• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beware of "Judicial Watch" [W:208]

Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

OpportunityCost said:
You are incorrect, his language was ambiguous. Your interpretation is rooted in bias. How can FOIA requests be a big government policy, when they are requests for transparency BY the government?

All you need to do to have an applicable answer is to think and quit spouting platitudes and rhetoric.
Click to expand...

You find ambiguity in the straight forward English language -
This is exactly what Steven Aftergood was talking about with JW - "The Freedom of Information Act is a legitimate tool for government transparency, but it’s possible to abuse it,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. “There is a question about whether they are enriching or distorting political discourse.”

I get it - you like big Government, lawsuits, and mockeries of the Judicial system.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Media_Truth said:
You find ambiguity in the straight forward English language -
This is exactly what Steven Aftergood was talking about with JW - "The Freedom of Information Act is a legitimate tool for government transparency, but it’s possible to abuse it,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. “There is a question about whether they are enriching or distorting political discourse.”

I get it - you like big Government, lawsuits, and mockeries of the Judicial system.
Click to expand...

The ambiguous language are the words possible and question.

How can transparency be about big government when it seeks to make government accountable and transparent? You are using contradictory rhetoric.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
Forget Susan, how about Condi? Her lies helped to kill 1000's of Americans.
Click to expand...

{Groan} still hanging onto the " Bush lied about WMd" zombie meme?

Well,I've already given up on the kookernutter conspiracy theorists who believe that nonsense. People believe what they want to believe.No amount of facts or basic commons sense are going to change their minds.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

KLATTU said:
{Groan} still hanging onto the " Bush lied about WMd" zombie meme?

Well,I've already given up on the kookernutter conspiracy theorists who believe that nonsense. People believe what they want to believe.No amount of facts or basic commons sense are going to change their minds.
Click to expand...

Condi's "Mushroom cloud" spiel was the biggest lie I heard from the Bush Administration and that is saying a lot.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
Condi's "Mushroom cloud" spiel was the biggest lie I heard from the Bush Administration and that is saying a lot.
Click to expand...

You mean this?

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Wow some lie ( Derisive smirk)
Silly me- I wouldn't want that either.
Neityher would most sane, rational people I suspect.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

KLATTU said:
You mean this?

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Wow some lie ( Derisive smirk)
Silly me- I wouldn't want that either.
Neityher would most sane, rational people I suspect.
Click to expand...

There was no valid evidence that Saddam had any nuclear program no less a nuclear bomb. She might has well said that about Canada too. That was nothing but fear mongering for that stupid war with no basis in fact. She also lied when she repeatedly said we had no way of knowing that commercial airplanes could be weaponized. We had evidence of that intention in the 90's.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

KLATTU said:
You mean this?

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Wow some lie ( Derisive smirk)
Silly me- I wouldn't want that either.
Neityher would most sane, rational people I suspect.
Click to expand...

You know that the facts won't stop him from calling her comment a lie sometime down the road.

He's embraced that falsehood for more than a decade just like so many others on the left, so you know he has no intention of ever being honest about it.


.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
There was no valid evidence that Saddam had any nuclear program no less a nuclear bomb. She might has well said that about Canada too. That was nothing but fear mongering for that stupid war with no basis in fact. She also lied when she repeatedly said we had no way of knowing that commercial airplanes could be weaponized. We had evidence of that intention in the 90's.
Click to expand...

The Bush/Cheney Oil war was one big lie to Congress, the Senate, and to all Americans. Had the Left had the financial resources of JW, they could have probably impeached the President and the Vice President for their lies.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Grim17 said:
You know that the facts won't stop him from calling her comment a lie sometime down the road.

He's embraced that falsehood for more than a decade just like so many others on the left, so you know he has no intention of ever being honest about it.


.
Click to expand...

There was never any chance that Saddam could acquire a nuclear weapon and he was not even trying to. Making that false statement was a blatant attempt to use fear to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation. The fact that you still can't see that is not surprising. The truth has a left lean and that is why you don't care for it. Living in a dream world is so much easier.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

fmw said:
Excellent. Too bad we don't have more of them to help counteract the smear campaigns of the left.
Click to expand...

So many conservatives liked that post that the lib PC software refused to list them all by name.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
There was no valid evidence that Saddam had any nuclear program no less a nuclear bomb. She might has well said that about Canada too. That was nothing but fear mongering for that stupid war with no basis in fact. S.
Click to expand...
Except the CIA didn't specifically mention Canada's nuclear program in their NIE as they did Iraq"s .
Why would you blatantly lie about something that is so easy to look up?
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#04

"Before its departure from Iraq, the IAEA made significant strides toward dismantling Iraq's nuclear weapons program and unearthing the nature and scope of Iraq's past nuclear activities. In the absence of inspections, however, most analysts assess that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program—unraveling the IAEA's hard-earned accomplishments."

And she said: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

So where is the lie? That was no uncertainty? That's not what the CIA said at the time.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
Th. She also lied when she repeatedly said we had no way of knowing that commercial airplanes could be weaponized. We had evidence of that intention in the 90's.
Click to expand...

Give us the exact quote. I suspect you're full of Sh$t and that's not what she said,
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Grim17 said:
You know that the facts won't stop him from calling her comment a lie sometime down the road.

He's embraced that falsehood for more than a decade just like so many others on the left, so you know he has no intention of ever being honest about it.


.
Click to expand...

I wish I read your post first. You are 100% right. People just love to cling to their zombie memes,( ie they won't die no matter how often they are shown to be false) ,don't they?
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
There was never any chance that Saddam could acquire a nuclear weapon and he was not even trying to. Making that false statement was a blatant attempt to use fear to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation. The fact that you still can't see that is not surprising. The truth has a left lean and that is why you don't care for it. Living in a dream world is so much easier.
Click to expand...

I see... Not only do you hold on to the lie about what Rice said, you still cling to the "Bush lied" falsehood also.

It's hard to believe that more than 12 years later, there are still people like yourself trying to rewrite history in the name of partisan politics. Bush Derangement Syndrome lives on and the question is, will we ever find a cure.


.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

KLATTU said:
I wish I read your post first. You are 100% right. People just love to cling to their zombie memes,( ie they won't die no matter how often they are shown to be false) ,don't they?
Click to expand...

I think post #160 demonstrates that perfectly.


.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

KLATTU said:
Give us the exact quote. I suspect you're full of Sh$t and that's not what she said,
Click to expand...

She said it multiple times and so did GW.

Prior Hints Of September 11-Style Attack

Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings CBS News 5-17-22

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives ... into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." --1999 federal report

(CBS) Two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said. The Bush administration has asserted that no one in government had envisioned a suicide hijacking before it happened.

Page Unavailable | whitehouse.gov

"The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people. We will use the might of America to protect the American people." -White House press release 5/17/2002

Surrounded by Air Force Academy cadets at a Rose Garden ceremony, the president earnestly declared that "had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice echoed similar sentiments at a White House briefing. After acknowledging that the president had "general" information about Al Qaeda plans to hijack American airlines, she pleaded that he and his advisors had no idea that hijacked airplanes would be used as missiles to crash into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, her implication being that such an idea was so outlandish it was beyond comprehension."
Click to expand...

Who's Lying - Rice And Bush, Or Clarke?
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

iguanaman said:
She said it multiple times and so did GW.



Who's Lying - Rice And Bush, Or Clarke?
Click to expand...

That August 6th PDB the president received that Rense talked about, did NOT indicate any such thing... Here, read it yourself:

pdb_complete.jpg

Please note that the Rense story was written 2 weeks before that PDB was released to the public, which subsequently discredited the entire story... A story that has never been corrected or retracted because they know people like you will still use it to push the "Bush lied" narrative.



.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Grim17 said:
I see... Not only do you hold on to the lie about what Rice said, you still cling to the "Bush lied" falsehood also.

It's hard to believe that more than 12 years later, there are still people like yourself trying to rewrite history in the name of partisan politics. Bush Derangement Syndrome lives on and the question is, will we ever find a cure.


.
Click to expand...
Who's rewriting history?

CIA?s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Media_Truth said:
Who's rewriting history?

CIA?s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
Click to expand...

If you are citing that article as proof Bush lied, then you are not only making a blatantly false claim, but are in fact attempting to rewrite history.

What the CIA concluded in 2005 (from the NBC News article), isn't what they concluded in 2002 through early 2003 and reported to the president.


.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Grim17 said:
If you are citing that article as proof Bush lied, then you are not only making a blatantly false claim, but are in fact attempting to rewrite history.

What the CIA concluded in 2005 (from the NBC News article), isn't what they concluded in 2002 through early 2003 and reported to the president.

.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see So you're saying that the CIA misdirected poor George Bush and Dick Cheney, and they were simply victims of this misunderstanding. And thus they started a $6 Trillion war, while citizens all over the US protested, and concerned people all over the world protested. Did it ever occur to you that the Oil Tycoon, Dick Cheney, colluded with the CIA to come up with the story, as a pretense to go to war. After all, it was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz who started the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), seeking US military domination of the world.

How naive Republicans are, when it comes to the Oligarchs and Militarists that dominate their party.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Media_Truth said:
Oh, I see So you're saying that the CIA misdirected poor George Bush and Dick Cheney, and they were simply victims of this misunderstanding. And thus they started a $6 Trillion war, while citizens all over the US protested, and concerned people all over the world protested. Did it ever occur to you that the Oil Tycoon, Dick Cheney, colluded with the CIA to come up with the story, as a pretense to go to war. After all, it was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowicz who started the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), seeking US military domination of the world.

How naive Republicans are, when it comes to the Oligarchs and Militarists that dominate their party.
Click to expand...

Have you checked who funds the Democratic party lately? Seems like a bunch of oligarchs. Have you seen who played up sabre rattling with Russia lately? Oh look, it was Democrats. Seems pretty militarist.

Next clueless talking point please.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

OpportunityCost said:
Have you checked who funds the Democratic party lately? Seems like a bunch of oligarchs. Have you seen who played up sabre rattling with Russia lately? Oh look, it was Democrats. Seems pretty militarist.

Next clueless talking point please.
Click to expand...

Nothing but deflection argument.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

Media_Truth said:
Nothing but deflection argument.
Click to expand...

Nope, its the argument that both sides engage in what you are referring to. Doesn't make EITHER of them right. Also, your commentary is extremely hyperbolic.
 
Re: Beware of "Judicial Watch"

OpportunityCost said:
Nope, its the argument that both sides engage in what you are referring to. Doesn't make EITHER of them right. Also, your commentary is extremely hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

It was a deflection argument and you know it. These arguments are used when somebody is trying to change the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom