Iriemon

So what if oil has no moral value. It has lots of economic value.

The Bush administration would never have mislead the nation to war in Iraq if Iraq had no oil.

DivineComedy

How sweet the silence, just what I thought, the butt buddies in treason cannot even get anything to support their lies with their traitor Democratic Party attorney trying his ass off for a condemnation by Saddam of the Al Quacka!

American

Any and all, where did I say that?

__________________
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

BmanMcfly

So, if it's someone at the CIA that made Bush a liar... then, who got reprimanded for this error... you'd think that Bush would make a point to clear his name?? You know, reassure people that he wouldnt let faulty intelligence bring the country to war again type of stuff...

So, what about the other 919 lies?? You've got ALOT of ground to cover if you're gonna clear Bush's name for him.

Oh... I get it... Bush is a good guy, but Olberman is just trying to smear him??
Can I ask what you would propose the reason for that would be?


now, is it 'Wrong' or is it 'creating a situation to accomplish an agenda'?

So, he's been building a nuclear program for over 20 years??? Umm... then how come there was no evidence of that in Iraq?? Was he perhaps building it in Iran?? Maybe we should blow them to hell to... you know... just in case.
(And if you say it like that at least it wouldn't be lying)

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
Author: Bush knew Iraq had no WMD - TODAY: People

Sorry, but they were lying. End of discussion. Deal with it.

If there was REAL intelligence that showed Saddam HAD nukes and intended to attack the US... but that doesn't make sense... Saddam Hussein wanted to hold onto his power untill he died of old age and would have an heir take over... he wasn't eager to commit suicide by attacking a US ally or the US itself. Its still at the height of hipocracy that the US should be the deciding factor of which country is allowed to develop nukes vs who is not... because just like the cold war... when everyone has the weapons NOONE is able to use them.

Please prove your statement before claiming that I (and others) insisted that the war was about oil. (Although others may say it was to get the oil, I would argue that it was to keep Iraqi oil IN THE GROUDN to INCREASE the cost).

What you're doing here is confusing the 'rhetoric' for the Iraq invasion with the 'REASONS' for that invasion.

What percentage of the US population would agree :
"We need to sacrifice 5000+ US soldiers in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil fields." Very few would agree to this... except maybe that 20% of people that for some inexplicable reason can't look past that Bush was a DISASTER of a president on virtually every measure you could make.

So, how about you prove that statement, that Iraq had nothing to do with oil?? Not possible... There were 'no-bid' contracts going out for the oil fields in the days of the start of the invasion... hell they were even arguing as to not give France access to the no-bid contracts because... well, I forget specifically why... but the US was on a french hating binge at the time.

No, all they have is the CIA: The most highly funded intelligence network in the world, that has access to the latest in the state of the art monitoring equipment (re:Echelon), they have sleeper cells in various countries living a 'normal life' waiting for the call to come in with their orders.

I think you're confusing the CIA with the agency from 'Get Smart'... Now, don't get me wrong, I'm hardly an expert in what the CIA is capable of, but I have come across various sources talking about some of the various technologies that they have access to (which were declassified, meaning that you could add an extra 20+ years of development on top of THAT).

Operation Northwoods

No, they've hated each other for thousands of years... Religious based hatred doesn't require an outside influence to change that.

What nukes? What any weapons?? The most advanced weapons Iraqis had access to were somewhere along the lines of Ak-47s and RPG's.

You're assuming that what Bush said was truth again.

You're right... one does not equate to the other.

Except that, by turning off the oil from iraq cuts off some of the supply and leads to an increase in price... just like we witnessed.

Right, but the oil COMPANIES are a different story altogether. Look at Bush's grandfathers oil company... who just so happened to fund BOTH the axis and the allies in WW2, Gah... by the time you reply I'll find you the source.

This isn't about republican or democrat... if bush was a democrat I'd tear into him the same way... it's not the party that I'm hating... it's the actions of this person.

That he's to stupid to do much more than read the script in front of him just made things easier.



If you rephrase that into an even quasi-mature /intelligent manner I'll address you.

__________________
Are you paying attention to the change?

DivineComedy

You had nothing, you most likely have nothing, and I bet it is 100% true that you do not have the guts of a man to admit you have nothing.

Someone like you, with information, who was not a traitor, would be able to immediately release the information. Like you should release the information in the form of how you have been trying to educate us ignorant folks since 2001, when I first quoted Saddam on a public message board calling him an ally of Al Quacka, and nobody quoted him back to me. Nobody has ever quoted Saddam back to me.

Many times I quoted Saddam, looked for his speeches when nobody else was, and read what I could find that Ramsey Clark released from Saddam. Nobody to date has ever pointed out any quote of Saddam to support the notion that Saddam and Al Quacka were such enemies. Hundreds of times "liberal" pond scum have said Saddam was secular and they were enemies, but not once ever since 2001 has any "liberal" piece of crap every quoted Saddam to back up their claims.

There were two fatwas declaring war against us, calling on Jihad, on behalf of Iraq, because Iraq sanctions, and you would think Ramsey Clark would have any refutation front and center, since I have been publically calling him a traitor since 2001.

There should be something from before 9/11, other than the irrefutable fact that Al Quacka never attacked Saddam for what he was doing to the Al Quacka children in Iraq.

Anytime you are ready to quote Saddam and to prove he was not an ally of terrorism in general and more specifically he was not an ally of Al Quacka (the feedback loop of terrorism justified his emergency measures), feel free. Saddam would have to be a blithering idiot for Al Quacka not to be well known to him, and their Jihad to not be well known to him; would he want us to mistake the Al Quacka Jihad for his Jihad?

Feel free to release the information now.

It will be a little too late, but by all means, let it rip.

Direct quotes and links please.

Here, eat your Greens, show me the CIA report on this, and the 9/11 commission report on it and the other stuff I have been quoting since 2001...:

July 1997, South Movement, "the path of Jihad and proper action": "Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq's national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) President Saddam's speech on July 17 1997

September 2001: "Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General...David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia"
Workers World Oct. 4, 2001: Join a new anti-war coalition

I have been posting it like that for fracking years now, where have you been?

BmanMcfly

Interesting post...

I'd post a reply, but I'm not sure what that quote from Saddan is attempting to prove? Since, from what I read in that quote, the reply would probably be deemed the area of the conspiracy forum...

What do you really expect me to have?? All I can go on is research that is publicly available... I'm not some government operative with access to all the information needed to prosecute... although even with the assertions of mainstream media Bush should at the very least be impeached.

That said; if Saddam was saying what I think he was saying in that quote, that he was touching on an issue as old as the Bible (and not the fluffy parts they read for you in church). That being the battle of Good and evil gods (or God vs Satan... whatever would be more comfortable). That said, going into myths and legends doesn't really seem appropriate for a 'political' debate... possibly in a religious forum or possibly the conspiracy section...

So, could you clarify a bit more, pls... if you can avoid the anger that'd be a bonus to... it really detracted from the point you were making

__________________
Are you paying attention to the change?

Billo_Really

Oh no, don't ask him that!

BmanMcfly

I need to know... because of that particular quote.

He's either using that quote to say that all muslims are linked in this 'jihad against zionist conspiracies', or he's using that to illustrate that Saddam was a threat to Israel, or was sactioning this 'jihad'.

That the jihad isn't against america, but against 'zionist conspiracies' is crucial. Since, Bush is at least indirectly allied to this 'zionist conspiracy' (through skull & bones group that he joined while at university).

So, essentially, the Saddams threat to the US amounts to; if you stop Bush and the Israeli links to the country that Saddam would cease to be a threat.

I wanted to avoid posting that since... well, you're not gonna find any of that info on any MSM source, and likely wouldn't pass scrutiny (since even MSM stories get cast aside with ease)

__________________
Are you paying attention to the change?

Billo_Really

He's just going to quote more people that will leaving you thinking, "Huh?"

DivineComedy

I stopped reading at that point as it was irrefutable proof you have nothing, you never had anything, and you responded to my post out of gross ignorance, and you do not even know what you were supposed to have because {there are words I cannot use to describe why.}