Ron Paul, Only Candidate NOT Following Orders of al Qaeda

Timshel

New member
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/10/michael-scheuer-3/

“Well, you know, the only people taking ‘marching orders’ from Osama bin Laden, as far as I can tell, are every presidential candidate except Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul has it very square about what the motivation of our enemy is, and it’s certainly exactly what he said it is, intervention. …

“Really, it is the American political establishment that is marching to al Qaeda’s beat, not Mr. Paul.”

Michael Scheuer, former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, discusses:
 
:party: :party:

What great news.

Ron Paul is the only person running for president who isn't taking orders directly from Al Queda. Everybody else is on Al Queda's payroll and getting Christmas presents from Bin Laden.

Stop the presses .. what great news.

This is sure to boost his numbers about 50% and send him skyrocketing to 1.5%

It's sunrise in America all over again.

:cool:
 
Ron Paul, Only Candidate NOT Following Orders of al Qaeda


Damn! Busted!!

I'll have to warn the Edwards campaign that our secret code communications between our camp and al qaeda has been compromised.

Damn you to hell, Rstringfield!!! :mad:
 
Ron Paul, Only Candidate NOT Following Orders of al Qaeda


Damn! Busted!!

I'll have to warn the Edwards campaign that our secret code communications between our camp and al qaeda has been compromised.

Damn you to hell, Rstringfield!!! :mad:
You killed Kenny, you bastard!
 
I bet that is some real funny shit in the kookling world. What a zinger.

:)

"sand in my vagina" ..

pure Cartman

Yeah, it is not as good as pitching a childish fit when others post a thread I don't approve of, but...

Ron Paul, Only Candidate NOT Following Orders of al Qaeda


Damn! Busted!!

I'll have to warn the Edwards campaign that our secret code communications between our camp and al qaeda has been compromised.

Damn you to hell, Rstringfield!!! :mad:

You do understand the reason for the comment, don't you? Or are you into childish behavior too?

Scheuer's comment is in response to the ridiculous assertion by Fox. All the major dem candidates will keep us in Iraq and will change nothing about our interventionist foreign policy. They have not claimed they will.
 
Yeah, it is not as good as pitching a childish fit when others post a thread I don't approve of, but...

Please just let me post my Ron Paul threads every time he farts and stop saying those mean things about him.

Did I get it right?

You do understand the reason for the comment, don't you? Or are you into childish behavior too?

Scheuer's comment is in response to the ridiculous assertion by Fox. All the major dem candidates will keep us in Iraq and will change nothing about our interventionist foreign policy. They have not claimed they will.

Let's see if we can follow this twisted illogic.

Al Queda and the Iraqi people are fighting to REMOVE US troops from Iraq .. but you claim that anyone who doesn't want to remove our troops are following "Al Queda's orders."

Could it not be said that it is ONLY Ron Paul who is following the wishes of Al Queda in getting US troops out .. just as Al Queda is fighting to do.

Of course that would be dumb .. but certainly no less dumb than your brainless assertion.
 
Yeah, it is not as good as pitching a childish fit when others post a thread I don't approve of, but...



You do understand the reason for the comment, don't you? Or are you into childish behavior too?

Scheuer's comment is in response to the ridiculous assertion by Fox. All the major dem candidates will keep us in Iraq and will change nothing about our interventionist foreign policy. They have not claimed they will.
Yeah you nailed it. The things is Dems have never really had a problem with war (As BAC correctly put it, what are they (their voters) going to do? Get mad and vote for Republicans?)

It's why Dems have been happy to start plenty of wars including the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Kosovo and Haiti. They would have started the Iraq war too, Bill Clinton bombed Saddam over nothing but Monica distraction, do we really believe that all the intel hype and desire for action would have prevented war with Iraq by Dems were they in power?
They can blame neocons for "deceiving" them, you already see that with the current war.

<Expected Democrat Response>Huh huh, you guys still blaming Clinton? Huh-huh</Expected Democrat Response>
 
"They would have started the Iraq war too"

That's so laughable it's not even worth addressing. Most Republicans wouldn't have even started the Iraq War. We just got lucky with Bush...
 
Please just let me post my Ron Paul threads every time he farts and stop saying those mean things about him.

Did I get it right?

This aint my board and it aint yours. I am not asking for permission to post threads and if you want to display what a little child you are, you don't need my permission either. However, I am in full support.

Let's see if we can follow this twisted illogic.

Al Queda and the Iraqi people are fighting to REMOVE US troops from Iraq .. but you claim that anyone who doesn't want to remove our troops are following "Al Queda's orders."

Could it not be said that it is ONLY Ron Paul who is following the wishes of Al Queda in getting US troops out .. just as Al Queda is fighting to do.

Of course that would be dumb .. but certainly no less dumb than your brainless assertion.

There you go again. I thought you watched the debates?
 
"They would have started the Iraq war too"

That's so laughable it's not even worth addressing. Most Republicans wouldn't have even started the Iraq War. We just got lucky with Bush...

Follow me around much puppy-dog?
Here boy, chew on these bones:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & <b>John Kerry</b> among others on <b>October 9, 1998</b>

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- <b>Bill Clinton</b> in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. <b>He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members</b>, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- <b>Hillary Clinton</b>, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because <b>I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 </b>

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
 
Gee, never seen those before, DeMano. You got me there!

Funny - when I read those, for the umpteenth time, I'm still hard pressed to find anyone at a prominent level calling for the invasion & occupation of Iraq.

Pesky little detail there...
 
Al Queda and the Iraqi people are fighting to REMOVE US troops from Iraq .. but you claim that anyone who doesn't want to remove our troops are following "Al Queda's orders."

Could it not be said that it is ONLY Ron Paul who is following the wishes of Al Queda in getting US troops out .. just as Al Queda is fighting to do.

Of course that would be dumb .. but certainly no less dumb than your brainless assertion.

Al Queda most defintly does NOT want US Troops sent home, at least not it's leaders. It's helping them recruit. They want to kill the US troops wherever they may be.
 
Gee, never seen those before, DeMano. You got me there!

Funny - when I read those, for the umpteenth time, I'm still hard pressed to find anyone at a prominent level calling for the invasion & occupation of Iraq.

Pesky little detail there...

Good point, so...IMMEDIATELY after the Iraq war in 2003, did any of those Dems say: "STOP, we don't want this war!"
Nope, they waited til months and sometimes years later when WMD still never showed up and popularity for it dropped and THEN pretended they were against the war all along.

You'd have to be a very naive dipstick to believe the Dems on that, oh and for slow little Lorax, that would be me calling you a naive dipstick.
 
Good point, so...IMMEDIATELY after the Iraq war in 2003, did any of those Dems say: "STOP, we don't want this war!"
Nope, they waited til months and sometimes years later when WMD still never showed up and popularity for it dropped and THEN pretended they were against the war all along.

You'd have to be a very naive dipstick to believe the Dems on that, oh and for slow little Lorax, that would be me calling you a naive dipstick.

More Democrats voted against the authorization than voted for it. Until the year 2000 we had a Democrat in the white house and no call for an invasion of Iraq. With no attempt from the white house to invade Iraq and more democrats voting against it than for it, you do not have an invasion of iraq without bush as president.
 
Good point, so...IMMEDIATELY after the Iraq war in 2003, did any of those Dems say: "STOP, we don't want this war!"
Nope, they waited til months and sometimes years later when WMD still never showed up and popularity for it dropped and THEN pretended they were against the war all along.

You'd have to be a very naive dipstick to believe the Dems on that, oh and for slow little Lorax, that would be me calling you a naive dipstick.

It still doesn't prove that Dems would have started this war. The fact is, they, and most Republicans, wouldn't have. To argue that would be like arguing that invading Iraq was the logical thing to do, and you certainly wouldn't do that.

I could post lists of quotes from Democrats & Republicans alike condemning other world leaders, but they would hardly be "proof" that such Democrats or Republicans would go to war with said leaders. That list of WMD quotes is such a crock; it's time to retire it once & for all.

And your recollection of history is very fuzzy. A majority of Democrats voted against the authorization for force, and even among those who did, there were very cautious statements about what kind of force & when on the day of the vote (and amongst prominent Republicans like Dick Armey, as well). Also, while I don't doubt that elected Democrats kept dissent to a minimum when we first invaded (as any patriotic American probably should), there was plenty of dissent, and massive protest in American & worldwide in the months leading up to war.

You're portrayal is, as usual, completely dishonest....
 
More Democrats voted against the authorization than voted for it.
Yeah all the ones with safe seats to oppose the hated Bush and no presidential aspirations. The point is those that if a Dem was prez they would have certainly gone in, as evidenced by all the prez-electable Dems supporting the war and how many Dems did not support the Kosovo war under Clinton.

Until the year 2000 we had a Democrat in the white house and no call for an invasion of Iraq.
Well no shit, the Iraq war was never a sell until Sep 11 happened.
 
Back
Top