AAAintehdeltway --- FACTOID

N

Nolan-Vinny-Sam

AAAinthebeltway wrote,
**************************************************
It's not a matter of what other countries think, it's a question of basically telling terrorists that if you can kill enough of our troops, we will force the President to pull out.

Bush never said we were under direct threat of attack. He said, based on Saddam's actions, that it could happen with little or no warning that we would face an imminent threat. I am getting sick of responding to this factoid.

I do not recall the Republicans publicly criticising Clinton's conduct in a military zone, at least not while troops were under fire. They were supportive of the ill-considered Kosovo mission, where our troops remain to this day.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?postid=369276&highlight=factoid#post369276
**************************************************

Brother AAA, we are getting sick of responding to your continual defending of this bs.:eek: Yer a smart guy but denial is not a river in Egypt.

_Please READ THIS AGAIN from the last chat on the exact same subject_

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE READ AGAIN CAREFULLY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The article said that, Bush did not. Show me where HIS WORDS said that. In fact, he said the opposite. He said we can't allow this threat to ARISE, which clearly means it is not imminent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



right right, how dare they put false words in your hero's mouth.. right? Lying sobs..

An actual tape recording would do it, surely you will ask for authentication. Not good enough though. So how about a video tape? Hmmmmm not good either.. it can be digitally doctored just to fool AAAinthebeltway.

Hmmm what can we do next? AAA in the same room as dumya?not good... I bet ya you'll come out saying that there was something wrong with your ears

Sooooo, how about the actual Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Action Against Iraq????????


Provided by the whitehouse signed by your hero... counterfeit signature you will say I'm sure

Vote for Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Action Against Iraq
Sees ‘Imminent Threat’; Says Resolution Strikes ‘Appropriate Balance’


[one of the many excerpts:]

.... The President has maintained that this resolution is necessary at this time based on his assessment of the imminent threat to the United States posed by Iraq.text If the President believes based on the intelligence that he has received that an imminent threat exists, then it is my belief that we must support him.

....As the President pursues diplomatic negotiations to end this imminent threat, it is

....He [GW] now seeks Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq based on his assessment of the imminent threat presented by the untrustworthiness

http://www.house.gov/kanjorski/02_1...War_Release.htm



Surely enough I'm expecting you to come back with another bull answer like Bush never said or thought or tried to convince congress that the threat was imminent! blah blah blah....

BTW the resolution passed, key was the dumya lobbying congress with the "imminent threat" argument. The only way to get around UN approval and act unilaterally.. but we knew that already

Give it a rest bro, take your pills, face reality.. we all do.. the sooner the better Whatever...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=338386&highlight=imminent+threat#post338386
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THAT LITTLE FACTOID is what puppet George needed to get rubberstamp for the war.
 
BTW, to be fair on both sides.
We tried to crucify bubba, remove him from office. Surely you haven't forgotten the what 50-100 mill spent on special investigation, blowjob hearings - the infamous definition of the word "IS"???????????? (sad for our republican party stooping that low, fighting such issue, other matters more pressing, but techinacly we were right and this is part of our freedoms to do so)

Compare that harm to our country and the world with what dumya is doing.!!!!!!!!!:eek:

dumya is well protected, media well controlled, public conditioned in fear and stupidity:eek:

Please don't tell me that libs have the upper hand anywhere in this bullshit. They are more spineless that a washed out jellyfish :( :(

The day I see court hearings, dummya&cronies on the chair, I could agree on a balanced and fair treatment on accountability for matters of national interest /security.

:p enough already :p

My 7 step solution STANDS

LATER & ONWARD
 
The President's State of the Union made it very clear that he was not claiming there was an imminent threat. He said such a threat could arise without warning, kind of like it did with the North Koreans after they fooled the naive Clinton administration. His press secretary's offhand comments have to be interpeted in light of those comments, not as somehow superseding the President's words. Apparently all this goes totally over the head of people who think Clinton was impeached over a bj and the meaning of "is."
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The President's State of the Union made it very clear that he was not claiming there was an imminent threat. He said such a threat could arise without warning, kind of like it did with the North Koreans after they fooled the naive Clinton administration. His press secretary's offhand comments have to be interpeted in light of those comments, not as somehow superseding the President's words. Apparently all this goes totally over the head of people who think Clinton was impeached over a bj and the meaning of "is."
More...

Clinton has no immunity from prosecution, and we know GW wouldn't pardon him if he did.

So, if he was impeachable, why is he not indictable now?

The entire impeachment process was political in nature, not legally sound, or morally righteous, nor ethically engineered.

Please tell me what purpose that entire impeachment served beyond possible political gain?

No one can really look back at that period and feel particularly proud to have been on either side.

It would have been so easy for Clinton simply to admit his peccadillo to begin with, and same for Bush to simply admit to the people what was really up with his need to overthrow Saddam.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The President's State of the Union made it very clear that he was not claiming there was an imminent threat. He said such a threat could arise without warning, kind of like it did with the North Koreans after they fooled the naive Clinton administration. His press secretary's offhand comments have to be interpeted in light of those comments, not as somehow superseding the President's words. Apparently all this goes totally over the head of people who think Clinton was impeached over a bj and the meaning of "is."
More...

AAAdude, yer scaring me:eek: Yer start sounding like Maverick74&Co.:eek:

Just because "YOU claim THAT YOU haven't heard dummya" saying imminent threat...it confirms he didn't???:confused:
Resolution signed by dumya on imminent threat basis, war commenced, you are still in denial???? sheeeeeesh
I talk about your "imminent threat FACTOID", you talk Clinton and North Korea?? STOP!!!!! Whatever Mavman gave you is no good:p
Apply for Ari's job!! dumya you'd love to have you:D

Man! out of all the chickhawks, warmongering, extreme neocons, you were having good ideas. What happened? Threw logic out the window? I'm with you FOR flattening any and ALL f*cking countries out there that pose A REAL THREAT!!! But Iraq? Not a single 9-11 connection, their threat a balsa wood model plane? Sheeeesh.

Take yer pill man, we all do. The republican party has great ideas, BUT this extreme neocon cabal&IMC cronies have damaged both our country AND our party for a long time to come.:(
 
Cheney’s Long Path to War

The Hard Sell: He sifted intel. He brooded about threats. And he wanted Saddam gone. The inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq

By Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas
NEWSWEEK

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:



Clinton has no immunity from prosecution, and we know GW wouldn't pardon him if he did.

So, if he was impeachable, why is he not indictable now?

The entire impeachment process was political in nature, not legally sound, or morally righteous, nor ethically engineered.

Please tell me what purpose that entire impeachment served beyond possible political gain?

No one can really look back at that period and feel particularly proud to have been on either side.

It would have been so easy for Clinton simply to admit his peccadillo to begin with, and same for Bush to simply admit to the people what was really up with his need to overthrow Saddam.
More...

This is actually pretty interesting. I suppose he could be indicted now for obstruction of justice. I suppose the feeling is that it is not a good idea for the next administration to be prosecuting the previous one, unless it is some major criminal wrongdoing. Most of the really sleazy stuff Clinton did, like issuing pardons as he went out the door and that whole Chinese campaign money plus who knows what else scandal, would be hard to prosecute.

Also, Bush came into office determined to establish what has been called the "New Tone", meaning he would try to work together with Democrats. I have to think that has been a big flop, based on the unprecedented filibusters of court nominees. Still, he got Democrat votes for Iraq, plus if he is reelected, I suppose they will say it was a success. All the political consultants say that one thing that is always said in focus groups is the voters want all the partisan bickering to stop.

Yes, impeachment is partisan or political, but that is the way it is designed. It is part of separation of powers, which is a nice way of saying the various branches of governemtn are often at war with one another over power. Personally, I think Ken Starr and the Republicans in the Senate made a big mistake by focusing on the sex aspects, even as it did provide the foundation for the obstruction of justice claim. Apparently there was a lot of other stuff ranging from Whitewater through campaign finance that was glossed over.

I think the Republicans expected leading Democrats like Lieberman and perhaps Gore to go to Clinton pre-impeachment and say, 'Look, it's over,youhave to step down for the good of the party." Republicans did that to Nixon and basically cut him loose, leaving him no choice but to resign. Instead, they fought tooth and nail and of course, the Senate Republicans have no stomach for any kind of struggle so they quickly folded. I believe the Republicans should have staged a detailed trial and put every single bit of evidence into the public record, then held a vote. If they lost, they lost but at least it would have foreclosed claims now that it was all about a BJ.

Anyway, it's all history now. Until Hillary runs.
 
Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:



AAAdude, yer scaring me:eek: Yer start sounding like Maverick74&Co.:eek:

Just because "YOU claim THAT YOU haven't heard dummya" saying imminent threat...it confirms he didn't???:confused:
Resolution signed by dumya on imminent threat basis, war commenced, you are still in denial???? sheeeeeesh
I talk about your "imminent threat FACTOID", you talk Clinton and North Korea?? STOP!!!!! Whatever Mavman gave you is no good:p
Apply for Ari's job!! dumya you'd love to have you:D

Man! out of all the chickhawks, warmongering, extreme neocons, you were having good ideas. What happened? Threw logic out the window? I'm with you FOR flattening any and ALL f*cking countries out there that pose A REAL THREAT!!! But Iraq? Not a single 9-11 connection, their threat a balsa wood model plane? Sheeeesh.

Take yer pill man, we all do. The republican party has great ideas, BUT this extreme neocon cabal&IMC cronies have damaged both our country AND our party for a long time to come.:(
More...

Can we just agree that Bush never said that Iraq was an "imminent threat" but that administration officials said or implied things that did support that idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top