Nothing but Lies and distortions from Obama

Onceler said:
It's ludicrous to assert that Congress & Bush were on the same page, based on everything I listed (that's the post you ignored, btw).
Click to expand...

I did not say they were on the same page. I stated they had access to the same intel that Bush did. They are able to request more detailed intel should they choose. Very little intel is kept from the House and Senate intel committees, though as I stated, they do have to request some of the more classified intel. As someone who supposedly worked in DC should know.

Just so you know... the intel is NOT scrubbed by the White House prior to being given to those committees.
 
Damocles said:
This is the worst of the excuses. They have access to other sources of intel, we had to let Congresspersons and Senators into our sections without the regular action of those who were uncleared.

Lazy is not a reason to excuse these people for their votes.
Click to expand...

It’s true that Bush only showed the intelligence he wanted them to see. It’s true that Bush lied. It’s true that anyone who won’t admit that is a hack, and it’s ironic to me, to watch them calling other people names or insisting that someone else “admit” something, when you two hacks will never even admit the most basic facts. You make the repuke admittance of “Bush handled the war badly”. NO, bush lied, he’s a murderer, period.
However, with all that as an obvious given…no one was duped, they all knew. The very fact that Byrd, Pelosi, Boxer, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Lee, and the list goes on and on, gave speeches in front of the Senate and the House, respectively, saying all of the things that have turned out to be true, and were ignored, is evidence enough of that, for me.

It’s also true that Karl Rove had Bush force the vote on WAR, on war, please think about that, on war…three weeks before a midterm election during which your party was running on a platform of “vote democratic and die”. And they should burn in hell for that alone, and somewhere deep down you know it, but you will never admit it out here.
 
The plan included withdrawls of troops within months.

That never happened because it did not work like planned.

Guess who was right?
 
"It’s also true that Karl Rove had Bush force the vote on WAR, on war, please think about that, on war…three weeks before a midterm election during which your party was running on a platform of “vote democratic and die”. And they should burn in hell for that alone, and somewhere deep down you know it, but you will never admit it out here."

Thanks for that. Needed to be said. I don't bring it up, because it will get an immediate "LMAO," and I don't excuse the Democrats who voted in favor, but the circumstances of that resolution were pretty despicable.
 
Superfreak said:
Please show me the plan you are looking at that said they would withdraw the troops within months.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe I have to do this. I feel like crying sometimes. Where were you people? Where? This was practically yesterday. Man, I still have my signs calling BS on a “temporary surge”, knowing full well it was a Vietnam-like Escalation. Were you people sleeping? No wonder we are where we are.

SURGE’ ORIGINALLY DEFINED AS ‘TEMPORARY,’ ‘SHORT-TERM’ INCREASE IN TROOP LEVELS:

NOVEMBER 20: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS MCCAIN WANTS ‘SHORT-TERM SURGE’: “In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were ‘fighting and dying for a failed policy.’ But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina…” [New York Times, Brian Knowlton, 11/19/06]

NOVEMBER 20: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS ON ‘TEMPORARY SURGE’: “Speculation over a temporary surge in troops has been fueled in part by sources close to administration deliberations on Iraq strategy.” [Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 20: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON ‘SHORT’ ‘TEMPORARY’ TROOP INCREASE: “Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold…” [Washington Post, Thomas Ricks, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 21: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS BACK ‘SHORT-TERM’ ‘TEMPORARY’ SURGE: “Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the ’surge option’ by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several months… ‘There are people who believe that a short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn’t universal agreement on that yet,’ said the senior official.” [New York Times, David Cloud, 11/21/06]

NOVEMBER 21: NBC NEWS REPORTS ON ‘SHORT-TERM SURGE’ OPTION: Let’s talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering. First of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge in an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. [Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, 11/21/06]

NOVEMBER 22: FOX NEWS REPORTS ON ‘TEMPORARY’ SURGE: “The new Marine Corps commandant General James Conway…said the idea some people are now suggesting of creating a temporary surge of U.S. forces in Iraq could be accomplished with the current force of about 180,000 Marines, but would have an undesirable impact later on.” [Brit Hume, Fox News, 11/22/06, available on Lexis]

NOVEMBER 22: ABC NEWS REPORTS ON ‘TEMPORARY’ SURGE: “A temporary increase in US force levels in Iraq. And what General Conway said is that the Marine Corps could facilitate a temporary surge of no more than 60 days, really. He said that’s about the limit.” [ABC News, Jonathan Karl, 11/22/06, available on Lexis]
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/media-surge-escalation/
 
Onceler said:
"It’s also true that Karl Rove had Bush force the vote on WAR, on war, please think about that, on war…three weeks before a midterm election during which your party was running on a platform of “vote democratic and die”. And they should burn in hell for that alone, and somewhere deep down you know it, but you will never admit it out here."

Thanks for that. Needed to be said. I don't bring it up, because it will get an immediate "LMAO," and I don't excuse the Democrats who voted in favor, but the circumstances of that resolution were pretty despicable.
Click to expand...

I guess we should not vote to go to war?

Hey--Dem congress gave him that power.
 
Superfreak said:
I did not say they were on the same page. I stated they had access to the same intel that Bush did. They are able to request more detailed intel should they choose. Very little intel is kept from the House and Senate intel committees, though as I stated, they do have to request some of the more classified intel. As someone who supposedly worked in DC should know.

Just so you know... the intel is NOT scrubbed by the White House prior to being given to those committees.
Click to expand...

What was cheney doing then ?

And about the british memo saying the intel was being fixed ?
 
theMAJORITY said:
I guess we should not vote to go to war?

Hey--Dem congress gave him that power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it was a dumb move. But the best the Bushies have at this point is "hey, they should have KNOWN they couldn't trust Bush..what were those idiots thinking? Everyone knows you can't trust Bush...."
 
Onceler said:
"It’s also true that Karl Rove had Bush force the vote on WAR, on war, please think about that, on war…three weeks before a midterm election during which your party was running on a platform of “vote democratic and die”. And they should burn in hell for that alone, and somewhere deep down you know it, but you will never admit it out here."

Thanks for that. Needed to be said. I don't bring it up, because it will get an immediate "LMAO," and I don't excuse the Democrats who voted in favor, but the circumstances of that resolution were pretty despicable.
Click to expand...

They were most despicable imaginable. It's things like that which make me wish that there really were a hell.
 
Onceler said:
Yeah, and it was a dumb move. But the best the Bushies have at this point is "hey, they should have KNOWN they couldn't trust Bush..what were those idiots thinking? Everyone knows you can't trust Bush...."
Click to expand...

Agreed, it was a bad move. I am not sure why congress did it. They knew what Bush wanted to do--believe me. May be they did it to keep their hands clean---but they did not stop it like they said they would either.

I think Iraq is winding down now. I hope their governemtn finishes taking responsibility soon--so we can bomb the fuck out of Pakistan and Iran!

ya know---when Americans were real Americans, do you know what we would have said?

Get the troops out of Iraq, so we can bomb the fuck out of them, and anybody else that looks at us sideways!" And we would have been proud not to let their looser commie ways infiltrate our society.
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
I can’t believe I have to do this. I feel like crying sometimes. Where were you people? Where? This was practically yesterday. Man, I still have my signs calling BS on a “temporary surge”, knowing full well it was a Vietnam-like Escalation. Were you people sleeping? No wonder we are where we are.

SURGE’ ORIGINALLY DEFINED AS ‘TEMPORARY,’ ‘SHORT-TERM’ INCREASE IN TROOP LEVELS:

NOVEMBER 20: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS MCCAIN WANTS ‘SHORT-TERM SURGE’: “In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were ‘fighting and dying for a failed policy.’ But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina…” [New York Times, Brian Knowlton, 11/19/06]

NOVEMBER 20: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS ON ‘TEMPORARY SURGE’: “Speculation over a temporary surge in troops has been fueled in part by sources close to administration deliberations on Iraq strategy.” [Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 20: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON ‘SHORT’ ‘TEMPORARY’ TROOP INCREASE: “Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold…” [Washington Post, Thomas Ricks, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 21: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS BACK ‘SHORT-TERM’ ‘TEMPORARY’ SURGE: “Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the ’surge option’ by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several months… ‘There are people who believe that a short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn’t universal agreement on that yet,’ said the senior official.” [New York Times, David Cloud, 11/21/06]

NOVEMBER 21: NBC NEWS REPORTS ON ‘SHORT-TERM SURGE’ OPTION: Let’s talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering. First of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge in an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. [Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, 11/21/06]

NOVEMBER 22: FOX NEWS REPORTS ON ‘TEMPORARY’ SURGE: “The new Marine Corps commandant General James Conway…said the idea some people are now suggesting of creating a temporary surge of U.S. forces in Iraq could be accomplished with the current force of about 180,000 Marines, but would have an undesirable impact later on.” [Brit Hume, Fox News, 11/22/06, available on Lexis]

NOVEMBER 22: ABC NEWS REPORTS ON ‘TEMPORARY’ SURGE: “A temporary increase in US force levels in Iraq. And what General Conway said is that the Marine Corps could facilitate a temporary surge of no more than 60 days, really. He said that’s about the limit.” [ABC News, Jonathan Karl, 11/22/06, available on Lexis]
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/media-surge-escalation/
Click to expand...

Thank you for that... though I must be honest... I knew someone would post these. I appreciate you doing so....

Here is McCains view on a sustained surge...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/

"There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” he declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)"

"McCain said, “The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of US forces. We’ve tried small surges in the past and they’ve been ineffective.”

Thank you for proving once and for all McCain is NOT the same as Bush.
Sucker. :)
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
It’s true that Bush only showed the intelligence he wanted them to see. It’s true that Bush lied. It’s true that anyone who won’t admit that is a hack, and it’s ironic to me, to watch them calling other people names or insisting that someone else “admit” something, when you two hacks will never even admit the most basic facts. You make the repuke admittance of “Bush handled the war badly”. NO, bush lied, he’s a murderer, period.
However, with all that as an obvious given…no one was duped, they all knew. The very fact that Byrd, Pelosi, Boxer, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Lee, and the list goes on and on, gave speeches in front of the Senate and the House, respectively, saying all of the things that have turned out to be true, and were ignored, is evidence enough of that, for me.

It’s also true that Karl Rove had Bush force the vote on WAR, on war, please think about that, on war…three weeks before a midterm election during which your party was running on a platform of “vote democratic and die”. And they should burn in hell for that alone, and somewhere deep down you know it, but you will never admit it out here.
Click to expand...
What is really true is that when you are voting for war you go and find the information out, instead these weaklings sat there and let it be spoonfed to them.

They are not incapable, nor would they be denied the information. The need to know was clear, they have the clearance to access the information, there is no excuse to say, "But this is all he told me!"

It's rubbish, it's excuses, it's irresponsible, and if they don't own their vote it is a bunch of total garbage fed to the faithful and only the dupes will believe them.

They built in excuses, and they pulled out all the stops in getting you to believe them.
 
"What is really true is that when you are voting for war you go and find the information out, instead these weaklings sat there and let it be spoonfed to them."

Yep, that sure is true. When you're voting "for war."
 
Superfreak said:
Thank you for that... though I must be honest... I knew someone would post these. I appreciate you doing so....

Here is McCains view on a sustained surge...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/

"There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” he declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)"

"McCain said, “The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of US forces. We’ve tried small surges in the past and they’ve been ineffective.”

Thank you for proving once and for all McCain is NOT the same as Bush.
Sucker. :)
Click to expand...

"Minutes earlier on the program, CNN had aired a clip of McCain emphasizing that a "small, short surge of U.S. forces" would not suffice and clarifying that he specifically supported a "significant and sustained" increase in troop levels, adding: "We've tried small surges in the past, and they've been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared."

Ok, I looked it up, it does seem that you are right and McCain did say he wanted a sustained surge (escalation). But the fact still remains that everyone from Bush to the Pentagon told the American people it would be a temporary (several month long) surge. And the fact remains that you can’t say “the surge worked”, when what you really are talking about is an escalation of troops. If they had surged for several months, and then pulled them back out as the administration told us they were going to do, and violence was still down, then you could make that claim. If it had worked, we’d be able to leave. You know that. It hasn’t worked. It’s a bandaid, and not a solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top