Good, fuck you fucking democrats assholes. Did the teargas sting your eyes. I'm sure you wouldn't be out there protesting if they were trying to take our guns away you pathetic hypocritical fucks.
@PushyLittleKid The smoke you see is only smoke. Not teargas. We were not protesting either. We went to go see a protest, which we had never seen before. And fyi, I had one of my guns on me that day, and I would be protesting if my gun rights were going to be taken away.
while moron/decypher/CLONE proves why rightywingnuts mustn't be power in power (or this country ;) -- accounts by loyal americans of "official" incompetence, lies & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of iraq occupation. 3 parts
YEP, my rightywingnut CLONE (3 sss) been spamming same tired bs & spin for days. blocked twice (moronlefty & decypher), he's typical rightwingnut with no impulse control, no judgment & no respect for truth, rules (incl constitution ;) or others. like his bush admin heroes, he blathers half-truths, irrelevancies & lies to own ends -- while thugging those don't by his bs.
CLONE's rightwingnut kind are fake patriots & threat to our democracy. they gotta go. lets give em texas ;)
while moron/decypher/CLONE proves why rightywingnuts don't belong in power (spamming tired bs took us to war in iraq) - accounts of "official" incompetence, lies & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of iraq occupation. 3 parts
while my clone proves why leftwingnuts can't be trusted with facts, let alone power (spamming tired bs that has been debunked from sources deemed untrustworthy) - a few disgruntled employees does not a rightful documentary make.
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the UN and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development,
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.
dude is bats. my CLONE (w/ 3 'sss' ;) thinks HE & bush admin liars are real patriots. spams tired, bullshit about bogus war in iraq/terrorism. notice MISSING names in his spam: BUSH, CHENEY, RUMMSFELD.
they didn't do ANYTHING, just "battled terrorism" by taking us to war against country with NO connection to 9/11 or al qaeda ;)
This clone won't leave the alone! How dare you clone me!
And how dare anyone question me when I have provided documentaries that have been proven debunked from sources that have been proven to be discredited and untrustworthy! How dare anyone question me, even when I question the proven fact that Iraq and 911 were connected!
In a bombshell finding virtually ignored by the American media, a U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday [May 7, 2003] that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America.
...according to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors, the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al-Qaeda recruits practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist technique never employed before 9/11.
Judge Harold Baer ruled Wednesday that the survivors of two people who were killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack had presented enough evidence, "albeit barely," to be awarded $104 million in damages against the state of Iraq, Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist network.
He reviewed the testimony of [former CIA Director James] Woolsey and terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie on alleged links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, including whether lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a high-ranking member of Iraqi intelligence in Prague before Sept. 11, and whether Saddam Hussein ran a hijacking training camp in Salman Pak, just outside of Baghdad.
"In particular, Mylroie testified about Iraq's covert involvement in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and about the proximity of the dates of bin Laden's attack on the U.S. embassies and Hussein's ouster of weapons inspectors."
Through a translator, [Iraqi defector Sabah Khalifa] Alami described, according to the Wall Street Journal ("The Iraq Connection" by Micah Morrison, 5 Sept. 2002), a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and -- using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex -- how to hijack a plane or bus without weapons.
He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam's intelligence service, the mukhabarat. Asked about the plane by an interviewer for Front Line, he said "Yes, there's a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp."
SALMAN PAK, Iraq -- The rusted shell of an old passenger jet sat out in a field, its tail broken off. Good for hijacking practice, U.S. Marines speculated Sunday [April 6, 2003] as they examined an Iraqi training base about 20 miles south of Baghdad.
documentaries with dozens of loyal americans in us military, intelligence community and bush administration that rightywingnut moron/decypher/CLONE calls liars:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" -- "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
he pretends spam is about me, but trashes good docs & 1st hand accts of loyal americans in us military, intelligence community & CONSERVATIVE insiders in BUSH admin.
THEY tell of incompetence, unconstititional policies, manipulation of intelligence & lies (aluminum tubes, niger contracts, al qaeda-iraq ties) that misled america/world to PRE-EMPTIVE war in iraq.
moron/decypher/CLONE at war w/all but lying rightwingnuts like himself. he crazy.
Hey there you coward clone! How dare you clone me! YOu are a COWARD for cloning me!
Just because I post documentaries that have no basis in fact from sources that have been proven to be debunked and biased doesn't mean you have to clone me. I HATE YOU you clone!
while moron/decyphte/CLONE demonstrates why rightywingnuts shouldn't be in power OR in country, some respected docs review their incompetence, lies & unconsititional policies -- AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
Oh My God and check this out! I'm so fucking stupid I though MN was a conservative state! LOL I actually said that! HAHAHAHAHA!! Holy shit how dumb would someone have to be to think that Minnesota, a bastion of liberalism, is a conservative state!? I'd have to be ignoring almost everything about MN
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas secr Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more
NOTE: docs are platform for loyal americans in bush admin, military & intelligence community who give 1st hand accts of incompetence, illegal polcies & lies that took us to war.
ALL are loyal americans & MOST are CONSERVATIVES -- NOT crazy, incompetent, lying rightywingnuts they worked for.
moron/decypher/CLONE claims to be a CONSERVATIVE -- a LIE. he's a rightywingnut bent on undermining american democracy ala this thread.
secretary of disinformation in new republic of texas? :)
Note: I hate anyone who disagrees with me to the point that I will ignore information that proves me wrong and that proves that my documentaries are debunked pieces of dogshit from untrustworthy sources.
I am a deranged lefty who has no idea what it means to be right and I think that anyone who disagrees with me should be silenced. I hate myself.
I am so freaking insecure that I have to get anyone who disagrees with me banned. That's how much I hate disagreement. I post fake documentaries from untrustworthy sources and when someone calls me on my bullshit I have a fit!
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
HAHA. looks like decypher got blocked too. and CLONE debunks himself. no one takes his bush admin lies seriously anymore, so he's worked himself into rightwingnut, lying, posing lather.
sit back & enjoy the show, folks. will post good docs again soon ;)
HAHA! My whining worked! I HATE disagreement and I have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't think the way I do! I can't STAND to see opposing thought! That's why I whine like a little bitch about anyone who disagrees with me! I try to silence them and make them pay for having another opinion!
See, I love to have anyone banned who disagrees with me, that's how much of a cocksmoking prick I am. Anyone who has a differing opinion gets called names and I will do anything I can to silence them!
but CLONE/moron/decypher are right about one thing -- i DO prefer "islamofacists" (wingnut made up word) to rightywingnuts whose incompetence & bottomless contempt for us constitution have needlessly cost million+ iraqi & 5000 american lives -- FAR more than any "islamofascist."
and arab extremists don't claim to be loyal americans; rightywingnuts are FAKE us patriots (& pretty much fake people) who lie & defend lies that harm this country.
See I even admit that I prefer Islamofascists to conservatives. Conservatives seek to defend the country while Islamofascists destroy it. That's why I refer to mockumentaries with holes in them from sources that have been proven untrustworthy and discredited.
954rr1ir8240, why are you deleting the comments of decypher3 and moroniclefty and not the comments of tessler? And why are you blocking decyupher3 and moroniclefty and not tessler?
I'm so sorry. I'm just an insecure clown who can't handle the truth. That's why I keep talking about these lame mockumentaries that have been proven to be debunked and that are from sources that have proven to be biased and untrustworthy.
But don't bore me with fact and pertinent information. I HATE FACTS!
well WELL. apparenty, moronlefty was blocked. now his sock (or rightywingnut colleague ;) is spamming same shit
the docs i linked include DOZENS of bush admin & intelligence insiders telling of manipulation of info (iraq-al qaeda connection, aluminum tubes, niger uranium contracts, etc -- lies), incompentence and covert, unconsitituionall policies -- records & documents to back.
sapor (a more accurate tag ;) & his lyin wingnut kind have got to go. give em tex-ass ;)
On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
and NOW, some responsible docs, sanity, verifiable facts & patriotic americans who give1st hand accounts of the incompetence & unconsititional policies of bush admin they served in
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" -- "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
1) PBS has ZERO credibility and that anything from them can't be trusted.
2) tessler is off his rocker, believing in wacky conspiracy theories
3) he will not listen to anyone who proves to him that these conspiracy theories have been debunked.
People like tessler hate America, and they will do anything they can to fucking destroy it. We need to root these people out and try them for treason. They are traitors.
dude is spamming entre rightywingnut opinion piece about "media bias" ... in 2008 election. haha. couldn't have anything to do with aging philanderer on republican ticket who chose a nut job from alaska as running mate who wasn't as smart as the parodies about her, tho.... losers.
get these crazy people outta my country. they're fucking up the gene pool.
o yeah. he's ordered to have last word. this is probably sock account with more than 1 person posting.
get these crazy people out of america. they are de-ranged. i'm thinking moron is a teenager. dropout. unbelievabley dumb. can't get a date, everybody thinks he's weird, so here he is, trying to be big rightywing nut.
not a hard thing to be: my dog has better judgment. ;)
again, notice names that NEVER appear in moron's spam: bush, cheney, rummsfeld. it's like, they didn't have nuthin to do with pre-emptive war on iraq -- they just patriotically protected us from TERRORISTS.
TERRORISTS: rightywingnut justification for shredding constitituion, incompetent 9/11 investigations, deaths of million iraqis & 8,000 americans.
fyi, moron didn't put this nonsense together on his own; it's provided by rightywingnut spamming op, ala teaparty thugs. together, their IQs don't add up to normal. just america's reslentful losers trying to claw back into power blathering lies, old & new...
they gotta get outta this country. or put where they can't breed & further toxify a democracy with lies & misinformation. they'll off each other in coupla decades in tex-ass. these folks cannot work & play well with others ;)
LOL. this is 10th time (at least) moron spammed this shit. notice the names NEVER mentioned: bush, cheney, rummsfeld... they had nuthin to do with pre-emptive war on iraq ... it was clinton's fault... and george tenents... but it was STILL great idea... and NOT a pre-emptive ... cuz we were attacked (by SAUDIS holed up in AFGHANISTAN... with NO connection to iraq... except what a district judge ruled... after we invaded iraq...)
would you want your child in school bus driven by moron? ;)
Judy Woodruff with Andrew Tyndall, PBS's News Hour | NewsBusters.orgBarack Obamas overseas trip has garnered an incredibly large amount of media attention, especially with the three broadcast network anchors going along for the ride. But lately, some are beginning to recognize the Obamania present within the mainstream media, including members of the media themselves.
On the July 25 edition of News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS joined in on the acknowledgement that media coverage of Obama has been unprecedented and overwhelming as Senior Correspondent Judy Woodruff discussed the media coverage of John McCain and Barack Obama with Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the Tyndall Report, and Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Before the guests appeared, Woodruff recounted the media attention given to Obamas overseas trip, noting that the press corps following Obama was larger than usual and that late night comics had even poked fun at the adoration members of the media have shown for Obama.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Rosenstiel, responding to a request by Woodruff to size up the coverage of Obamas trip, observed, This is more akin to a presidential trip than a candidate trip.
Andrew Tyndall then chimed in and contended that the broadcast network anchors following Obama smelled of a coronation: Well, the thing I think that really emphasizes Tom's point about it being treated as a head-of-state trip rather than a candidate trip was the extraordinary decision by the broadcast networks to send their anchors along to interview him on the way. It's entirely unprecedented that a premier candidate should be treated with this type of coverage.
That really is reserved for heads of state. And even though I think the tone of the interviewing was actually really quite hard-edged by all three anchors, the fact that they sort of dignified this trip with their presence had a little smell of a coronation about it really before the election has actually happened.
Following up on this, Woodruff asked if it was a mistake for the three broadcast network anchors to follow Obama. Tyndall concurred, asserting, The regular campaign correspondents could have covered it perfectly well and taken care of all the journalistic business that needed to be taken care of.
Reiterating the findings of a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study, noted by NewsBusters Editor Matthew Sheffield, Rosenstiel also explained that Obama has received significantly more coverage than John McCain and, accordingly, the media have given Obama an advantage:
One of the things that is the backdrop behind this is, in the first six weeks of this general election phase, in our estimate, 78 percent of the stories that we've studied have featured Obama as a significant presence in the stories, and 51 percent have featured McCain. Obviously, stories can feature both candidates in a significant way. That's a 50 percent advantage for Barack Obama. Exposure doesn't guarantee success, but it is a necessary ingredient , and Obama has more of that right now.
moron pretty much examplifies the prob: consequence of spamming half-truths, lies & disinfo on citizens of a democracy. watch respected docs of incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
With no U.N. approval and no congressional approval, the U.S. began a four-day bombing attack against Iraq's WMD infrastructure. It is not known what, if anything, was destroyed. President Bush, of course, had inherited the "Iraq Liberation Act" from the Clinton Administration. It was a problem that he could not ignore for long.
moron pretty much examplifies prob: consequences of spamming half-truths, lies & disinfo on citizens of a democracy. watch respected docs of incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
And the left wing dipshit is STILL bringing up factless "mockumentaries" from discredited left wing PBS. What motivates left wing loonies? It sure isn't facts.
LOL, these clueless bastards don't know difference between opinion and verifiable intelligence & facts.
they gotta get outta my country. they're at war with everybody they don't understand: rational, competent americans & them fereners & women who steal jobs from their cracker selves ;)
If my articles are no good because they're right wing sources. Then nothing from PBS is any good because the themselves have acknowledged left wing bias.
Judy Woodruff with Andrew Tyndall, PBS's News Hour | NewsBusters.orgBarack Obamas overseas trip has garnered an incredibly large amount of media attention, especially with the three broadcast network anchors going along for the ride. But lately, some are beginning to recognize the Obamania present within the mainstream media, including members of the media themselves.
On the July 25 edition of News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS joined in on the acknowledgement that media coverage of Obama has been unprecedented and overwhelming as Senior Correspondent Judy Woodruff discussed the media coverage of John McCain and Barack Obama with Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the Tyndall Report, and Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Rosenstiel, responding to a request by Woodruff to size up the coverage of Obamas trip, observed, This is more akin to a presidential trip than a candidate trip.
Well, the thing I think that really emphasizes Tom's point about it being treated as a head-of-state trip rather than a candidate trip was the extraordinary decision by the broadcast networks to send their anchors along to interview him on the way. It's entirely unprecedented that a premier candidate should be treated with this type of coverage. That really is reserved for heads of state.
And even though I think the tone of the interviewing was actually really quite hard-edged by all three anchors, the fact that they sort of dignified this trip with their presence had a little smell of a coronation about it really before the election has actually happened.
Following up on this, Woodruff asked if it was a mistake for the three broadcast network anchors to follow Obama. Tyndall concurred, asserting,
The regular campaign correspondents could have covered it perfectly well and taken care of all the journalistic business that needed to be taken care of.
Reiterating the findings of a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study, noted by NewsBusters Editor Matthew Sheffield, Rosenstiel also explained that Obama has received significantly more coverage than John McCain and, accordingly, the media have given Obama an advantage:
One of the things that is the backdrop behind this is, in the first six weeks of this general election phase, in our estimate, 78 percent of the stories that we've studied have featured Obama as a significant presence in the stories, and 51 percent have featured McCain. Obviously, stories can feature both candidates in a significant way. That's a 50 percent advantage for Barack Obama.
Exposure doesn't guarantee success, but it is a necessary ingredient to success, and Obama has more of that ingredient right now. And this trip helps, even if its questions are tough, if you handle those questions effectively.
Yes your argument. leftwingnuts like you should be 86'd to Mexifornia. Then you can crawl back to us for help when you're taken over by illegal aliens and islamofascists.
Thank you, for avoiding facts and showing me how allergic to truth you wingnuts are :)
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas secy Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another U.N. resolution authorizing war, though the U.S. and Britain didn't believe it was necessary.
France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
during & after we were lie-spammed to war in iraq, righty wingnut trimuvirate (bush, cheney, rummsfeld) was at war with patriotic conservatives in state department & loyal americans in intelligence community:
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
yep, this is what well get if rightywingnuts are ever back in power or allowed to further corrupt our democracy: more blathered lies, disinfo & truth spinning. Its time these crazies left, folks. I say we give em texas & cut em loose. If they dont go willingly, we use patriot act against em.
Yep, this is what we get with the left wing nuts in power further corrupting our Republic. Inability to accept facts,, truth and logic, discarding reality and tossing it aside in favor of far left marxist ideology. It's time to cut these crazies loose. I say we give em mexifornia and cut em loose. And when they come crawling back because they've been taken over by Islamofascists, we make slaves out of them
HAHA. dude is off his nut. folks should judge moron's "spam" & these FREE docs themselves. later tracks rigthywingnut incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas secr Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
folks should judge for selves :) watch FREE these respected docs of rigthywingnut incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" -- "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another U.N. resolution authorizing war, though the U.S. and Britain didn't believe it was necessary.
France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
No knowledge of the truth. No ability to admit he is wrong. Utterly batshit. Unable to refute or discredit the relevant facts I bring to the table, he just keeps filling the thread up with spam.
Good, fuck you fucking democrats assholes. Did the teargas sting your eyes. I'm sure you wouldn't be out there protesting if they were trying to take our guns away you pathetic hypocritical fucks.
PushyLittleKid 1 year ago
@PushyLittleKid The smoke you see is only smoke. Not teargas. We were not protesting either. We went to go see a protest, which we had never seen before. And fyi, I had one of my guns on me that day, and I would be protesting if my gun rights were going to be taken away.
954rr1ir8240 1 year ago
while moron/decypher/CLONE proves why rightywingnuts mustn't be power in power (or this country ;) -- accounts by loyal americans of "official" incompetence, lies & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ cheney/ view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
YEP, my rightywingnut CLONE (3 sss) been spamming same tired bs & spin for days. blocked twice (moronlefty & decypher), he's typical rightwingnut with no impulse control, no judgment & no respect for truth, rules (incl constitution ;) or others. like his bush admin heroes, he blathers half-truths, irrelevancies & lies to own ends -- while thugging those don't by his bs.
CLONE's rightwingnut kind are fake patriots & threat to our democracy. they gotta go. lets give em texas ;)
l
l
v
tessler6868 2 years ago
while moron/decypher/CLONE proves why rightywingnuts don't belong in power (spamming tired bs took us to war in iraq) - accounts of "official" incompetence, lies & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ cheney/ view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
while my clone proves why leftwingnuts can't be trusted with facts, let alone power (spamming tired bs that has been debunked from sources deemed untrustworthy) - a few disgruntled employees does not a rightful documentary make.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the UN and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development,
tesssler6868 2 years ago
al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
Now I'm off clone. I've thoroughly embarrassed you and I have nothing more to say.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
btw, CLONE
happy trails! now get outta my country -- but THANX for proving to others who maybe didn't realize how fucked up y'all are ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
dude is bats. my CLONE (w/ 3 'sss' ;) thinks HE & bush admin liars are real patriots. spams tired, bullshit about bogus war in iraq/terrorism. notice MISSING names in his spam: BUSH, CHENEY, RUMMSFELD.
they didn't do ANYTHING, just "battled terrorism" by taking us to war against country with NO connection to 9/11 or al qaeda ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
This clone won't leave the alone! How dare you clone me!
And how dare anyone question me when I have provided documentaries that have been proven debunked from sources that have been proven to be discredited and untrustworthy! How dare anyone question me, even when I question the proven fact that Iraq and 911 were connected!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
In a bombshell finding virtually ignored by the American media, a U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday [May 7, 2003] that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
...according to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors, the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al-Qaeda recruits practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist technique never employed before 9/11.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
Judge Harold Baer ruled Wednesday that the survivors of two people who were killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack had presented enough evidence, "albeit barely," to be awarded $104 million in damages against the state of Iraq, Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist network.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
He reviewed the testimony of [former CIA Director James] Woolsey and terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie on alleged links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, including whether lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a high-ranking member of Iraqi intelligence in Prague before Sept. 11, and whether Saddam Hussein ran a hijacking training camp in Salman Pak, just outside of Baghdad.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
"In particular, Mylroie testified about Iraq's covert involvement in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and about the proximity of the dates of bin Laden's attack on the U.S. embassies and Hussein's ouster of weapons inspectors."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
Through a translator, [Iraqi defector Sabah Khalifa] Alami described, according to the Wall Street Journal ("The Iraq Connection" by Micah Morrison, 5 Sept. 2002), a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and -- using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex -- how to hijack a plane or bus without weapons.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam's intelligence service, the mukhabarat. Asked about the plane by an interviewer for Front Line, he said "Yes, there's a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
SALMAN PAK, Iraq -- The rusted shell of an old passenger jet sat out in a field, its tail broken off. Good for hijacking practice, U.S. Marines speculated Sunday [April 6, 2003] as they examined an Iraqi training base about 20 miles south of Baghdad.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
documentaries with dozens of loyal americans in us military, intelligence community and bush administration that rightywingnut moron/decypher/CLONE calls liars:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" -- "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
tesssler6868 2 years ago
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
tesssler6868 2 years ago
so how's my pathetic fake patriot & CLONE? ;)
he pretends spam is about me, but trashes good docs & 1st hand accts of loyal americans in us military, intelligence community & CONSERVATIVE insiders in BUSH admin.
THEY tell of incompetence, unconstititional policies, manipulation of intelligence & lies (aluminum tubes, niger contracts, al qaeda-iraq ties) that misled america/world to PRE-EMPTIVE war in iraq.
moron/decypher/CLONE at war w/all but lying rightwingnuts like himself. he crazy.
tessler6868 2 years ago
Hey there you coward clone! How dare you clone me! YOu are a COWARD for cloning me!
Just because I post documentaries that have no basis in fact from sources that have been proven to be debunked and biased doesn't mean you have to clone me. I HATE YOU you clone!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
while moron/decyphte/CLONE demonstrates why rightywingnuts shouldn't be in power OR in country, some respected docs review their incompetence, lies & unconsititional policies -- AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ cheney/ view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
Oh My God and check this out! I'm so fucking stupid I though MN was a conservative state! LOL I actually said that! HAHAHAHAHA!! Holy shit how dumb would someone have to be to think that Minnesota, a bastion of liberalism, is a conservative state!? I'd have to be ignoring almost everything about MN
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas secr Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
See, I love to have anyone banned who disagrees with me, that's what an asshole I am. Anyone who differs in opinion from me must be shut down.
Oh and if you have factual information that shows how wrong I am, the you ae the devil himself. and you need to be silenced!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more
tesssler6868 2 years ago
I HATE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME! Show me how I'm wrong and I'll whine like a bitch to the owner who will have you banned!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
NOTE: docs are platform for loyal americans in bush admin, military & intelligence community who give 1st hand accts of incompetence, illegal polcies & lies that took us to war.
ALL are loyal americans & MOST are CONSERVATIVES -- NOT crazy, incompetent, lying rightywingnuts they worked for.
moron/decypher/CLONE claims to be a CONSERVATIVE -- a LIE. he's a rightywingnut bent on undermining american democracy ala this thread.
secretary of disinformation in new republic of texas? :)
tessler6868 2 years ago
Note: I hate anyone who disagrees with me to the point that I will ignore information that proves me wrong and that proves that my documentaries are debunked pieces of dogshit from untrustworthy sources.
I am a deranged lefty who has no idea what it means to be right and I think that anyone who disagrees with me should be silenced. I hate myself.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
I am so freaking insecure that I have to get anyone who disagrees with me banned. That's how much I hate disagreement. I post fake documentaries from untrustworthy sources and when someone calls me on my bullshit I have a fit!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
HAHA. looks like decypher got blocked too. and CLONE debunks himself. no one takes his bush admin lies seriously anymore, so he's worked himself into rightwingnut, lying, posing lather.
sit back & enjoy the show, folks. will post good docs again soon ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
HAHA! My whining worked! I HATE disagreement and I have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't think the way I do! I can't STAND to see opposing thought! That's why I whine like a little bitch about anyone who disagrees with me! I try to silence them and make them pay for having another opinion!
In my America, all will agree or be silenced!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
See, I love to have anyone banned who disagrees with me, that's how much of a cocksmoking prick I am. Anyone who has a differing opinion gets called names and I will do anything I can to silence them!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
but CLONE/moron/decypher are right about one thing -- i DO prefer "islamofacists" (wingnut made up word) to rightywingnuts whose incompetence & bottomless contempt for us constitution have needlessly cost million+ iraqi & 5000 american lives -- FAR more than any "islamofascist."
and arab extremists don't claim to be loyal americans; rightywingnuts are FAKE us patriots (& pretty much fake people) who lie & defend lies that harm this country.
it's time they LEFT. let's give em texas ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
See I even admit that I prefer Islamofascists to conservatives. Conservatives seek to defend the country while Islamofascists destroy it. That's why I refer to mockumentaries with holes in them from sources that have been proven untrustworthy and discredited.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
my CLONE
and VERY bad vietnam vet poser i busted months ago. typical of rightywingnuts, he fakes everything badly -- including ME.
l
l
v
tessler6868 2 years ago
my CLONE!
How DARE you impersonate me! I'm reporting you to youtube!
Typical left wing nut, he impersonates everything badly.
l
l
v
tesssler6868 2 years ago
I am so offended that you dare impersonate me.
How dare you, sir?!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
I'm gonna go whine to the owner of the thread now and have you removed!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
954rr1ir8240, why are you deleting the comments of decypher3 and moroniclefty and not the comments of tessler? And why are you blocking decyupher3 and moroniclefty and not tessler?
decypher6 2 years ago
Looks like some people can't handle the facts
decypher6 2 years ago
I'm so sorry. I'm just an insecure clown who can't handle the truth. That's why I keep talking about these lame mockumentaries that have been proven to be debunked and that are from sources that have proven to be biased and untrustworthy.
But don't bore me with fact and pertinent information. I HATE FACTS!
tesssler6868 2 years ago
I hate the USA. I secretly wish the islamofascists would take over and destroy this place.
I have such a deep loathing for my country.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
Did I ever tell you that I was molested as a child?
tesssler6868 2 years ago
People hat want to defend this country should be vilified and demonized. That's why I constantly bad mouth the USA and all who protect it.
tesssler6868 2 years ago
moron/decypher yt examplify problem: docs record "official" half-truths, lies & disinfo, gross incompetence & covert, unconsititional policies -- AS TOLD BY bush admin & intelligence insiders:
1) No End In Sight - award winning
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ cheney/ view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
well WELL. apparenty, moronlefty was blocked. now his sock (or rightywingnut colleague ;) is spamming same shit
the docs i linked include DOZENS of bush admin & intelligence insiders telling of manipulation of info (iraq-al qaeda connection, aluminum tubes, niger uranium contracts, etc -- lies), incompentence and covert, unconsitituionall policies -- records & documents to back.
sapor (a more accurate tag ;) & his lyin wingnut kind have got to go. give em tex-ass ;)
l
l
v
tessler6868 2 years ago
On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
decypher3 2 years ago
and NOW, some responsible docs, sanity, verifiable facts & patriotic americans who give1st hand accounts of the incompetence & unconsititional policies of bush admin they served in
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" -- "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
decypher3 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
decypher3 2 years ago
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
decypher3 2 years ago
specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq.
decypher3 2 years ago
On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
decypher3 2 years ago
OK so now we've established that
1) PBS has ZERO credibility and that anything from them can't be trusted.
2) tessler is off his rocker, believing in wacky conspiracy theories
3) he will not listen to anyone who proves to him that these conspiracy theories have been debunked.
People like tessler hate America, and they will do anything they can to fucking destroy it. We need to root these people out and try them for treason. They are traitors.
decypher3 2 years ago
That was fantastic. Tessler, I hope you understand that these are facts, and that you just suck.
ryanbg328 2 years ago
dude is spamming entre rightywingnut opinion piece about "media bias" ... in 2008 election. haha. couldn't have anything to do with aging philanderer on republican ticket who chose a nut job from alaska as running mate who wasn't as smart as the parodies about her, tho.... losers.
get these crazy people outta my country. they're fucking up the gene pool.
tessler6868 2 years ago
o yeah. he's ordered to have last word. this is probably sock account with more than 1 person posting.
get these crazy people out of america. they are de-ranged. i'm thinking moron is a teenager. dropout. unbelievabley dumb. can't get a date, everybody thinks he's weird, so here he is, trying to be big rightywing nut.
not a hard thing to be: my dog has better judgment. ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
again, notice names that NEVER appear in moron's spam: bush, cheney, rummsfeld. it's like, they didn't have nuthin to do with pre-emptive war on iraq -- they just patriotically protected us from TERRORISTS.
TERRORISTS: rightywingnut justification for shredding constitituion, incompetent 9/11 investigations, deaths of million iraqis & 8,000 americans.
tessler6868 2 years ago
fyi, moron didn't put this nonsense together on his own; it's provided by rightywingnut spamming op, ala teaparty thugs. together, their IQs don't add up to normal. just america's reslentful losers trying to claw back into power blathering lies, old & new...
they gotta get outta this country. or put where they can't breed & further toxify a democracy with lies & misinformation. they'll off each other in coupla decades in tex-ass. these folks cannot work & play well with others ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
LOL. this is 10th time (at least) moron spammed this shit. notice the names NEVER mentioned: bush, cheney, rummsfeld... they had nuthin to do with pre-emptive war on iraq ... it was clinton's fault... and george tenents... but it was STILL great idea... and NOT a pre-emptive ... cuz we were attacked (by SAUDIS holed up in AFGHANISTAN... with NO connection to iraq... except what a district judge ruled... after we invaded iraq...)
would you want your child in school bus driven by moron? ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign '08
Judy Woodruff with Andrew Tyndall, PBS's News Hour | NewsBusters.orgBarack Obamas overseas trip has garnered an incredibly large amount of media attention, especially with the three broadcast network anchors going along for the ride. But lately, some are beginning to recognize the Obamania present within the mainstream media, including members of the media themselves.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
On the July 25 edition of News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS joined in on the acknowledgement that media coverage of Obama has been unprecedented and overwhelming as Senior Correspondent Judy Woodruff discussed the media coverage of John McCain and Barack Obama with Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the Tyndall Report, and Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Before the guests appeared, Woodruff recounted the media attention given to Obamas overseas trip, noting that the press corps following Obama was larger than usual and that late night comics had even poked fun at the adoration members of the media have shown for Obama.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Rosenstiel, responding to a request by Woodruff to size up the coverage of Obamas trip, observed, This is more akin to a presidential trip than a candidate trip.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Andrew Tyndall then chimed in and contended that the broadcast network anchors following Obama smelled of a coronation: Well, the thing I think that really emphasizes Tom's point about it being treated as a head-of-state trip rather than a candidate trip was the extraordinary decision by the broadcast networks to send their anchors along to interview him on the way. It's entirely unprecedented that a premier candidate should be treated with this type of coverage.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
That really is reserved for heads of state. And even though I think the tone of the interviewing was actually really quite hard-edged by all three anchors, the fact that they sort of dignified this trip with their presence had a little smell of a coronation about it really before the election has actually happened.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Following up on this, Woodruff asked if it was a mistake for the three broadcast network anchors to follow Obama. Tyndall concurred, asserting, The regular campaign correspondents could have covered it perfectly well and taken care of all the journalistic business that needed to be taken care of.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Reiterating the findings of a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study, noted by NewsBusters Editor Matthew Sheffield, Rosenstiel also explained that Obama has received significantly more coverage than John McCain and, accordingly, the media have given Obama an advantage:
moroniclefty 2 years ago
One of the things that is the backdrop behind this is, in the first six weeks of this general election phase, in our estimate, 78 percent of the stories that we've studied have featured Obama as a significant presence in the stories, and 51 percent have featured McCain. Obviously, stories can feature both candidates in a significant way. That's a 50 percent advantage for Barack Obama. Exposure doesn't guarantee success, but it is a necessary ingredient , and Obama has more of that right now.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
And this is the type of shit this moron thinks passes for a "credible source".
moroniclefty 2 years ago
moron pretty much examplifies the prob: consequence of spamming half-truths, lies & disinfo on citizens of a democracy. watch respected docs of incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ cheney/ view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
moroniclefty 2 years ago
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
With no U.N. approval and no congressional approval, the U.S. began a four-day bombing attack against Iraq's WMD infrastructure. It is not known what, if anything, was destroyed. President Bush, of course, had inherited the "Iraq Liberation Act" from the Clinton Administration. It was a problem that he could not ignore for long.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
moron pretty much examplifies prob: consequences of spamming half-truths, lies & disinfo on citizens of a democracy. watch respected docs of incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
3) Cheneys Law
[usual begin] pbs. org /wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ cheney/ view/
tessler6868 2 years ago
And the left wing dipshit is STILL bringing up factless "mockumentaries" from discredited left wing PBS. What motivates left wing loonies? It sure isn't facts.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
lol, dude. i hope you keep spamming. you're Exhibit A for toxic rightwingnuttery ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
Oh shit! I just destroyed your argument AGAIN!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Keep it up, left wing loony.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Evidence of PBS bias is clear
w w w 2 DOT ljworldDOTcom / news / 2005 / jun / 23 / oped3
moroniclefty 2 years ago
wanna bet it's a rightywingnut columnist?
LOL, these clueless bastards don't know difference between opinion and verifiable intelligence & facts.
they gotta get outta my country. they're at war with everybody they don't understand: rational, competent americans & them fereners & women who steal jobs from their cracker selves ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
OOPS! PBS ACKNOWLEDGED BIAS!
If my articles are no good because they're right wing sources. Then nothing from PBS is any good because the themselves have acknowledged left wing bias.
Try again! YOU FAIL!
moroniclefty 2 years ago
"PBS" doesn't make any claims in docs i linked: bush admin INSIDERS do. all backed by records & documents ;)
you're nutso links are sentence or 2 of attributed quote -- smothered in nutso opinion & spin.
rightwingnut M.O. alive & well -- and why we gotta get these nutjobs outta this country.
tessler6868 2 years ago
PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign '08
Judy Woodruff with Andrew Tyndall, PBS's News Hour | NewsBusters.orgBarack Obamas overseas trip has garnered an incredibly large amount of media attention, especially with the three broadcast network anchors going along for the ride. But lately, some are beginning to recognize the Obamania present within the mainstream media, including members of the media themselves.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
On the July 25 edition of News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS joined in on the acknowledgement that media coverage of Obama has been unprecedented and overwhelming as Senior Correspondent Judy Woodruff discussed the media coverage of John McCain and Barack Obama with Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the Tyndall Report, and Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Rosenstiel, responding to a request by Woodruff to size up the coverage of Obamas trip, observed, This is more akin to a presidential trip than a candidate trip.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Well, the thing I think that really emphasizes Tom's point about it being treated as a head-of-state trip rather than a candidate trip was the extraordinary decision by the broadcast networks to send their anchors along to interview him on the way. It's entirely unprecedented that a premier candidate should be treated with this type of coverage. That really is reserved for heads of state.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
And even though I think the tone of the interviewing was actually really quite hard-edged by all three anchors, the fact that they sort of dignified this trip with their presence had a little smell of a coronation about it really before the election has actually happened.
Following up on this, Woodruff asked if it was a mistake for the three broadcast network anchors to follow Obama. Tyndall concurred, asserting,
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The regular campaign correspondents could have covered it perfectly well and taken care of all the journalistic business that needed to be taken care of.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Reiterating the findings of a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study, noted by NewsBusters Editor Matthew Sheffield, Rosenstiel also explained that Obama has received significantly more coverage than John McCain and, accordingly, the media have given Obama an advantage:
moroniclefty 2 years ago
One of the things that is the backdrop behind this is, in the first six weeks of this general election phase, in our estimate, 78 percent of the stories that we've studied have featured Obama as a significant presence in the stories, and 51 percent have featured McCain. Obviously, stories can feature both candidates in a significant way. That's a 50 percent advantage for Barack Obama.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Exposure doesn't guarantee success, but it is a necessary ingredient to success, and Obama has more of that ingredient right now. And this trip helps, even if its questions are tough, if you handle those questions effectively.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
LOL and this is what thsi left wing nut thinks passes for a credible source
moroniclefty 2 years ago
my argument? to have rightwingnuts like you 86'd to tex-ass? LOL, dude... i can only say.... THANK you. for making my argument :)
tessler6868 2 years ago
Yes your argument. leftwingnuts like you should be 86'd to Mexifornia. Then you can crawl back to us for help when you're taken over by illegal aliens and islamofascists.
Thank you, for avoiding facts and showing me how allergic to truth you wingnuts are :)
moroniclefty 2 years ago
PBS Acknowledges Media Bias in Campaign '08
newsbustersDOTorg / blogs / lyndsi-thomas / 2008 / 07 / 28 / pbs-acknowledges-media-bias-campaign-08
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas secy Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another U.N. resolution authorizing war, though the U.S. and Britain didn't believe it was necessary.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Look at that. I just destroyed your argument AGAIN! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
moroniclefty 2 years ago
during & after we were lie-spammed to war in iraq, righty wingnut trimuvirate (bush, cheney, rummsfeld) was at war with patriotic conservatives in state department & loyal americans in intelligence community:
The War Behind Closed Doors - PBS
ht tp: // ww w. .pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ shows/ iraq/view/ ? utm _ campaign = viewpage & utm _ medium = grid & utm _ source = grid
moron uses same lies & tactics as these thugs. he's just as fucked up, but clueless ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
yep, this is what well get if rightywingnuts are ever back in power or allowed to further corrupt our democracy: more blathered lies, disinfo & truth spinning. Its time these crazies left, folks. I say we give em texas & cut em loose. If they dont go willingly, we use patriot act against em.
l
l
v
tessler6868 2 years ago
Yep, this is what we get with the left wing nuts in power further corrupting our Republic. Inability to accept facts,, truth and logic, discarding reality and tossing it aside in favor of far left marxist ideology. It's time to cut these crazies loose. I say we give em mexifornia and cut em loose. And when they come crawling back because they've been taken over by Islamofascists, we make slaves out of them
l
l
v
moroniclefty 2 years ago
HAHA. dude is off his nut. folks should judge moron's "spam" & these FREE docs themselves. later tracks rigthywingnut incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" - "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
moron's beef isn't w/PBS or docs - but bush admin patriots & records ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another UN resolution authorizing war, though the US and Britain didn't believe it was necessary. France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas secr Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Damn boy, I just DESTROYED your argument!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
moroniclefty 2 years ago
folks should judge for selves :) watch FREE these respected docs of rigthywingnut incompetence & unconsititional policies AS TOLD BY bush admin insiders:
1) No End In Sight
google "no end in sight video google" -- "official" incompetence during 1st year of (pre-emptive) iraq occupation. 3 parts
2) The Darkside - PBS
[usual begin] pbs. org/ wgbh/ pages/ frontline/ darkside/ view/
moron's beef isn't w/PBS or docs - but bush admin insiders & records/docs that debunk bush admin claims ;)
tessler6868 2 years ago
The PBS Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side," about the events leading up to the war in Iraq, was guilty of some of the same charges it leveled against Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. These officials were accused of manipulating information in order to get us involved in Iraq. But PBS itself manipulated information to make the administration look bad, even dishonest.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The theme, which has been common in the media, is that the Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq almost from its first days in office. We've heard this from Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert who was on the White House National Security Council under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. His book Against All Enemies, will soon be a TV miniseries. We also heard it from Ron Suskind in his book written with former Treas sec Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
In fact, there was no rush to war. President Bush went to the Senate in 2002 for an authorization to use force. He then went to the United Nations, where he was successful in obtaining unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1441, providing Saddam Hussein one more chance—it was the 17th such resolution calling on him to fully cooperate in the destruction of his acknowledged weapons of mass destruction and the programs to produce more.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
As Bush was still considering his options, he was the skeptical one as he questioned then-CIA director Tenet on the evidence of WMD in Iraq. That's when Tenet gave the famous answer, "It's a slam-dunk."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
When Swedish diplomat Hans Blix returned to the U.N. after 60 days in Iraq, during which time he was to determine Saddam's willingness to cooperate, he addressed the U.N. and the world with these comments: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
At that point, 50 nations signed on with the U.S. and Britain, agreeing that military action was appropriate. But Iraq was given another ultimatum, another chance to avoid war, while at the same time an effort was made to pass yet another U.N. resolution authorizing war, though the U.S. and Britain didn't believe it was necessary.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
France and Russia, which both had billions of dollars in contracts with Iraq, refused to cooperate. Their dirty laundry has been aired in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal.
Compare that to what happened in 1998 with Bill Clinton in office. In the spring of that year, the Clinton Justice Department handed down a sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden, indicating a belief that he was involved with WMD in cooperation with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The indictment read: "...Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
That was the same year that the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
The Clinton administration argued that in fact Iraq did possess WMD. That is why only a couple months after then-President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 calling for regime change, with no dissenting votes in the Senate, he decided to bomb Iraq. On December 16, 1998, Clinton addressed the nation: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces.
moroniclefty 2 years ago
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."
Clinton added: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
moroniclefty 2 years ago
no impulse control. utterly bonkers. trying to sell same lies & disinfo that led us to war as TRUE. works with rightywingnut spamming op ;)
l
l
v
tessler6868 2 years ago
No knowledge of the truth. No ability to admit he is wrong. Utterly batshit. Unable to refute or discredit the relevant facts I bring to the table, he just keeps filling the thread up with spam.
l
l
v
moroniclefty 2 years ago