Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    Thanks for setting us straight,  WIIN12AM I never realized that it was the Democrats who made Bush start the war with Iraq.  Surely that all shows up in his new biography. And Skeeter, good digging.  We all know the NY Post, not to mention Fox News, will set us right on this issue.  The operative text from Wired, which the Post used as its source, went like this: An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive  WMD  program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal,  largely destroyed after the Gulf War , remained. So apparently the Post missed the words "doesn't reveal evidence..." As an aside, I applaud your obvious enthusiasm for Wikileaks -- keep reading. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
    Posted by Ergoetal



    As skeeter would say....


    ...crickets...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    Thanks for setting us straight,  WIIN12AM I never realized that it was the Democrats who made Bush start the war with Iraq.  Surely that all shows up in his new biography. And Skeeter, good digging.  We all know the NY Post, not to mention Fox News, will set us right on this issue.  The operative text from Wired, which the Post used as its source, went like this: An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive  WMD  program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal,  largely destroyed after the Gulf War , remained. So apparently the Post missed the words "doesn't reveal evidence..." As an aside, I applaud your obvious enthusiasm for Wikileaks -- keep reading. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
    Posted by Ergoetal


    So, I guess your statement there were NO WMD in Iraq needs to be modified to there were NOT ENOUGH WMD found in Iraq, no?

    Yellow cake: 550 tons.  Saddam had it, didn't report it, we found it, removed it.  I'll even use a moonbat trusted source, MSNBC:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

    No.  Nothing to see here.  move along.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    Skeeter, even Rumsfeld admits he misspoke about  WMD sites in Iraq. His misstatements help lead Americans into war where some were KIA, MIA and someother will never be psychology the same while you were safe at home burying your money in coffee cans in your yard. Do you still raise your American Flag in your front yard every A.M. or still have the bumper sticker on you on 1984 Chevy Chevette that states "These Color Won't Run"?  You Chicken Hawk !Bronx Cheer ! Semper Fi !
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    Skeeter, even Rumsfeld admits he misspoke about  WMD sites in Iraq. His misstatements help lead Americans into war where some were KIA, MIA and someother will never be psychology the same while you were safe at home burying your money in coffee cans in your yard. Do you still raise your American Flag in your front yard every A.M. or still have the bumper sticker on you on 1984 Chevy Chevette that states "These Color Won't Run"?  You Chicken Hawk !Bronx Cheer ! Semper Fi !
    Posted by 8101956


    So, you are denying that SOME WMD, including 550 tons of yellow cake were found in Iraq?  Are you blind?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States


    Skeeter the yellow cake that you speak of was from the early 1980. It was legally stored by Iraq, it wasn't weapon grade. It was known to the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Bush use it for a reason to go to war, a smoking gun is what he said ( In the shape of a mushroom cloud)  . He lied us into that war, PAL. BTW I don't get your point about being blind. What does that mean ? But I do have a question for you. Why and who outed Valerie Plame ? Bronx Cheer !







     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : So, you are denying that SOME WMD, including 550 tons of yellow cake were found in Iraq?  Are you blind?
    Posted by skeeter20


    Good Lord.  Stop your flailing.

    Stored non-weapon grade yellow cake is not a "WMD"

    An explodable atomic bomb is a "WMD"

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : An S-3 Viking is not a fighter jet and a military uniform is not required to sit in the co-pilots seat - unless you are Fidel Castro.
    Posted by AlleyCatBruin


    I didn't characterize it as a fighter jet, but it is a twin engine jet initially designed for anit-submarine warfare, if Lockheeds website can be trusted.  As for the flight suit, I'm not sure that is a "uniform" more than necessary equipment needed to fly and is probably milatary policy for pilots...remember President Bush was (1) A pilot, and (2) Commander In Chief...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : Good Lord.  Stop your flailing. Stored non-weapon grade yellow cake is not a "WMD" An explodable atomic bomb is a "WMD"
    Posted by WhatIsItNow


    So, if I had a pistol in my right pocket and bullets in my left, would you consider me unarmed?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    So, moonbats, what does a President do with 'intelligence reports'?   Tell us, please :

    In early 2001, ambiguous general 'intelligence reports'  about Bin Laden said he wanted to commit terror in the US, with few details available. 

    According to Monday-morning QB Bush-hating moonbats, we should have immediately invaded Pakistan and suffered thousands of casualties to get Bin Laden and kill him... 

    In 2003, intelligence reports from Germany, England, France, and the US unanimously concluded Sadam Hussein had WMD, which means there was imminent danger of a mass casulty event in the Middle east or even in the US.
    However, in this case, Monday-morning QB Bush-hating moonbats say Bush should have known the intelligence reports were all wrong !!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beltway. Show Beltway's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    Hey, where were you clowns when Saddam and his sons were committing genocide and torturing their own people?

    Where were you when Hosni Mubarak was making Egyptians who opposed him disappear?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    " So, if I had a pistol in my right pocket and bullets in my left, would you consider me unarmed?" No, I'd consider you a typical trash-talking rightie. Who you getting lessons from, Ms. Palin?
    Posted by Ergoetal


    That was good for a chuckle.  You have no basis to conclude that I am left, right or neutral...but you jump to conclusions anyway...how sad.

    Would you care to stick to the subject and actually answer the question?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from lawboy. Show lawboy's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    BoBIN you are an A55HOLE that I would love to see die a horrible death along with all your southern right wing ilk
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 8101956. Show 8101956's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    To BobinVA I never agee with you at all but do me a FAVER and IGNORE that fool. IT must be the first time that JERK got a chance to use a computer without his parents watching ! I wouldn't even wish that immature jerk onto your side of the aisle. Semper Fi !
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : Have you seen any other President in a military uniform? Bush was a failed dictator and you know it.
    Posted by AlleyCatBruin


    Actually, Yes.  But the flight suit you are squeaking about is less a uniform rather than gear...and since he was a pilot and sitting in the co-pilots seat, there is justification for that.  But you're so narrow minded and blinded by hate you can't recognize that.  Oh, did he give the speech in that flight suit or a business suit?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    BoBIN you are an A55HOLE that I would love to see die a horrible death along with all your southern right wing ilk
    Posted by lawboy


    That was brilliant.  Which one are you, Beavis or Butthead?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from lawboy. Show lawboy's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    That was brilliant.  Which one are you, Beavis or Butthead?


    I borrowed it from windbag Limbaugh
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : Rushfan says he's seen a President in a military uniform. Please, Rushfan, enlighten us to which serving American President that you saw wearing a military uniform, other than DUHbya.
    Posted by AlleyCatBruin


    President Eisenhower was a 5-Star General when he was elected President.  You might want to look up some photos of President Eisenhower in Korea...

    Thanks for playing...run along now.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    That was brilliant.  Which one are you, Beavis or Butthead? I borrowed it from windbag Limbaugh
    Posted by lawboy


    Yeah, sure.

    Come back when you grow up.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : Those were pictures of candidate Ike, not Ike as President. It must be awful to be a republican..........
    Posted by AlleyCatBruin


    Sorry, but I believe you're very wrong about that (both items).  Try again.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    Skeeter the yellow cake that you speak of was from the early 1980. It was legally stored by Iraq, it wasn't weapon grade. It was known to the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Bush use it for a reason to go to war, a smoking gun is what he said ( In the shape of a mushroom cloud)  . He lied us into that war, PAL. BTW I don't get your point about being blind. What does that mean ? But I do have a question for you. Why and who outed Valerie Plame ? Bronx Cheer !
    Posted by 8101956


    So, you admit it was there?  We are making some great progress.  How about the 800 or so mustard gas munitions?

    So, you actually admit that there were wmd and precursor wmd in Iraq.  My my.

    Who "outed" Valiere Plame?  Well, actually no one.  it was well known that she worked for the CIA.  She even participated in a photo shoot after said incident.    But, who was the person in question, if I stipulate your outing charge?

    Richie Armatige, by accident.  This was known before Libby was even interviewed by Fitzgerald.  A democrat lawyer trying to smear the Bush administration?  Go figure.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : No.  I'd rather figure out whether you're right, left or neutral.  It's gonna be tough.
    Posted by Ergoetal


    Why don't you simply answer a question? 

    Whatever, knock yourself out.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    "Why don't you simply answer a question?"   Oh, sorry.  I wasn't sure which question you wanted me to answer.  Now I see.  You're dumming it down so I can understand. You're saying that if you had a gun in one pocket and bullets in another, would I consider you unarmed.  No, I guess not.  I would consider you armed. But I must be really slow because I don't see how that has anything to do with a war in Iraq that has killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and was waged by Bush and Cheney, neither of whom could find their way to Viet Nam, and was based on, yes, a lie.  Actually several lies. One, that iraq had WMD, which no one could find.  Yes, maybe a few pistols and bullets in people's pockets; maybe a little left over chemical stuff from the war with Iran or other, internal uses.  But not the big stuff that was promised to us by Bush, Cheney, Powell, or others.  Remember what Powell was pointing to in the overheads at the UN?  You know, the big pictures he showed?  That was a lie.  Those weren't pictures of WMD containers or laboratories. Then the Bush boys -- not the Clintons -- floated a new scenario -- that Iraq was a supporter of Al Qaeada.  That wasn't true, either. So here's how we prove the lie -- we let Bush himself do it. And he did it by renaming the war, once he realized that he couldn't prove the other stuff, to Operation  Iraqi Freedom. Remember?  The whole purpose, the whole mission suddenly did a 180.  Now we were going in to save the people from their nasty leader. Not good enough for you?  That's OK -- it take a while for it to sink in. Meantime, I think I've got it -- you're a rightie.  Then again, it's just a guess.
    Posted by Ergoetal


    You weren't sure which question?  How about the only one I asked to another poster, which is the very one you parroted in an earlier post?  Yeah, that one, so I guess I have to agree with your self assessment that you're "really slow".

    Now, if you recall...and don't be afraid to review the earlier posts, another poster defined WMD as an explodable atomic bomb, or something like that and that yellowcake was not a WMD.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  My question in the form of a very simple analogy was if I had bullets on one side and a gun...You see, if the components are available to make a working gun, it doesn't really matter if it is able to fire right now or at some point in the future.  It can still ruin your day if you're the recipient.  So you yourself said you would consider me armed because I had the components needed to shoot you...so you're not really that slow.

    "Left over chemical stuff"?  Well, that was a no-no and unless you understand LC50s, you might not recognize that with some chemicals, a small amount will kill you just as dead as a a large amount.  There were UN resolutions in place that were being ignored.  You disagree?

    All the other stuff you brought up? Well I don't buy the Iraq Al Qaida connection and I thought changing the rationale mid-stream was a disaster.  The support for the argument to go to war was not just WMD, but that was a biggie.  As I recall there were other reasons cited that stem from the first gulf war and events during the Clinton adminstration.  Oh, and the majority of the government agreed and thus voted for action.  Why the government continues to support the military involvement is a great question to ask.  Every man and woman serving should have been told to pack up and go home the minute "Mission Accomplished" was uttered.

    So you think I'm a "rightie".  That's your opinion and your entitled to have one.  The trouble with guessing is very often the guess is wrong.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : You weren't sure which question?  How about the only one I asked to another poster, which is the very one you parroted in an earlier post?  Yeah, that one, so I guess I have to agree with your self assessment that you're "really slow". Now, if you recall...and don't be afraid to review the earlier posts, another poster defined WMD as an explodable atomic bomb, or something like that and that yellowcake was not a WMD.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  My question in the form of a very simple analogy was if I had bullets on one side and a gun...You see, if the components are available to make a working gun, it doesn't really matter if it is able to fire right now or at some point in the future.  It can still ruin your day if you're the recipient.  So you yourself said you would consider me armed because I had the components needed to shoot you...so you're not really that slow. "Left over chemical stuff"?  Well, that was a no-no and unless you understand LC50s, you might not recognize that with some chemicals, a small amount will kill you just as dead as a a large amount.  There were UN resolutions in place that were being ignored.  You disagree? All the other stuff you brought up? Well I don't buy the Iraq Al Qaida connection and I thought changing the rationale mid-stream was a disaster.  The support for the argument to go to war was not just WMD, but that was a biggie.  As I recall there were other reasons cited that stem from the first gulf war and events during the Clinton adminstration.  Oh, and the majority of the government agreed and thus voted for action.  Why the government continues to support the military involvement is a great question to ask.  Every man and woman serving should have been told to pack up and go home the minute "Mission Accomplished" was uttered. So you think I'm a "rightie".  That's your opinion and your entitled to have one.  The trouble with guessing is very often the guess is wrong.
    Posted by Rushfan2112


    goood point on the yellow cake. I'm not an expert, but I do beleive yellow cake is considered a precurusr.  Kind of like having gunpownder, a shell casing and a chunk of lead.  Assemble them, you got a bullet.

    I do find it interesting that the argument has devolved into anything pointed out as a WMD precursor, like the VX gas precursors found next to missile hardened "fertilizer" plants, that all these finds are just,well nothing in the mind of progressives.

    Face it:  we stopped Saddam (or his generals) before he got a chance to use this stuff, which takes only a few hours to weaponize.  To the left, that translates into no WMD found.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : Rip Van Rummy Rumsfeld is also on the talk-show circuit admitting that they never found any WMD. Bush even dismantled the unit responsible for searching for WMD in Iraq. All I can say to Skeeter is "Mission Accomplished"! Hahahaha
    Posted by AlleyCatBruin


    I thought the UN weapons inspectors were the group looking for WMD...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States

    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States:
    In Response to Re: Bush Indictment for Convention Against Torture Signatory States : I thought the UN weapons inspectors were the group looking for WMD...
    Posted by Rushfan2112


    Well, he would be wrong, then, wouldn't he?

    Funny how the lists I have posted seem to not be enough: 550 tons of yellowcake, 800 rounds of mustard gas, plently of precursors for VX gas.  So, not being a Rummey fan, I could care less what he says.

    Facts is facts, except if you are a progressive.
     
Sections
Shortcuts