FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.
FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.
FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.
Insurgency Strength
CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its last throes. -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05
CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency. [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]
FACT: Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased. [Newsweek 7/4/05]
FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]
Troop Withdrawal
CLAIM: Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training. - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04
CLAIM: Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. [NY Times, 6/29/05]
CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]
FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]
Situation on the Ground
CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Meet the Press [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going very, very well.
FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.
FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]
FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]
FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]
What part of you have to back up your own claims
Otherwise, the claim is discredited. That's the way it works.
I would be fruitless. He claims to be all-knowing
Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but a very large portion of what you read on the internet is skewed, inaccurate, erroneous, and flat-out false.
Dubious claims? Are you a crackpot?
Or just on crack?
And just what claims are those prey tell.....-see message
That we want the country to succeed? That we want the constitution enforced? That we don't want to be taxed so that we can no longer afford to live? That we don't want the spending of money that hasn't been printed yet, or printing so much money that inflation hits? That we want him to keep his campaign promises (that he hasn't yet)? That we want equality for all people? That we want the WA thugs to pay taxes like we have to? That we don't want him lining his pockets or those of the 1% wealthiest (his friends) while the rest of us pay for it? That we don't like viewing his @ss while he bows to our enemies? And also that we don't like him lying to us about it? That we don't want him giving our jobs to overseas companies? That we don't want our children drafted? If those are ridiculous to you, and if you call turning our country into a socialist/communist state, then I do believe you would find a better home in Cuba.
Rush said -
"This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we've got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war of Iraq to fail? They certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail they proclaimed it a failure.... They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html
Seeing as you purposely distorted the truth it needed to be posted.
So you are allowed to say you want Bush to fail, but people can't say they want Obama to fail? Double standards - nice...NOT.
Oh, sure. The left always claims election are stolen,
nm
White House denies Bush God claims (name of article)
White House denies Bush God claims
James Sturcke
Friday October 7, 2005
A senior White House official has denied that the US president, George Bush, said God ordered him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
A spokesman for Mr Bush, Scott McClellan, said the claims, to be broadcast in a TV documentary later this month, were absurd.
In the BBC film, a former Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, says that Mr Bush told a Palestinian delegation in 2003 that God spoke to him and said: George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan and also George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.
During a White House press briefing, Mr McClellan said: No, that's absurd. He's never made such comments.
Mr McClellan admitted he was not at the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in June 2003 when Mr Bush supposedly revealed the extent of his religious fervour.
However, he said he had checked into the claims and I stand by what I just said.
Asked if Mr Bush had ever mentioned that God had ordered him into Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr McClellan said: No, and I've been in many meetings with him and never heard such a thing.
The claims are due to be broadcast in a three-part BBC documentary which analyses attempts to bring peace to the Middle East.
Mr Shaath, the Palestinian foreign minister in 2003, claims Mr Bush told him and other delegates that he was spoken to by God over his plans for war.
He told the film-makers: President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.
'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'
The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the June 2003 meeting as well, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.
Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact that brings him much support in middle America.
History is littered with examples of people doing the most bizarre and sometimes wicked things on this basis, said Andrew Blackstock, director of the British-based Christian Socialist Movement. If Bush really wants to obey God during his time as president he should start with what is blindingly obvious from the Bible rather than perceived supernatural messages.
That would lead him to the rather less glamorous business of prioritising the needs of the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised in his own country and abroad.
When we see more policies reflecting that, it might be easier to believe he has God on his side. And more likely that God might speak to him.
The TV series, which starts on Monday, charts recent attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from the former US president Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000, to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip this year. It seeks to uncover what happened behind closed doors by speaking to presidents and prime ministers, along with their generals and ministers, the BBC said.
Well, the majority of America claims a Judeo-Christian faith
and being set up as a democracy/Republic the majority view holds. No one is stopping the minority from having their beliefs, but our country was founded on Christian principles, and one of those Christian principles was to allow anyone to practice their religion, but that does not mean we have to mullify our beliefs to appease the minority. Separation of church and state was started to keep the state out of the church and not the church out of the state. Forty-nine of the states start their preambles with God in the title, and to toss all of that aside just to please a very small minority of those who either don't believe in God period or don't believe in a Judeo-Christian God would be beyond ridiculous. Immigrants to this country have to assimilate to our culture. It's not for us to change our culture to accomodate them or any minority religion or race who CHOSES to live in this country. We are a Judeo-Christian founded country no matter what the left in their recent history rewriting campaign tries to tell you. The documentation is there to prove it.
What is the source for this?
.
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm
Consider the source.
nm
Consider The Source
Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.
So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager? And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal!
Wow, that's just classy.
Source: About.com
su
And your source for this is? nm
.
Source please. nm
.
No source? Of course not.
x
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
x
One source............sm
is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
x
And your source is???? (nm)
x
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........
So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??
The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
.
And this is a source of pride? nm
The source of your post
I'm not sure why you cut and paste far-right-wing-biased sources as the "truth" in your posts on a liberal forum. In your above post you copied an article from frontpagemag.com and for those who know little about it:
FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamist terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions.[citation needed] It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[
consider the source. MM is the sicko....
.
no source listed for this
chart. No footnotes. No data to support numbers. Not enough information to verify veracity - disregarded.
also, moderators have instructed us more than once NOT to copy other websites into posts. Must use links. Please abide by the rules.
Now there's a reputable source--NOT
Huffington Post? Daily Kos (Kooks)? Moveon? Media Matters?
This isn't surprising, just disturbing.
Where is your source? You should not spread
nm
Please cite source........
x
WIKI?? THAT is your source?? lol
edited, changed, and added to by ANYONE, right? You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself as an MT to cite Wikipedia as your authority for ANYthing. I don't even necessarily like SP but you're making the case to side with her if that's how Barack's followers think/act.
We are still waiting for that source
nm
You're only source is obviously your TV set
xx
Once source we can look forward to where
the war chest. It's time to stop rebuilding Iraq and enricing their surplus coffers, get out of dodge, bring our troops back home and start rebuilding our own country. I would look for that from Obama sooner rather than later and certainly he is not on that 100-year time line of McCain's. The Iraqis gets their country back and get to govern themselves, we get our troops back, the direction of the tax dollars gets reversed and we stop one of the unspoken, yet most significant economic hemorrhages of W's administration.
We then turn our attention toward reversing the power and economic stranglehold the corporations hold over us by instituting taxpayer-friendly policies that put corporate welfare behind the welfare of our citizens. We build an economy from the ground up instead of the top down. Sound familiar? We've done it before and we can do it again. Once we do that, W's legacy of fear and division will takes its rightful place in annals of history and seem like just another bad dream we all had.
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
This is a laughable source of
.
Not exactly an unbiased source!
Charles Krauthammer isn't someone whose judgment I would trust. He's been 100% pro-war policy all the way. Not surprising at all that he'd opt for McCain. What we really see is a lot of former Bush policy supporters abandoning that destructive policy and endorsing Obama instead. Can anyone cite an instance of a well-known real Democrat opting for McCain over Obama? I've been keeping my eye out (fair is fair), but have yet to see one endorsement of that type.
reliable source for this please. nm
.
Not a reliable source - sm
The Huffington post is not a reliable source. It's radical left-wing propaganda. It's even less credible than MSNBC.
The source is not the issue
the voting record is.
I just did and cited my source.....sm
so what are you speaking of?
Not a credible source
Can you point me to somewhere on Obama website that gets anywhere close to what this guy is talking about? The youtube was made by some obscure person, NOT showing the alleged speaker at any time. I have found no credible source for "barracks and uniforms" anywhere.
Personally I would support an addition to school curriculums that required community service as part of social studies. A local 4-H club leader called me the other day and asked if I could help her find community service opportunities for her 22 kids. I could and I did. I think before this economic mess is done we'll all help each other or we won't survive. There are a lot of opportunities for input on the Obama website. Time might be better spent flooding that site with your thoughts and concerns rather than posting here. I can promise you that I'm doing my part to flood the suggestion boxs, are you?
I worry more about the Clintons continued involvement in the government....like Ole Bill's "Foundation." .
According to you nothing is a credible source
and other liberal outlets who go ga-ga for the O while they sip the kool-aid.
Luckily there are plenty of other sources and articles about this. If you don't like an article that's one thing.
You should have said "I don't agree with what Obama said in the video. I don't believe he is saying it himself. I don't think he's a credible source because it goes against everything he's been telling us".
Get off the credible source issue. This argument has become a lame excuse therefore is laughable when we read that.
Source not credible
This is an article published by msnbc. We all know msnbc is a left-wing liberal rag. They have a lot to lose if the O is found ineligible, hence, they "use" their positions in the media to lie and try to sweep the issue under the rug.
The judge that ruled against the case was from Philadelphia. This judge was also afraid to rule against Obama. Judge R. Barclay Surrick is also a Clinton appointee. Hence, he wants a democrat president. Additionally, this was not Judge Surrick's decision to dismiss the case. Judge Surrick was faxed the ruling. On this faxed copy from Judge Surrick, the senders information is blank. That way the sender's identity could not be seen. But wait...this gets better. Judge Surrick received the fax from none other than a former law clerk of his, Christopher B. Seaman (they forgot to remove the fax number at the top of the fax page that shows where it came from). Christopher B. Seaman now works as an attorney for Sidley Austin LLP, and Sidley Austin LLP is the same firm that employed Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack met Michelle. This is a clear case of "Conflict of Interest". It is most obvious that the order to Judge Surrick was written by DNC laywers. My my...what a small world.
The case is being brought to the Supreme Court to include the above reasons. Additionally, Berg stated...
What happened to ‘…Government of the people, by the people, for the people,…’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
Additionally, the people in Hawaii who keep claiming they've viewed Obama's bc and "it is okay (take my word for it, I've seen it)" are none other than Obama supporters and backers.
I for one am glad this is going to the Supreme Court. If they determine it is not okay and the O is ineligible, you will still have a democrat as President, so what is everyone whining about.
|
