Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Cow and the Ice Cream
64 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Lehman
Aug 7, 2012, 1:44:56 AM8/7/12
to
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
-- >From a teacher in the Nashville area --
"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice
Cream.'The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while
teaching 3rd grade.
The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the
children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election
for a class president.We would choose our nominees. They would
make a campaign speech and the class would vote.To simplify the
process, candidates were nominated by other class members.We
discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should
have.
We got many nominations and from those,Jamie and Olivia were
picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both
candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of
parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better
place. He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I
will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice
cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They
took her at her word.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She
didn't know.
The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was
ice cream...
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream
and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.
They want ice cream.
The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the
cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that
they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED,
BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
For a man who didn't give a #### about who paid for it.
CLASS DISMISSED...
ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
-- >From a teacher in the Nashville area --
"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice
Cream.'The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while
teaching 3rd grade.
The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the
children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election
for a class president.We would choose our nominees. They would
make a campaign speech and the class would vote.To simplify the
process, candidates were nominated by other class members.We
discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should
have.
We got many nominations and from those,Jamie and Olivia were
picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both
candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of
parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better
place. He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I
will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice
cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They
took her at her word.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She
didn't know.
The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was
ice cream...
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream
and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.
They want ice cream.
The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the
cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that
they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?
THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED,
BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
For a man who didn't give a #### about who paid for it.
CLASS DISMISSED...
David T. Ashley
Aug 7, 2012, 1:10:03 PM8/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:44:56 +0200, "Steve Lehman"
<sle...@yahoon.com> wrote:
>THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
>ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
>
SNIP
<sle...@yahoon.com> wrote:
>THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
>ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
>
>Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that
>they have not first taken away from someone else.
>
>Did you vote for the ice cream?
>
>
>THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED,
The only presidential candidate I'm aware of who has ever run on the
platform of raising taxes (taking away ice cream) is Walter Mondale,
and he didn't do very well.
It is absolutely expected that every presidential candidate will
promise ice cream, but deliver only a fraction of what was promised.
How about this for an alternate theory:
a)Bush left a stench in the office, making it easier for a Democrat to
be elected.
b)McCain and Palin each had problems that rendered them unelectable.
When McCain wasn't sure how many houses he owned exactly ... that kind
of didn't go well with the American people. By the way, did I mention
that I can see Russia from my house?
c)The negative misinformation spread about Mr. Obama backfired. He
isn't eligible to be president because of his birth details, he is a
Muslim, and consorts with terrorists?
Everyone gets in office by promising ice cream in one form or another.
If you aren't promising handouts for the poor, you're promising tax
cuts for the wealthy or favorable conditions for big business.
DTA
Bert
Aug 7, 2012, 1:55:22 PM8/7/12
to
In news:iii228drmuodoe6c8...@4ax.com David T. Ashley
How do you choose who to vote for? The one with the nicest line of
patter?
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<das...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only presidential candidate I'm aware of who has ever run on the
> platform of raising taxes (taking away ice cream) is Walter Mondale,
> and he didn't do very well.
>
> It is absolutely expected that every presidential candidate will
> promise ice cream, but deliver only a fraction of what was promised.
You expect all the candidates to lie to you?
> The only presidential candidate I'm aware of who has ever run on the
> platform of raising taxes (taking away ice cream) is Walter Mondale,
> and he didn't do very well.
>
> It is absolutely expected that every presidential candidate will
> promise ice cream, but deliver only a fraction of what was promised.
How do you choose who to vote for? The one with the nicest line of
patter?
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Message has been deleted
Ben Kaufman
Aug 8, 2012, 8:37:09 AM8/8/12
to
>THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
>ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
<SNIP>
>ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
Because Palin was as informed as a cow, and cows produce milk for ice cream?
Interesting.
Harry Reid Sucks Black Cock
Aug 8, 2012, 1:27:13 PM8/8/12
to
In article <36n42817tioiaa2j4...@4ax.com>
Odd that you'd prefer to elect a nigger with no valid birth
certificate, no legally recorded name change, no verifiable
college records and a stolen social security number, over an
honest person who lives their entire life in the public eye.
certificate, no legally recorded name change, no verifiable
college records and a stolen social security number, over an
honest person who lives their entire life in the public eye.
Twibil
Aug 8, 2012, 7:19:10 PM8/8/12
to
On Aug 8, 10:27 am, "Harry Reid Sucks Black Cock" <f...@r.com> wrote:
>
>
> Odd that you'd prefer to elect a nigger with no valid birth
> certificate, no legally recorded name change, no verifiable
> college records and a stolen social security number, over an
> honest person who lives their entire life in the public eye.
Heh.
>
>
> Odd that you'd prefer to elect a nigger with no valid birth
> certificate, no legally recorded name change, no verifiable
> college records and a stolen social security number, over an
> honest person who lives their entire life in the public eye.
Now did you *really* think that anyone in their right minds would take
a post from a racist tea-bagger who posts under "Harry Reid Sucks
Black Cock" as anything other than a joke?
Gunner
Aug 11, 2012, 3:37:53 AM8/11/12
to
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You mean Harry DOESNT suck black cock?
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
wrote:
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
Twibil
Aug 11, 2012, 8:50:40 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 12:37 am, Gunner <gunnerNOS...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
> Liebmann
Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
>
>
> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
> Liebmann
conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
Brilliant.
Gunner
Aug 11, 2012, 10:28:58 PM8/11/12
to
able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
funding it..year after year after year.
http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/voted4war.html
So Twerpalls...whats it like being a member of a political party so
mentally slow that the "idiot Bush" managed to drag all the big names
into his scheme? Hummmm?????
YEA = 296
Democrats
Gary Ackerman, Rob Andrews, Jim Barcia, Ken Bentsen, Shelley Berkley,
Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Rod Blagojevich, Bob
Borski, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Brad Carson, Bob
Clement, Bud Cramer, Joseph Crowley, Jim Davis, Peter Deutsch, Norm
Dicks, Cal Dooley, Chet Edwards, Eliot Engel, Bob Etheridge, Harold
Ford, Martin Frost, Dick Gephardt, Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Ralph
Hall, Jane Harman, Baron Hill, Joe Hoeffel, Tim Holden, Steny Hoyer,
Steve Israel, William Jefferson, Chris John, Paul Kanjorski, Patrick
Kennedy, Ron Kind, Nicholas Lampson, Tom Lantos, Nita Lowey, Ken
Lucas, Bill Luther, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey,
Frank Mascara, Jim Matheson, Carolyn McCarthy, Mike McIntyre, Michael
McNulty, Martin Meehan, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Bill Pascrell,
Collin Peterson, David Phelps, Earl Pomeroy, Tim Roemer, Mike Ross,
Steven Rothman, Max Sandlin, Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Ronnie Shows,
Ike Skelton, Adam Smith, John Spratt, Charles Stenholm, John Tanner,
Ellen Tauscher, Gene Taylor, Karen Thurman, Jim Turner, Henry Waxman,
Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler, Al Wynn
Senate
YEA = 77
Democrats
Baucus (MT) Bayh (IN) Biden (DE) Breaux (LA)Cantwell (WA) Carnahan
(MO) Carper (DE) Cleland (GA) Clinton (NY) Daschle (SD) Dodd (CT)
Dorgan (ND) Edwards (NC) Feinstein (CA) Harkin (IA) Hollings (SC)
Johnson (SD) Kerry (MA) Kohl (WI) Landrieu (LA) Lieberman (CT) Lincoln
(AR) Miller (GA) Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Reid (NV) Rockefeller (WV)
Schumer (NY) Torricelli (NJ)
Oddly..there are some really high ranking Demonrats in those yes
votes..isnt there? Biden...Feinstein...Reid...Gephart..Blagojevich
Odd how many of those names are in prison currently too..isnt it?
<VBG>
Gunner
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not
agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my
earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his
fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
- Jeff Cooper
Twibil
Aug 12, 2012, 1:59:04 AM8/12/12
to
On Aug 11, 7:28 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
>
> >> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
> >> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
> >> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
> >> Liebmann
>
> >Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
> >conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
> >threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
> >4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
> >'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
>
> >Brilliant.
>
> Translation: Democrats are so fucking stupid that that idiot Bush was
> able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
> funding it..year after year after year.
No. Read your own history, little troll.
>
>
> >> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
> >> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
> >> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
> >> Liebmann
>
> >Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
> >conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
> >threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
> >4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
> >'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
>
> >Brilliant.
>
> Translation: Democrats are so fucking stupid that that idiot Bush was
> able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
> funding it..year after year after year.
Bush was able to cow the liberals by lying about how anyone who
opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
Iraq, claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
not supporting our troops.
> So Twerpalls...
Ah! I love it when some doofus who's attempting to appear
intelligent screws himself by behaving like a five-year-old. Sort of
demonstrates their lack of ability to think things through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
> whats it like being a member of a political party so
> mentally slow that the "idiot Bush" managed to drag all the big names
> into his scheme? Hummmm?????
generally just as stupid as the liberals in that they all supported a
war declared against a country that had nothing to do with terrorism
and which posed absolutely no danger to either our allies in the
middle east or ourselves. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Just like revisionists on both sides of the asile who try to pretend
that *their* side never screws up.
Revisionists like you.
pyotr filipivich
Aug 12, 2012, 2:01:22 AM8/12/12
to
Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> on Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:37:53
-0700 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
Reid's peccadilloes. It's on the intarwebs, and Harry hasn't done
anything to refute it, so you know there has to be something to it.
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.
-0700 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 8, 10:27 am, "Harry Reid Sucks Black Cock" <f...@r.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd that you'd prefer to elect a nigger with no valid birth
>>> certificate, no legally recorded name change, no verifiable
>>> college records and a stolen social security number, over an
>>> honest person who lives their entire life in the public eye.
>>
>>Heh.
>>
>>Now did you *really* think that anyone in their right minds would take
>>a post from a racist tea-bagger who posts under "Harry Reid Sucks
>>Black Cock" as anything other than a joke?
>
>You mean Harry DOESNT suck black cock?
There's been some questions raised lately about Harry "Short Eyes"
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 8, 10:27 am, "Harry Reid Sucks Black Cock" <f...@r.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd that you'd prefer to elect a nigger with no valid birth
>>> certificate, no legally recorded name change, no verifiable
>>> college records and a stolen social security number, over an
>>> honest person who lives their entire life in the public eye.
>>
>>Heh.
>>
>>Now did you *really* think that anyone in their right minds would take
>>a post from a racist tea-bagger who posts under "Harry Reid Sucks
>>Black Cock" as anything other than a joke?
>
>You mean Harry DOESNT suck black cock?
Reid's peccadilloes. It's on the intarwebs, and Harry hasn't done
anything to refute it, so you know there has to be something to it.
>
> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
>the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
>out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
>Liebmann
--
> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
>the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
>out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
>Liebmann
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.
Message has been deleted
Gunner
Aug 12, 2012, 1:50:36 PM8/12/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
<noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 7:28 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
>> >> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
>> >> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
>> >> Liebmann
>>
>> >Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
>> >conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
>> >threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
>> >4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
>> >'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
>>
>> >Brilliant.
>>
>> Translation: Democrats are so fucking stupid that that idiot Bush was
>> able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
>> funding it..year after year after year.
>
>No. Read your own history, little troll.
Troll? you post this buffoonery into misc.survivalism, where the
<noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 11, 7:28 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
>> >> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
>> >> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
>> >> Liebmann
>>
>> >Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
>> >conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
>> >threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
>> >4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
>> >'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
>>
>> >Brilliant.
>>
>> Translation: Democrats are so fucking stupid that that idiot Bush was
>> able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
>> funding it..year after year after year.
>
>No. Read your own history, little troll.
vast majority of the readers are conservative smart people..and you
call me a troll?
>
>Bush was able to cow the liberals by lying about how anyone who
>opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
>Iraq, claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
>they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
>not supporting our troops.
So then you admit that the "idiot Bush" convinced the Far Leftwing
>Bush was able to cow the liberals by lying about how anyone who
>opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
>Iraq, claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
>they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
>not supporting our troops.
Extremist Fringe Kooks into voting for war? How could an idiot do
that? Given that the Democrats ran the Intelligence community and had
first look at all the intel coming in...how in the world could a moron
brand new president with no balls or brains yutz the smartest
Democrats in the government?
Im really interested in your answer.
>
>> So Twerpalls...
>
>Ah! I love it when some doofus who's attempting to appear
>intelligent screws himself by behaving like a five-year-old. Sort of
>demonstrates their lack of ability to think things through.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
>
>> whats it like being a member of a political party so
>> mentally slow that the "idiot Bush" managed to drag all the big names
>> into his scheme? Hummmm?????
>
>I'm a conservative verging on libertarian; but conservatives were
>generally just as stupid as the liberals in that they all supported a
>war declared against a country that had nothing to do with terrorism
>and which posed absolutely no danger to either our allies in the
>middle east or ourselves. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
>Just like revisionists on both sides of the asile who try to pretend
>that *their* side never screws up.
>
>Revisionists like you.
Humm..you write like a Leftwinger, you push the same agenda as the
>> So Twerpalls...
>
>Ah! I love it when some doofus who's attempting to appear
>intelligent screws himself by behaving like a five-year-old. Sort of
>demonstrates their lack of ability to think things through.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
>
>> whats it like being a member of a political party so
>> mentally slow that the "idiot Bush" managed to drag all the big names
>> into his scheme? Hummmm?????
>
>I'm a conservative verging on libertarian; but conservatives were
>generally just as stupid as the liberals in that they all supported a
>war declared against a country that had nothing to do with terrorism
>and which posed absolutely no danger to either our allies in the
>middle east or ourselves. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
>Just like revisionists on both sides of the asile who try to pretend
>that *their* side never screws up.
>
>Revisionists like you.
Leftwingers, you like exactly like a leftwinger, you insult (poorly)
people you have no clue about...and yet you claim to be a
"conservative verging on libertarian"
Oh..yeah..I forgot..you are a liar. My mistake.
Gunner
Aug 12, 2012, 3:59:03 PM8/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:40:09 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>ROTFLAY !!!
>terrorists.
>
>Ya ever hear of the Salmon Pac facility?
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
>
>[ clickable citations for each quote can be found at the url link ]
>
>Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
>
>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
>is our bottom line."
> President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
>
>"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological
>weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking
>to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade,
>and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but
>on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to
>deliver them."
> President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.
>
>"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is
>nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep
>the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an
>unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most
>brutal dictators of this century."
> Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998
>
>"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade
>international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction.
>As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to
>monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell
>game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to
>allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
> Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998
>
>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face."
> Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.
>
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983."
> Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.
>
>"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
>Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
>mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
>Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
>
>"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that
>the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
>importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
>development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
>countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
>process."
> Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
>
>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
>
>"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
>visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
>reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
>chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf
>War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
>doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
>longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
> Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and
>others, Dec, 5, 2001.
>
>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
>threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
>of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
>means of delivering them."
> Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
>
>"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
>in power."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
>weapons of mass destruction."
> Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
>
>"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident
>that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
>weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his
>chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate
>that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
>
>"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to
>eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
>I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under
>consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to
>America and our allies..."
> John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002
>
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
>to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
>and grave threat to our security."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
>
>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
>to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
>next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated
>the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
>destruction."
> Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
>
>"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
>every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
>destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
>he has refused to do."
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
>
>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
>that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
>weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
>has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
>Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
>Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
>chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.
>
>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
>Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
>the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
> Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
>
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
>.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
>real ...."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
>
>
>Don't know what group you're from Twibil but I spanked you for being stupid
>on the boating group and now you turn up elsewhere like a bad penny. It's
>long past time you logged off usenet to do your research into the facts
>before you make an ass of yourself yet gain.
>
>Cheers.
He cant..or wont. The poor widdle wetched wetard is nothing more than
a Leftwing troll of the worst sort.
Ill be delighted when someone spanks him with a barbed wire noose in
the near future, just before they kick the lawn chair out from under
him.
wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Aug 11, 7:28 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
>>> >> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
>>> >> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
>>> >> Liebmann
>>>
>>> >Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
>>> >conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
>>> >threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
>>> >4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
>>> >'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
>>>
>>> >Brilliant.
>>>
>>> Translation: Democrats are so fucking stupid that that idiot Bush was
>>> able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
>>> funding it..year after year after year.
>>
>>No. Read your own history, little troll.
>
>Gunner Asch a troll?
>>>
>>>
>>> >> "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
>>> >> the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
>>> >> out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
>>> >> Liebmann
>>>
>>> >Translation: "Noting that The Shrub started a war with the wrong
>>> >conntry (Iraq), that he refused to pay for that war -which is what
>>> >threw our balanced budget into the shitter, and that it killed almost
>>> >4,500 US soldiers and wounded circa 35,000 others is to be known as
>>> >'petty carping' to the Tea Party kooks from here on out."
>>>
>>> >Brilliant.
>>>
>>> Translation: Democrats are so fucking stupid that that idiot Bush was
>>> able to hypnotize them all into voting for the war..and to keep
>>> funding it..year after year after year.
>>
>>No. Read your own history, little troll.
>
>
>ROTFLAY !!!
>
>>Bush was able to cow the liberals by lying about how anyone who
>>opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
>>Iraq,
>
>Except that Saddam provided payment and funding and training camps for the
>>Bush was able to cow the liberals by lying about how anyone who
>>opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
>>Iraq,
>
>terrorists.
>
>Ya ever hear of the Salmon Pac facility?
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
>
>
>>claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
>>they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
>>not supporting our troops.
>
>http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/index.html
>
>>claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
>>they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
>>not supporting our troops.
>
>
>[ clickable citations for each quote can be found at the url link ]
>
>Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
>
>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
>is our bottom line."
> President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
>
>"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological
>weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking
>to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade,
>and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but
>on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to
>deliver them."
> President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.
>
>"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is
>nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep
>the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an
>unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most
>brutal dictators of this century."
> Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998
>
>"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade
>international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction.
>As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to
>monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell
>game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to
>allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
> Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998
>
>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
>deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
>nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
>greatest security threat we face."
> Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.
>
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
>since 1983."
> Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.
>
>"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
>Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
>appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
>effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
>mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
>Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
>
>"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that
>the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
>importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
>development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
>countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
>process."
> Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
>
>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
>
>"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
>visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
>reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
>chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf
>War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
>doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
>longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
> Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and
>others, Dec, 5, 2001.
>
>"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
>threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
>of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
>means of delivering them."
> Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
>
>"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical
>weapons throughout his country."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
>"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
>deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
>in power."
> Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
>
>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
>weapons of mass destruction."
> Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
>
>"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident
>that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
>weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his
>chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate
>that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
>
>"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to
>eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
>I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under
>consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to
>America and our allies..."
> John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002
>
>"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
>to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
>and grave threat to our security."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
>
>"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
>to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
>next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated
>the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
>destruction."
> Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
>
>"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
>every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
>destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
>he has refused to do."
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
>
>"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
>that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
>weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
>has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
>Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
>Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
>chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.
>
>"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
>Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
>the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
> Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
>
>"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
>murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a
>particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
>miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
>continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
>.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
>real ...."
> Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
>
>
>Don't know what group you're from Twibil but I spanked you for being stupid
>on the boating group and now you turn up elsewhere like a bad penny. It's
>long past time you logged off usenet to do your research into the facts
>before you make an ass of yourself yet gain.
>
>Cheers.
He cant..or wont. The poor widdle wetched wetard is nothing more than
a Leftwing troll of the worst sort.
Ill be delighted when someone spanks him with a barbed wire noose in
the near future, just before they kick the lawn chair out from under
him.
Twibil
Aug 12, 2012, 5:47:58 PM8/12/12
to
On Aug 12, 10:40 am, Sarah Ehrett <ninety...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> Except that Saddam provided payment and funding and training camps for the
> terrorists.
Oh dear.
>
>
> Except that Saddam provided payment and funding and training camps for the
> terrorists.
This one's even crazier than "Gunner".
Twibil
Aug 12, 2012, 5:51:37 PM8/12/12
to
On Aug 12, 10:50 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
>
> Troll? you post this buffoonery into misc.survivalism, where the
> vast majority of the readers are conservative smart people..and you
> call me a troll?
Well, to be honest, "psychopathic" is probably a better description.
>
>
> Troll? you post this buffoonery into misc.survivalism, where the
> vast majority of the readers are conservative smart people..and you
> call me a troll?
It's idiots like you who could easily cost Romney the election.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Gunner
Aug 12, 2012, 8:13:10 PM8/12/12
to
managed to infect the brain stems of all these Democrats during the
Clinton administration?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the
Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against
Iraq.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by
top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.
"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State
University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline
Albright.
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively
to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively
to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was
signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including
Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her
congressional website.
"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time
and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from
getting into the country. Albright said, "There has never been an
embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not
chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his
money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his
cronies."
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
programs
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using
the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles
that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
that will threaten the United States and our allies."
others, December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could
find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it
was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that
date.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in
San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a
crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a
crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that
would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even
though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not
been the need to take military action for a number of years and he
asked why there would be the need at that point.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same
debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction."
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using
force against Saddam Hussein.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she
did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
real ..."
In a speech to Georgetown University.
Gunner
Aug 12, 2012, 8:14:13 PM8/12/12
to
December 2005
By Norman Podhoretz
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations, and outright
falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in
particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George
W. Bush misled us into an immoral and/or unnecessary war in Iraq by
telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has
enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even
though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by
evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as
those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown
up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their
bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this
allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie
that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over
ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that
revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh
memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown
confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that
Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or
WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the
subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged
mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct
(or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these
weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was
the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to
terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom
he was linked.
This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on
life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby,
then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands
accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing
perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to
find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a
CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The
supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press
was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words)
“the lies that led to war.”
Now, as it happens, Libby was not charged with having outed Plame but
only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that
she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special
prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of
emphasizing that
[t]his indictment is not about the war. This indictment is not about
the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war
effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it
should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel
or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security
investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that
may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the
war, whether some person—a person, Mr. Libby—lied or not.
No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for
a host of other opponents of the war in insisting that
[t]his case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is
about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated
intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to
discredit anyone who dared to challenge the President.
Yet even stipulating—which I do only for the sake of argument—that no
weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up
to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Bush was lying
when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one
knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that
Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA
director, assured him that the case was “a slam dunk.” This phrase
would later become notorious, but in using it, Tenet had the backing
of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the
United States. In the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2002,
where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions
offered with “high confidence” was that
Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical,
biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel,
and—yes—France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix—who
headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam
had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid
of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the
past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a
few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a
bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much
publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the
rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time
when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be
the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does
not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of
chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
Blix now claims that he was only being “cautious” here, but if, as he
now also adds, the Bush administration “misled itself” in interpreting
the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.
So, once again, did the British, the French, and the Germans, all of
whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reading
of the satellite photos he presented to the UN in the period leading
up to the invasion. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence
Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure
as Secretary of State. But Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious
attack on the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of
Defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the
Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the
available evidence as it did:
I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us
thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented
at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled
with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of
the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical
weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should
show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s
a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph
which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with
black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed,
everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John
McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented
[for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Wilkerson informs us
that even the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research
(INR) was convinced:
People say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented
that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented
on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
In explaining its dissent on Iraq’s nuclear program, the INR had, as
stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about
Iraq’s efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the
argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. .
. . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for
use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson,
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and
said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this
RPM, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive
that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery
casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such
exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans
Blix, “the consensus of the intelligence community,” as Wilkerson puts
it, “was overwhelming” in the period leading up to the invasion of
Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological
weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to
rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by
bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth
Pollack, who
served in the National Security Council under Clinton. “In the late
spring
of 2002,” Pollack has written:
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present
included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations
Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee
the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a
question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was
currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three
people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret
calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with
“high confidence” was that
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires
sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.
But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own
administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton
administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in
1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Adviser, who chimed
in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983.
Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained “absolutely convinced”
of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion
in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this
score. A few months after Clinton and his people made the statements I
have just quoted, a group of Democratic Senators, including such
liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the
President
to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile
strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat
posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction
programs.
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and
then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to
the chorus:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Bush
succeeded Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later
pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to
the new President, a number of Senators led by Bob Graham declared:
There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies.
Senator Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Bush’s benefit what he had told
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies.
Clinton some years earlier:
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development
of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush’s opponents in his two
of weapons of mass destruction.
campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would
hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
later employ against Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements
made by Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking
and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Byrd: The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities.
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media,
in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For
example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration,
editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that
without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild
weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks
may be required to diminish the arsenal again.
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was
hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his
commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as
his country’s salvation.
So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George
W. Bush in January 2001 with the admonition that
[o]f all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration,
none is more dangerous—or more urgent—than the situation in Iraq. Over
the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with,
or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade’s
efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from
rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush
to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where]
intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long
suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.
All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even
unreasonable doubt that Bush was telling what he believed to be the
truth about Saddam’s stockpile of WMD. It also disposes of the
fallback charge that Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the
intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when
the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone
who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world
believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the sixteen
resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his
weapons of mass destruction?
Another fallback charge is that Bush, operating mainly through Cheney,
somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in
its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee,
while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like
weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it
did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to
coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments
related to Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.
The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman
commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached
the same conclusion, finding
no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence
community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . .
[A]nalysts universally asserted that in no instance did political
pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical
judgments.
Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was
ruthless enough to use them, accused Bush of telling a different sort
of lie by characterizing the risk as “imminent.” But this, too, is
false: Bush consistently rejectedimminence as a justification for war.
Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months
after 9/11, Bush declared that he would “not wait on events while
dangers gather” and that he would “not stand by, as peril draws closer
and closer.” Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he
reiterated the same point: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we
will have waited too long.” And as if that were not clear enough, he
went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that
is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word “imminent”
itself precisely in order to repudiate it:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since
when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely
putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted
to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and
restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an
option.
What of the related charge that it was still another “lie” to suggest,
as Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between
Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on
9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence
Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the
mainstream media, the committee’s report explicitly concluded that al
Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with
Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11
commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably
independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which
pointed to “meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and
senior al-Qaeda operatives.”
Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the
palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.
The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted—after, be
it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department—into Bush’s
2003 State of the Union address:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
This is the “lie” Wilson bragged of having “debunked” after being sent
by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had
received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife
had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread
the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President’s idea.
But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first
planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that “Cheney
apparently didn’t know that Wilson had been dispatched.” (By the time
Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in
characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever
“said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.”) And as for his
wife’s supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame
Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:
My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of
Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . both of whom could
possibly shed light on this sort of activity.
More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece
in the Timesunder his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his
wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.
In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his
allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the
charge that (in Wilson’s latest iteration of it) “lies and
disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq,”
eventually acknowledged that the President’s statement “did not rise
to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address.” As might
have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make
things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally
unnecessary—for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of
the sixteen words at issue was true.
That is, British intelligence hadassured the CIA that Saddam Hussein
had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger.
Furthermore—and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that
this assurance has now been discredited—Britain’s independent Butler
commission concluded that it was “well-founded.” The relevant passage
is worth quoting at length:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s
exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not
claim this.
As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far
from challenging the British report when he was “debriefed” on his
return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops
doing), actually strengthened the CIA’s belief in its accuracy. From
the Senate Intelligence Committee report:
He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important
fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that
the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger
prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing
uranium.
And again:
The report on [Wilson’s] trip to Niger . . . did not change any
analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most
analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the
original CIA reports on the uranium deal.
This passage goes on to note that the State Department’s Bureau of
Intelligence and Research—which (as we have already seen) did not
believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear
weapons—found support in Wilson’s report for its “assessment that
Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” But
if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not
mean that Iraq had not triedto buy it—which was the only claim made by
British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.
The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied
when he told the Washington Postthat he had unmasked as forgeries
certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not
yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam’s
efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out
to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,
[t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at
the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does
not undermine [that assessment].
More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee
discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:
[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a
Washington Postarticle . . . which said, “among the envoy’s
conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the
dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how
the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the
“dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the
CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the
reports.
To top all this off, just as Cheney had nothing to do with the choice
of Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as
Wilson “confirmed” for a credulous New Republicreporter, “the CIA
circulated [his] report to the Vice President’s office,” thereby
supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff “knew the Niger story was
a flatout lie.” Yet—the mind reels—if Cheney had actually been briefed
on Wilson’s oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like
the CIA itself, have been moreinclined to believe that Saddam had
tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.
So much for the author of the best-selling and much acclaimed book
whose title alone— The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to
War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity—has set a new record for
chutzpah.
But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against
Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators
is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and
because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes
the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those
standards, Wilson—who has repeatedly made false statements about every
aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send
him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by
the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged
documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a
wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted,
the more they keep being repeated—is himself an excellent candidate
for criminal prosecution.
And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest
that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped,
and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to
delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq—the policy of
making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for
democracy—have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation, and
selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise
and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and
more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of
American ideals.
Gunner
Aug 12, 2012, 8:23:33 PM8/12/12
to
Romney cant lose. Do you know why? Because he is "anybody besides
Obama".
If the Republicans had picked a patch of pond scum for the
candidate...it would win in November. Because its NOT OBAMA!
The Democratic party is bleeding voters like a severed carotid artery.
By the time the election comes around..the only people who will remain
to vote for your Obamassiah are the mentally ill, those with senial
dementia and the dead.
You are actually a very very poor DNC troll. I hope they do a
reevaluation of your worth and cut off your cheese and dope money and
put it to better use soon.
Gunner
"In 2008, people voted for Obama, to prove they weret racist
In 2012, people didnt vote for Obama, to prove they werent stupid".
edit to send email
Aug 12, 2012, 9:49:50 PM8/12/12
to
In <3seg281jvsbiq9rq2...@4ax.com>, on 08/12/12
at 07:26 PM, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net> said:
>You've been spanked again Twibil. :)
You do seem to enjoy spanking him. Was sich liebt das neckt sich.
Cheers, Bjorn.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
bjorn.r...@guzzi.demon.nl (Bjorn Rietdijk)
-----------------------------------------------------------
at 07:26 PM, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net> said:
>You've been spanked again Twibil. :)
You do seem to enjoy spanking him. Was sich liebt das neckt sich.
Cheers, Bjorn.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
bjorn.r...@guzzi.demon.nl (Bjorn Rietdijk)
-----------------------------------------------------------
pyotr filipivich
Aug 13, 2012, 1:04:51 AM8/13/12
to
Gunner <Gunner Asch> on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:50:36 -0700 typed in
misc.survivalism the following:
>
Juan.".
--
pyotr filipivich
Obi-wan once observed"The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
Who knew Dubya was a Jedi Knight?
misc.survivalism the following:
>
>>Bush was able to cow the liberals by lying about how anyone who
>>opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
>>Iraq, claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
>>they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
>>not supporting our troops.
>
>So then you admit that the "idiot Bush" convinced the Far Leftwing
>Extremist Fringe Kooks into voting for war? How could an idiot do
>that? Given that the Democrats ran the Intelligence community and had
>first look at all the intel coming in...how in the world could a moron
>brand new president with no balls or brains yutz the smartest
>Democrats in the government?
>
>Im really interested in your answer.
George W. Bush, is known in the Jedi Council as "Dubya" or "Obi
>>opposed him was "helpng the terrorists" -who had nothing to do with
>>Iraq, claiming that Iraq was near to having an atomic bomb -which
>>they weren't, and then accusing anyone who opposed funding the war of
>>not supporting our troops.
>
>So then you admit that the "idiot Bush" convinced the Far Leftwing
>Extremist Fringe Kooks into voting for war? How could an idiot do
>that? Given that the Democrats ran the Intelligence community and had
>first look at all the intel coming in...how in the world could a moron
>brand new president with no balls or brains yutz the smartest
>Democrats in the government?
>
>Im really interested in your answer.
Juan.".
--
pyotr filipivich
Obi-wan once observed"The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
Who knew Dubya was a Jedi Knight?
Douche Sales
Aug 13, 2012, 6:57:52 PM8/13/12
to
In article <iteg28th6fpjsfi3h...@4ax.com>
Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net> wrote:
> reference to a Star Trek episode title.
You mean, "The trouble with wrinkles."
> >Ill be delighted when someone spanks him with a barbed wire noose in
> >the near future, just before they kick the lawn chair out from under
> >him.
>
> Hmmm, I was thinking perhaps giving him 40 lashes with the rotan.
You were thinking about giving his wang 40 lashes with your
tongue.
> >Gunner
Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:59:03 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:40:09 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Aug 11, 7:28 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
> [ big snip ]
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:59:03 -0700, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:40:09 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <nine...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Aug 11, 7:28 pm, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
>
> >>Don't know what group you're from Twibil but I spanked you for being stupid
> >>on the boating group and now you turn up elsewhere like a bad penny. It's
> >>long past time you logged off usenet to do your research into the facts
> >>before you make an ass of yourself yet gain.
> >>
> >>Cheers.
> >
> >He cant..or wont. The poor widdle wetched wetard is nothing more than
> >a Leftwing troll of the worst sort.
>
> The first time I read his nonsense I thought, " The twuble with Twibil " a
> >>Don't know what group you're from Twibil but I spanked you for being stupid
> >>on the boating group and now you turn up elsewhere like a bad penny. It's
> >>long past time you logged off usenet to do your research into the facts
> >>before you make an ass of yourself yet gain.
> >>
> >>Cheers.
> >
> >He cant..or wont. The poor widdle wetched wetard is nothing more than
> >a Leftwing troll of the worst sort.
>
> reference to a Star Trek episode title.
You mean, "The trouble with wrinkles."
> >Ill be delighted when someone spanks him with a barbed wire noose in
> >the near future, just before they kick the lawn chair out from under
> >him.
>
You were thinking about giving his wang 40 lashes with your
tongue.
> >Gunner
Vincent
Aug 22, 2012, 3:51:57 AM8/22/12
to
On 07 Aug 2012, David T. Ashley <das...@gmail.com> posted some
news:iii228drmuodoe6c8...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:44:56 +0200, "Steve Lehman"
><sle...@yahoon.com> wrote:
>
>>THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
>>ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
>>
>
> SNIP
>
>>Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that
>>they have not first taken away from someone else.
>>
>>Did you vote for the ice cream?
>>
>>
>>THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED,
>
> More nonsense.
Oh? He certainly ran his mouth about what he was going to accomplish.
I guess what it boils down is is he's just another shit-talking nigger.
Because that's all niggers do, talk shit, do drugs, talk more shit, and
fuck each other up the ass.
> The only presidential candidate I'm aware of who has ever run on the
> platform of raising taxes (taking away ice cream) is
Barack Obama.
news:iii228drmuodoe6c8...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:44:56 +0200, "Steve Lehman"
><sle...@yahoon.com> wrote:
>
>>THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
>>ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
>>
>
> SNIP
>
>>Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that
>>they have not first taken away from someone else.
>>
>>Did you vote for the ice cream?
>>
>>
>>THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED,
>
> More nonsense.
I guess what it boils down is is he's just another shit-talking nigger.
Because that's all niggers do, talk shit, do drugs, talk more shit, and
fuck each other up the ass.
> The only presidential candidate I'm aware of who has ever run on the
> platform of raising taxes (taking away ice cream) is
0 new messages