Fool me once, shame on you..........won't get fooled again

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
Get ready, Bush is seeing weapons again.

President Bush says he's certain the Iranian government is supplying weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
Get ready, Bush is seeing weapons again.

President Bush says he's certain the Iranian government is supplying weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

I don't know how anybody could take him seriously at this point. It's pretty clear everything we were told about Iraq was a lie. Its also pretty clear that action against Iran has been an agenda for a while.

We have a record of lying and misconstrued intelligence to forward an agenda in Iraq. Now we've known for a while that Iran has been on the agenda for quite a while and suddenly they're making a case. Tell me why anybody should believe them. And if they happen to be right this time they should learn about the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". To me its like Deja Vu. Same rhetoric different country. This administration lacks creativity.
You know, when you stop a truck, and it is loaded with brand new weapons, made in Iran and dated in 2006, you get some idea that these weapons were made in Iran and imported to Iraq.

When you see a lot of the highest tech Iranian mines/mortars in use, also manufactured in the last year, you get an idea that someone in the Iranian military is doing this.

http://www.rxpgnews.com/america/US-offers-first-evidence-of-Iranian-arms-in-Iraq_15217.shtml

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702120207feb12,1,4809344.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

You see, unlike the WMDs which were based on huge misrepresentations of flimsy intel, in this case military commanders in Iraq have weapons they have seized from insurgents that are high level Iranian military arms.

Kinda like back in the early 60s when Kennedy pulled out the pics of Russian nukes being unloaded in the Caribbean...

Do you really hate America so much that you would deny prima facie evidence? That you would argue against truth that comes from the gut in order to make America a loser in Iraq?
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
Gee, I thought this was going to be an Air America going bankrupt and then having a funding drive to liberate dumbass liberals from their scheckles.

Hey, have you heard Air America lately?

No?

Neither has anyone else, they went bankrupt just like I said they would. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

Somewhere Speedo and SmackDaddy are sharing a post-coital snuggle and ciggy and listening to static. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
don't really care, never heard it. Wasn't Mel Gibson in an Air America movie about post-Viet Nam airlines or something?



Flyboys Gene Ryack (Mel Gibson) and Billy Covington (Robert Downey Jr.) transport cargo --everything from food to animals to contraband -- for a clandestine CIA operation set up to help finance the Vietnam War. Though Ryack is onboard for the mission, Covington harbors doubts about its ethical implications. But when it becomes apparent that a higher value is placed on the cargo than on the men delivering it, Ryack questions his involvement.
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
Do you really hate America so much that you would deny prima facie evidence? That you would argue against truth that comes from the gut in order to make America a loser in Iraq?
Here’s a guy that caused 3000 U.S. soldiers to be killed, thousands injured, destroyed a country and drove them into civil war, spent all of the U.S.’s money, and destroyed every thing America stood for. Why, because he had this imaginary friend that told him there were weapons in Iraq. Now he’s seeing them again.

No I don’t hate America, but Bush.

Bush is the one that's making America a loser, and not only in Iraq.
 

i,surfjac

Nep status
Somebody define "Winning in Iraq"; what is that?
Almost four years ago, W declared "Mission Accomplished"; why are we still in Iraq? His administration and him lied to the Americans, took us into a war without a clear plan, poured billions into that country only to have tons of it stolen, misappropriated. Oil was going to pay for it all; how's that working out? And now, because Congress won't put a "binding resolution" on the record, the administration and its toadies are asking, "Where's the alternative plan?". And when, they do issue a binding resolution to withdraw funding, they'll all get branded as "not supporting the troops". Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Okay, so let's say Congress does put a binding resolution on the record. Let's go one step further and say its passed. Then what, since there would be no money wouldn't Bush HAVE to bring the troops home and if he didn't, wouldn't he be the bad guy? Okay, what if the binding resolution was to scale down the funding over time so that troop withdrawl had a time table. How's that for a plan? Its a plan! What has Bush and the boys done? Accomplished a mission and didn't know it was time to quit.

Lastly, in TIME magazine, one Mr. Babak Roboubi from Chevy Chase, MD writes: "President George W. Bush has lowered the standard of the presidency so much that everone feels qualified to hold the office." I love it when America speaks out, don't you?
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
"don't really care, never heard it."

Bullshit.
You have a bad case of the sniffles because that putrid stench on the airwaves is gone. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

Funny how you will condemn a US president but not a dictator that killed in genocide. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
okay, I did hear about air America, but mostly from you. But really, I don't care, I never listen to it, and wouldn't know where I could listen to it if I wanted to, and I wouldn't know why I would want to even if I knew where I could listen to it.

If you're talking about Sadam, I did and do condemn him and am glad he's dead, really I am. But his death isn't worth what Bush did to get him dead.

And Bush has done more damage to the U.S. than any Axis of evil guy ever will.
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
"don't really care, never heard it."

Bullshit.
You have a bad case of the sniffles because that putrid stench on the airwaves is gone. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

Funny how you will condemn a US president but not a dictator that killed in genocide. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
okay, I did hear about air America, but mostly from you. But really, I don't care, I never listen to it, and wouldn't know where I could listen to it if I wanted to, and I wouldn't know why I would want to even if I knew where I could listen to it.

If you're talking about Sadam, I did and do condemn him and am glad he's dead, really I am. But his death isn't worth what Bush did to get him dead.

And Bush has done more damage to the U.S. than any Axis of evil guy ever will.
See that's just it... not one liberal I know listens to Air America. I wouldn't even know where to look for it - is it AM, FM, internet? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Tex knows more about it than pretty much any "liberal" here. Bankruptcy? News to me! "Rent free", Tex <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

But in Tex's deluded little worldview:
- anyone who didn't vote for Bush has their home decorated with posters of, and wears nothing but T-shirts of, Che Guavara
- if you oppose the war you love Saddam
- if you didn't post on this forum condemning Clinton going into Bosnia then you cannot criticize Bush for going into Iraq
- anyone who criticizes the Bush administration is a fully paid-up member of Moveon.org (refer to the above Air America example for the extent of my knowledge on moveon.org, too)
- he consistently "owns" liberals on this forum with his rapier-sharp use of rolling smileys and avoidance of questions posed to him (by this thinking he'd win UFC 68 by running around the ring wearing a clown mask while refusing to actually fight)
- disapproval of the handling of the Iraq war equates to full support of any number of homicidal dictators that Tex can think of (except Pinochet - he's OK in Tex's eyes because all his murdering was good for the Chilean economy <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />)
Right on. Know what Bush and Disco have in common,
they are both delusional. Bush about weapons and Disco about lefties
 
Jan 1, 2007
112
0
0
Hey, have you heard Air America lately? No? Neither has anyone else, they went bankrupt just like I said they would.
Al Franken deserves props for being a very entertaining party hack. He wrote some great old acts for SNL, too! But the funniest part of Al's shtick was what it revealed about the liberals who thought his jokes were sooooo hilarious!

**Two-year-old Air America (the "liberal radio network")
**Chapter 11 bankrupt, $20.2 million in debts
**Sold to New York real estate agent for $4.25 million
**On-air voice Al Franken gone
**Replacement host Thom Hartmann, "the new progressive superstar" http://www.thomhartmann.com/
http://www.airamerica.com/thomhartmannpage

Still on air. But for how long? Any predictions?

 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
Get ready, Bush is seeing weapons again.

President Bush says he's certain the Iranian government is supplying weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

I don't know how anybody could take him seriously at this point. It's pretty clear everything we were told about Iraq was a lie. Its also pretty clear that action against Iran has been an agenda for a while.

We have a record of lying and misconstrued intelligence to forward an agenda in Iraq. Now we've known for a while that Iran has been on the agenda for quite a while and suddenly they're making a case. Tell me why anybody should believe them. And if they happen to be right this time they should learn about the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". To me its like Deja Vu. Same rhetoric different country. This administration lacks creativity.
You know, when you stop a truck, and it is loaded with brand new weapons, made in Iran and dated in 2006, you get some idea that these weapons were made in Iran and imported to Iraq.

When you see a lot of the highest tech Iranian mines/mortars in use, also manufactured in the last year, you get an idea that someone in the Iranian military is doing this.

http://www.rxpgnews.com/america/US-offers-first-evidence-of-Iranian-arms-in-Iraq_15217.shtml

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702120207feb12,1,4809344.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

You see, unlike the WMDs which were based on huge misrepresentations of flimsy intel, in this case military commanders in Iraq have weapons they have seized from insurgents that are high level Iranian military arms.

Kinda like back in the early 60s when Kennedy pulled out the pics of Russian nukes being unloaded in the Caribbean...

Do you really hate America so much that you would deny prima facie evidence? That you would argue against truth that comes from the gut in order to make America a loser in Iraq?

Lets see this administration told us about WMD's, yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes, chemical and bio-weapon stockpiles, uunmanned aircraft that could distribute bio and chemical weapons over thousands of miles, mushroom clouds over American cities and on and on. How much of that turned out to be true? So now why would I believe the same source when they tell me the next country on their list is supplying them with weapons? It might very well be true. But I just can't believe this administration. You can buy into the hype all you want.
None of those were prima facie.

You might want to look it up.

US military has provided evidence of
1) arms made in Iran
2) arms known to be available only to the Iranian military
3) arms that are brand new

Taken together, we can conclude someone with access to arms only available to the Iranian military has been arming insurgents in Iraq.

None of the WMD evidence was offered as prima facie. It was speculative at best.

This is sorta like the difference between someone putting their hand in their coat pocket, faking they have a gun, and mugging you, vs someone putting a loaded gun in your face and mugging you. You should take the second case a lot more seriously.
 
Jul 11, 2004
139
0
0
Air America Radio's Thom Hartmann is a psychotherapist.
Why wouldn't he be successful satisfying a demographic so desperately in need of mental health services?
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
Not that I'm the kinda guy that will say "i told ya so", but if I were, now would be the time.................


Bush backflip on Iran bomb claim
Tom Baldwin, Washington
February 16, 2007

PRESIDENT George W. Bush said yesterday he was certain Iranian agents had supplied Shia militants in Iraq with weapons that had killed American troops, but retreated from earlier claims by the White House and US military commanders that Iran's highest officials had directed the attacks.
Mr Bush said it was well known that components of improvised bombs, responsible for killing at least 170 US soldiers, had been provided by al-Quds Force, an Iranian paramilitary organisation.
"What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did. Either they knew or didn't know. What matters is that (the weapons) are there," Mr Bush told a White House press conference.

His comments contradict a briefing on Sunday by senior US military officers in Baghdad who said that al-Quds had been operating on instructions "coming from the highest level of the Iranian Government".

White House press secretary Tony Snow had explicitly endorsed the claim on Monday before appearing to backtrack when General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, cast doubt on its veracity.

Mr Bush reacted sharply yesterday to questions implying that his administration was tampering with intelligence material to justify a military strike against Iran.

"The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs (improvised explosive devices) is preposterous," he said, emphasising that the claims were "not a pretext for war".

He said: "My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple."

In his press conference and in interviews earlier this week, Mr Bush adopted a markedly less belligerent tone towards Iran than that used by his administration in the past two months.

He said the biggest problem was "the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon", and emphasised: "We have no desire to harm the Iranian people."

Buoyed by this week's diplomatic breakthrough in talks designed to eliminate North Korea's nuclear program, Mr Bush said real progress was being made towards a diplomatic solution on Iran.

The meeting with reporters in the East Room was Mr Bush's first news conference since December 20 and the first since he announced the troop build-up in Iraq.

US intelligence officials have said they think that top leaders in Iran must have approved of the attacks on the American forces in Iraq, because the Quds Force has historically reported to the country's top religious leaders.

But aides to Mr Bush, mindful of the criticism about its use of intelligence before the Iraq war, said the White House wanted to be careful not to make that kind of accusation without hard proof.

The administration's claims about Iran have been met in some areas with intense scepticism, from Democrats in Congress to experts such as David Kay, who led the search for illicit weapons in Iraq. Some critics have said the administration, which has been trying to pressure Iran into abandoning its nuclear program, is laying the foundation for another war.

Democratic senator and presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton took to the Senate floor yesterday to call on Mr Bush to seek authorisation for any military action against Iran. "We cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat itself," she said.

The Times, AP
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
chalabi is the little birdy that gave us that info on iraq and wmd..iran been training the iraq shite"s for a long time and had them organized waiting for us to take saddam out..but we really just wanted to get some boots on the ground for force projection..iraq is prime real estate..that is where we need to be
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
He's wrong...

The Sunnis are also being propped up by international aid...

from the Saudis....

But Iran has a HUGE interest in maintaining chaos in Iraq...they want to keep the oil from pumping...they could care less about the Shia, really, after all the Persian Shia don't really break bread with the Arabic Shia anyway.

Because as soon as Iraq comes online, oil prices will drop dramatically, and Iran will take it where it hurts, in the wallet.

The same is true of the Sunni nations and their funding of the insurgents.

The Iraqi nationals who have never benefited from the oil profits need to kick arse and get the oil back online, then there will be plenty of $$ to keep law and order intact.

The US, in order to win, needs to close off international aid to insurgents from BOTH sides. This structural change, more than any troop surge, will lead to the US winning in Iraq.

What do you have against winning, anyway?
 

speedo

Miki Dora status
Jan 7, 2005
4,608
0
0
921OB
He's wrong...

The Sunnis are also being propped up by international aid...

from the Saudis....

But Iran has a HUGE interest in maintaining chaos in Iraq...they want to keep the oil from pumping...they could care less about the Shia, really, after all the Persian Shia don't really break bread with the Arabic Shia anyway.

Because as soon as Iraq comes online, oil prices will drop dramatically, and Iran will take it where it hurts, in the wallet.

The same is true of the Sunni nations and their funding of the insurgents.

The Iraqi nationals who have never benefited from the oil profits need to kick arse and get the oil back online, then there will be plenty of $$ to keep law and order intact.

The US, in order to win, needs to close off international aid to insurgents from BOTH sides. This structural change, more than any troop surge, will lead to the US winning in Iraq.

What do you have against winning, anyway?
yes, they want to keep the oil from pumping, guess who wants to get the oil pumping.