View Poll Results: Your opinion

Voters
119. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    27 22.69%
  • Disagree

    76 63.87%
  • I hope so

    40 33.61%
  • I hope not

    23 19.33%
  • Republicans are nuts

    51 42.86%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 349

Thread: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

  1. #331
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    So you're saying what, that Obama personally ordered a couple of State staffers to keep quiet? Please.
    Hhhmmmm......


    Redacted all the pertinent parts from my original post did you? Probably make a perfect candidate to assist, a la State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, the 0 Administration in their continued attempt to "help" the American people "better" understand just what happened in Benghazi, eh?

    We have whistle blower protections, a whistle blower being the disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing to protect those who inform the public. [ Whistleblowing legal definition of Whistleblowing. Whistleblowing synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. ] as to: Whistleblowing statutes protect from discharge or discrimination an employee who has initiated an investigation of an employer's activities or who has otherwise cooperated with a regulatory agency in carrying out an inquiry or the enforcement of regulations. Federal whistle-blower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9). In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that he or she reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health. In order to prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    You'd lose.

    Ford pardoned Nixon, and was generally ineffective. Reagan -- Iran-Contra. Bush 43, rampant incompetence (FEMA, Energy Dept scandal, total failure to prepare for aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan, disbanding Iraqi army); shredded civil rights (warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without due process, torturing suspects, illegal rendition, etc); manipulation of intelligence data and willful refusal to accept weapons inspectors. And unlike Obama, Bush's lies and manipulations sent the US to war with Iraq. Now that is what I call a significant consequence.
    So...interesting, you would impeach then attempt a Senate trial against Ford pretty much just for pardoning Nixon, eh? I rather wish he had not pardoned Nixon either, as I want all who commit crimes against, we, the people to be prosecuted , sends a great message to deter future potential wrong doers. But Presidents have the privilege of the power of pardon... so where is your indictable offense again? Explain that please, as you do not even want to prosecute those responsible for mismanagement that led to the death of 4 brave fellow Americans, then tried to cover it up, then tried to intimidate those who had information regarding the truth of the matter from coming forward to inform we, the people, so that our system can improve in the future, to better protect our people out there in very dangerous locales, out their risking, in some cases losing, their lives to represent US, the people.

    I think, if memory serves, they held hearings on Iran Contra, and ole Ollie North beat them with their own cudgel if you watch those hearings... never found anything with which to indict [impeach] the Great Ronald Reagan... Democrats Tip O'Neill and then the disgraced Jim Wright had control of the House to bring just such proceedings should they have cared to...and yet nothing..think it was because the loved Reagan? It was Reagan himself on Nov. 25, 1986, not the press, who broke the news linking sales of arms in Iran to supply the Contras in Nicaragua, and pointed out those involved... so advise to please do a bit more homework, then we can discuss further if you like.

    And GW, wow... which lies do you speak of? The majority of intelligence agencies, ours and our allies, in the first world held that Saddam was attempting to gain WMDs, particularly nuclear, besides which Saddam had agreed to a cease fire in the First Gulf War in which it was stipulated that he would allow in inspectors...blah blah blah... I mean this, this years-later-quarterbacking of absurdities is way way way past its expiration date, please do yourself a favor, throw it out....it stinks....

    But go ahead, start a new thread on GW and all of which you assert, would be happy to prove you wrong on your arguments in oh so myriad ways...as our great leader said famously, " Bring 'em on".

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    If I actually had to dig in and list all the times Presidents have lied or failed to predict something that was "obvious" (with the magic power of hindsight, that is), with policy consequences, I'd be here all day.
    Yeah? So…? Again, could use that excuse for slothfulness with Nixon, why investigate his “lies”? Nobody died, he won a landslide victory, who was hurt you could say…right? No, he did the wrong things, our representatives in Congress, the judicial and the executive branches did what they were supposed to so that the system will work, continue to work. Now you are advocating that, since it is your party, that it’s a guy you like, hey, let’s just look the other way.

    That is not how it needs be done in America. Sorry, whether your guy or ours, bad deeds need punished. How ‘bout some intellectual honesty here? We can agree on that can we not?



    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, that's perjury. Obama certainly hasn't perjured himself, and there is no real indication Clinton did either. I.e. no real grounds for impeachment -- except in the fevered dreams of a few partisan hacks, who cannot tolerate the very idea that non-Republicans get voted into office.
    Perjury is not required for impeachment. The House can impeach on pretty much any grounds they so decide [ just like the idea behind being able to indict a ham sandwich ]. Booting someone through the trial in the Senate is a much tougher hurdle, never been done. Stop being just partisan and let the truth come out, then lets see… if that is not your view as an American, well….



    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Fortunately, there is zero indication that there will be any impeachment proceedings as a result of any of this.
    Way way way way early yet. Do you start predicting who will... and will not... be in the Final Four in March, the year before, do you? If so, how often are you right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Please.
    Please, just like the common roll of the eyes, a shrug of the shoulders, a loudly uttered, “pfffftttt….”, "please" cannot really be considered a valid argument to any reasoning person, can it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Nixon ordered his men to subvert the electoral process, the very basis of the legitimacy of our government. At the absolute worst, the Obama administration flubbed the public response to an attack on *cough* a CIA operation, with a few diplomats on site. You did know that 23 out of the 30 people at the Benghazi offices were CIA agents posing as diplomats, and that numerous secret operations were run out of "The Annex" ? Right? Right.
    Seems your knowledge regarding the nuance and actual facts in the Watergate Scandal to be a bit thin. Nixon covered up after the fact that these men were sent out to break in and tap the phones of the DNC at the Watergate Complex, Washington, DC. Obama-Hillary et al mismanaged the security beforehand, mismanaged what should have been a rescue attempt that was never even attempted, covered up their incompetence with lies, intimidated those that would tell us the real truth with threats, gagging them from speaking to people trying to find the truth, set up an investigation that left out more of the pertinent details than it included so that “we” might not find out the truth [ if they got their way] and continues this cover up to this day…

    So let us know more about this cough worthy CIA operation… what were they doing? Was it legal, was it something like the Iran arms deals maybe? Tell us more…”we” the people want to know…

  2. #332
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    When was the last time any administration was truthful with us?
    Based on that logic, why should we uphold laws as they will just be broken, why brush your teeth, they will just get dirty again... come on, we can do better than this...can't we?

  3. #333
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    You'd lose.

    Ford pardoned Nixon, and was generally ineffective. Reagan -- Iran-Contra. Bush 43, rampant incompetence (FEMA, Energy Dept scandal, total failure to prepare for aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan, disbanding Iraqi army); shredded civil rights (warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without due process, torturing suspects, illegal rendition, etc); manipulation of intelligence data and willful refusal to accept weapons inspectors. And unlike Obama, Bush's lies and manipulations sent the US to war with Iraq. Now that is what I call a significant consequence.
    Your reference to "warrantless wiretapping" is an inaccurate reference. That warrantless wiretapping has been going on since the development of SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) in the 60's, which many will recognize by the popular name "ECHELON". It involves information that has been put into the public domain and thereby not having any expectation of privacy. What the Patriot Act did was allow the information to be admissible as evidence, and used as cause for other search warrants. Bush didn't invent it, and did not create it, but at least these concerns came under court supervision by the Patriot Act.

    Also your characterization of rendition is inaccurate as well, and lacks a thorough understanding of what was prohibited and also mandated by the Geneva Conventions, regarding the treatment of lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.

    Furthermore, Bush did not lie, and did not promote lies, but rather promoted what was believed to be recognized by the international intelligence communities.

    And Bush's "lie" did not send us to war with Iraq. We had been in a de facto state of war with Iraq for over a decade, since Kuwait, with the "cease fire" still involving a state of war. Furthermore, the Democratic Congress under Clinton had voted that Saddam should be removed, so claiming it was Bush's fabrication is a gross distortion that only came about when the Democrats needed some political footing for the upcoming interim elections.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, that's perjury. Obama certainly hasn't perjured himself, and there is no real indication Clinton did either. I.e. no real grounds for impeachment -- except in the fevered dreams of a few partisan hacks, who cannot tolerate the very idea that non-Republicans get voted into office.
    Obama has only not perjured himself because he has not been under oath; he has most certainly engaged in serial malfeasance while in office.

    Clinton undeniably perjured himself; you must have missed the fact of the loss of license to practice law. Clinton was indeed impeached, and was only not convicted under those terms, and more, because the partisan hacks among both Republicans and Democrats chose to elevate future partisan interests over obligation to the country.

  4. #334
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post

    Nixon ordered his men to subvert the electoral process, the very basis of the legitimacy of our government. At the absolute worst, the Obama administration flubbed the public response to an attack on *cough* a CIA operation, with a few diplomats on site. You did know that 23 out of the 30 people at the Benghazi offices were CIA agents posing as diplomats, and that numerous secret operations were run out of "The Annex" ? Right? Right.

    The electoral process IS NOT the very basis of the legitimacy of our government!

    The sole basis for the legitimacy of our government are the terms set forth in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

    Voting has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of government in this country, and is not even recognized to be a positive right by that constitution, but rather only indicates the terms by which voting cannot be denied, i.e. race, gender, previous condition of involuntary servitude, and the like!

    At the absolute worst, the members of the Obama Administration have likely perjured themselves, among whom is Hillary Clinton.

    But it does not stop there. There is also the great likelihood that Benghazi occurred, not to provide cover for Obama's claim that Al Quada was on the run and defeated, which alone is thoroughly obscene and real cause to impeach, but to cover for another heinous act, likely trading arms to radical Islamic groups.

  5. #335
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    The electoral process IS NOT the very basis of the legitimacy of our government! The sole basis for the legitimacy of our government are the terms set forth in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!
    The Constitution doesn't mean jack **** without the consent of the governed. And yes, that was a critical idea in the formation and structure of our government.


    Voting has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of government in this country....
    What nonsense.

    Valid elections are absolutely critical to credibility of the American government. Nixon and CREEP intentionally subverted that process to suit his goals, namely "getting Nixon re-elected."


    But it does not stop there. There is also the great likelihood that Benghazi occurred, not to provide cover for Obama's claim that Al Quada was on the run and defeated, which alone is thoroughly obscene and real cause to impeach, but to cover for another heinous act, likely trading arms to radical Islamic groups.
    Right, just like the Reagan administration, when it sold arms to post-revolutionary Iran? Right.

  6. #336
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,315

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Corruption drive Obama from office? ... not this guy.
    He was trained in using and indulging in it.

  7. #337
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 05:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,020

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Your reference to "warrantless wiretapping" is an inaccurate reference. That warrantless wiretapping has been going on since the development of SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) in the 60's....
    No, the NSA scandal was very different. It didn't just access publicly available information, it vacuumed up information that normally requires warrants, without sending anything past a FISA court -- phone calls, bank transactions, emails.... They didn't selectively target suspects. They nabbed everything they could, including your communications.

    For a guy who appears to be fanatically concerned about impending tyranny, your willingness to tolerate this is very surprising.

    Or is it only bad if when it's a Democrat President who turns the US into a surveillance state?


    Also your characterization of rendition is inaccurate as well, and lacks a thorough understanding of what was prohibited and also mandated by the Geneva Conventions, regarding the treatment of lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.
    The term was implied, but doesn't actually appear, in any Geneva conventions.

    The concept was originally developed by Roosevelt's administration, as a way to basically guarantee the execution of six Germans accused of being saboteurs during WWII. The Bush administration picked up on it, and specifically used it to avoid offering the accused the protections of either the Geneva Conventions and US criminal law.

    And of course, the administration is happy to say that "we are at war with the terrorists" -- when the classification of "at war" suits a specific policy goal.

    So what's the actual result of Bush's decision? A staffer would tell the President some information about an accused individual, and the President could classify them as an "unlawful combatant." No oversight, no checks, no balances. The President could -- and did -- single-handedly decide to detain an individual indefinitely, without due process, subject him to interrogations that would be illegal in any criminal case. All on the basis of suspicions of potentially questionable origin.

    Now last I checked, you espouse a theory of "inherent human rights" as outlined in the US Constitution. This includes a presumption of innocence, the right to due process, the right not to incriminate one's self, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. You keep saying that the Constitution and statutes cannot legitimately suspend these rights, and presumably they are not "American" rights, as any nation that doesn't respect them (in the exact form you demand, no less) is a "tyranny."

    And yet, most of these rights were violated, including for US citizens, on Bush's explicit command. All of them were violated by rendition, where suspects -- often nabbed on flimsy and flawed intelligence -- were sent to Egypt and Syra, to be tortured. And yes, there is no question the administration knew those individuals would be tortured, in unquestionably cruel manners, in those nations. Which was pretty much the whole purpose of rendition.

    Engaging in an activity that a government functionary classifies as "terrorism" does not automatically revoke these rights.

    Again, your acceptance of this baffling. Unless, of course, you believe that only selected human beings actually have inherent human rights? Or you think it's acceptable for the President to throw someone into Guantanamo for the rest of their life, based on mere accusations?


    Furthermore, Bush did not lie, and did not promote lies, but rather promoted what was believed to be recognized by the international intelligence communities.
    They lied and distorted the intelligence, in order to advance the policy. The UN didn't find sufficient evidence of WMD's or links to Al Qaeda -- because there were no WMD's and no links to AQ.

    Bush, Cheney and the administration had no interest in waiting long enough to find WMD's -- or for the UN inspectors to determine Hussein didn't have WMD's. They wanted to invade Iraq, they barely cared if England supported them, and didn't care about anyone else -- and were very open about their willingness to engage in unilateral action. I.e. there are reasons beyond political expediency why the MNF did not include many US allies, and had little more than token support from anyone else.

    Again, this really doesn't make sense. You've been going on about how the US is going to hell in a handbasket, and you don't realize how the Bush administration -- as so many other administrations have done -- curtailed a series of civil liberties, in the name of "protecting the nation" and "making us safe"?

  8. #338
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    The Constitution doesn't mean jack **** without the consent of the governed. And yes, that was a critical idea in the formation and structure of our government.
    That "consent of the governed" came about with designing the processes in the Constitution, and that Constitution's ratification.

    That consent of the governed has already occurred.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    What nonsense.

    Valid elections are absolutely critical to credibility of the American government. Nixon and CREEP intentionally subverted that process to suit his goals, namely "getting Nixon re-elected."
    At best, that's a lot of romantic nonsense. The vote does not determine government's agendas, and certainly not our form of government. The only thing voting determines is the pinhead that represents you, and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of government acts. You ever recall voting for a specific policy of the government? No, the best you did was vote on state referendums.

    "The people" voting for a politician does not validate whatever form of government, and government agendas, that politician and regime may choose to execute. The legitimacy of the government is limited to certain enumerated powers, and that's it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Right, just like the Reagan administration, when it sold arms to post-revolutionary Iran? Right.
    Oh this is a losing alley for you. Just how many American hostages did Syria have? Uh, not a one, however I'm pretty sure that the Syrian Islamists were hoping to get at least one hostage out of the attack on the American consulate: Stevens, which is why they dragged his corpse to the hospital to see if he was still alive after having killed him and others. Sort of strange thing to do for Islamic terrorists, no? "We just wanted to scare them, not kill anyone!" But when Stevens got cold feet with the ongoing arms transfer to the Syrian Islamists, this corrupt administration realized it could kill two birds with one 'stone.'

    Impeachment is far too good for what Obama and Hillary deserve in this.
    Last edited by Trip; 05-12-13 at 11:25 PM.

  9. #339
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    No, the NSA scandal was very different. It didn't just access publicly available information, it vacuumed up information that normally requires warrants, without sending anything past a FISA court -- phone calls, bank transactions, emails.... They didn't selectively target suspects. They nabbed everything they could, including your communications.

    For a guy who appears to be fanatically concerned about impending tyranny, your willingness to tolerate this is very surprising.

    Or is it only bad if when it's a Democrat President who turns the US into a surveillance state?
    They've had access to that since the late 60's. It was material in the public domain. This was not new news, just the public outrage over it was.

    I don't hang my underwear out on the line next to the highway, and then feign poutrage when because everyone knows about it.

    Tyranny is different. It is recognized by transgression of the boundaries established in the Constitution. Communications you send out in the public cannot really be recognized as "personal papers and effects".

    For a guy that claims such concern over privacy, I don't see you taking much of a stance against ObamaCare, when it nullifies a full 70% of the Bill of Rights right out of the gate, with more of rights violated, and new obligations created at the mere deeming of one person, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But rest easy, the 1st Amendment is still in place, except for the attack upon religion by ObamaCare, and the Second Amendment, well, that's under attack too. Well, at least you wont be compelled to quarter troops in your home! That's something... right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    The term was implied, but doesn't actually appear, in any Geneva conventions.
    The term "unlawful enemy combatant" does not need to be specifically stated, for it to be indicated and not covered by the protections stipulated by the Geneva Conventions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    And of course, the administration is happy to say that "we are at war with the terrorists" -- when the classification of "at war" suits a specific policy goal.
    We're actually at war with Islam, an all-encompassing dictatorial ideology, that curiously calls itself a religion but conspicuously has now freedom of faith. This war isn't a "policy goal" but is a fact of reality having no partisanship to it until the Dems sought to find some interim election footing. The "at war" part should be painfully obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    So what's the actual result of Bush's decision? A staffer would tell the President some information about an accused individual, and the President could classify them as an "unlawful combatant." No oversight, no checks, no balances. The President could -- and did -- single-handedly decide to detain an individual indefinitely, without due process, subject him to interrogations that would be illegal in any criminal case. All on the basis of suspicions of potentially questionable origin.
    Combatants taken from the battle field, without any uniform, insignia and recognized chain of command, are by definition "unlawful enemy combatants" and not the representatives of any state, and engaging in acts of war not recognized by the league of nations, because these actions decimate the non-combatant civil populace. While being found on the battlefield, engaging in combat, without a uniform, is might be recognized as "suspicious", it is not of questionable origin.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Now last I checked, you espouse a theory of "inherent human rights" as outlined in the US Constitution. This includes a presumption of innocence, the right to due process, the right not to incriminate one's self, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. You keep saying that the Constitution and statutes cannot legitimately suspend these rights, and presumably they are not "American" rights, as any nation that doesn't respect them (in the exact form you demand, no less) is a "tyranny."

    And yet, most of these rights were violated, including for US citizens, on Bush's explicit command. All of them were violated by rendition, where suspects -- often nabbed on flimsy and flawed intelligence -- were sent to Egypt and Syra, to be tortured. And yes, there is no question the administration knew those individuals would be tortured, in unquestionably cruel manners, in those nations. Which was pretty much the whole purpose of rendition.

    Engaging in an activity that a government functionary classifies as "terrorism" does not automatically revoke these rights.
    Due process is indeed to be applied to these unlawful enemy combatants, just not in a civil courtroom and not while the conflict is ongoing, or else these unlawful enemy combatants might resume unlawful combat upon release, and this current administration has shown this to be true by many who they released being subsequently detained again.

    No, the rights are not revoked; they are just subject to different terms. And it's not from "mere accusations" but having been apprehended in the midst of combat, engaging in combat, and not wearing any uniform and not having a recognized chain of command who will be accountable for those combatant's actions. If Al Quada and other groups were to publicly state their chain of command, then things would be different, but that's not about to happen, because they are terrorist groups!




    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    They lied and distorted the intelligence, in order to advance the policy. The UN didn't find sufficient evidence of WMD's or links to Al Qaeda -- because there were no WMD's and no links to AQ.

    Bush, Cheney and the administration had no interest in waiting long enough to find WMD's -- or for the UN inspectors to determine Hussein didn't have WMD's. They wanted to invade Iraq, they barely cared if England supported them, and didn't care about anyone else -- and were very open about their willingness to engage in unilateral action. I.e. there are reasons beyond political expediency why the MNF did not include many US allies, and had little more than token support from anyone else.
    It is long past time for you to put on your big boy panties and recognize that the terms "lie" and "lied" involve the deliberate statement of something that was knowingly untrue. The fact is the statements were indeed true, and not by any means a deliberate lie.

    Hussein did have prohibited WMD's, used those prohibited WMD's, and even turned over some of the prohibited WMDs in the days leading up to the war to forestall the invasion, in the form of Silkworm missiles. Also the classification of "WMDs" is not derived from mainstream media spin of the term, and not thereby reduced to biological chemical and nuclear warheads, and not further reduced to those able to reach the United States, but involves an entire array of prohibited offensive weaponry, inclusive of things like spy drones.

    Furthermore, the terrorist connections, not just 'connections', between Al Quada and Iraq are undeniable:

    Al Quada - Iraq Ties

    There is no doubt of a tie between Iraq and terrorism and even a positive relationship between Iraq and terrorist groups including al Qaeda, :


    • Abu Abbas, whose people shot American Leon Klinghoffer and threw him and his wheelchair off a cruise ship, flew directly to Baghdad.
    • Abu Nidal, who was responsible for bombings in airports in Rome and Vienna, was a long time resident of Baghdad.
    • Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the bomb in the World Trade Center attack in 1993, also found refuge in Baghdad.
    • Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000; Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists; Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime.
    • Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's.
    • Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted.
    • The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
    • Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992.
    • Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998.
    • Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin.
    • Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings).
    • Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks.
    • The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden.
    • Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.” (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
    • Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001.
    • Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, where terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking. In fact thousands of terrorists were trained in 3 camps in Iraq -- Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak-- and trained by elite Iraqi military. As many as 2,000 terrorists were trained a year from 1999 to 2002, with some of these trainees coming from Northern Africa and having close ties to al Qaeda, including Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army.
    • Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
    • We had solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade before the War in Iraq.
    • Credible evidence indicating that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
    • Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
    • There was credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Pre-war reports such these are not limited to the Bush administration but also include other intelligence agencies such as Germany and Russia. These should not be a surprise and represents no great leap of logic given Iraq's longstanding promotion of Islamic terrorism and the presence AND USE of this weaponry by Iraq itself.


    Al Quada did, in fact, have close ties with Iraq prior to our entry there, with those close ties being founded on training, support, financing, and executing terrorist acts.
    Last edited by Trip; 05-13-13 at 12:36 AM.

  10. #340
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Huckleberry hound like the rest of the republicon party are just grasping at straws because they have absolutely nothing else
    By 2016 the nation will be saying Ben who?
    HA!

Page 34 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2432333435 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •