wiffleball 4,799 Posted January 5, 2014 Seems to be one one one of the themes that have been completely ignored here. Cheney's "It's been pretty well confirmed" that AQ and Sadam have met was totally rebuffed. OBL and Saddam hated each other. But so many of you morons equated one with the other. - Because that's what Cheney wanted. As was the yellow cake, as was the aluminum tubes. Hell, Cheney's crew outed a CIA operative. Last time I checked, that was treason. Even idiot Bush couldn't tolerate that. Hence, Scooter, hence, the massive rift between Bush and Cheney. Yet know one talks about that. Remember the RP crew who was all about "you can't criticize the president in a time of war!" crew? What have they been doing the last few years? It sucks. Because the guys who lost their limbs, lives, sanity, etc. deserve to be honored. Even though the wars they fought in were complete and utter bullshiit. Where'd we find OBL again? At what point is AQ stronger than ever? At what place is the Taliban resurging? Go ahead. Justify to me why Cheney and Rumsfeld were right - even when their own President won't even speak to these diicks these days. - And their fights have proven worthless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,063 Posted January 5, 2014 There's just not much more to say about it. It was a totally focking stupid decision that was based completely on lies. It really is a damn shame so many lost life and limb there, basically for nothing. I think we can honor their sacrifice even though the war was a sham. And I definitely feel that we have an obligation to provide counseling, healthcare, and other services to the veterans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 5, 2014 Remember the RP crew who was all about "you can't criticize the president in a time of war!" crew? I have never said you can't criticize a President in a time of war, Chuckles. One quote that does come to mind..... "At this point, what difference does it make" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 5, 2014 Hell, Cheney's crew outed a CIA operative. Last time I checked, that was treason. Richard Armitage was part of "Cheney's crew"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,799 Posted January 5, 2014 Richard Armitage was part of "Cheney's crew"? Scooter Libby dumbass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 5, 2014 Scooter Libby dumbass. Dumbass Lemming. Let me know when the Rove indictment is coming Torridball. On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 5, 2014 desperate times I guess Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 5, 2014 desperate times I guess I think Torridball spent too many hours at the VFW slamming 40s of Pabst Blue Ribbon this afternoon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,799 Posted January 5, 2014 Between 2003 and 2005 intense speculation centered on the possibility that Libby may have been the administration official who had "leaked" classified employment information about Valerie E. Wilson (Valerie Plame), the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson and a covert CIA agent, to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and other reporters and later tried to hide his having done so.[71][72] In August 2005, as revealed in grand jury testimony audiotapes played during the trial and reported in many news accounts, Libby testified that he met with Judith Miller, a reporter with theNew York Times, on July 8, 2003, and discussed Plame with her.[73] Main article: Plame affair#Judith Miller Although Libby signed a "blanket waiver" allowing journalists to discuss their conversations with him pursuant to the CIA leak grand jury investigation, Miller maintained that such a waiver did not serve to allow her to reveal her source to that grand jury; moreover, Miller argued that Libby's general waiver pertaining to all journalists could have been coerced and that she would only testify before that grand jury if given an individual waiver.[74] After refusing to testify about her July 2003 meeting with Libby, Judith Miller was jailed on July 7, 2005 for contempt of court. Months later, however, her new attorney, Robert Bennett, told her that she already had possessed a written, voluntary waiver from Libby all along.[75] After Miller had served most of her sentence, Libby reiterated that he had indeed given her a "waiver" both "voluntarily and personally." He attached the following letter, which, when released publicly, became the subject of further speculation about Libby's possible motives in sending it: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 5, 2014 1. Libby never said he revealed her being a CIA operative. 2. Armitage had already leaked her name to Bob Woodward in June of 2003, before the meating between Libby and Miller. 3. She was no longer undercover, was out as an employee of the CIA before any of this red herring. 4. Libby's contempt of court charge had nothing to do with him being the supposed leaker. Dumbass Lemming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 5, 2014 Always funny when the boards biggest lemming calls someone else a.lemming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 6, 2014 Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts. This comes despite Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magarief, members of Congress, an administration spokesperson, and several press reports suggesting that al Qaeda played a role in the attack. Recently, on Nov. 1 2012 in Green Bay, Wis., Obama said, “Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.” - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-touts-al-qaeda-s-demise-32-times-benghazi-attack-0#sthash.33IRnJH4.dpuf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 366 Posted January 6, 2014 Bush lied and got us into the mess then stupidly disbanded the Iraqi army. Obama lied about pulling us out of this mess when elected then lost the war with his bungling. What a bunch of retards. The rebels just recaptured the key city of Fallujah from the Iraqi army the other day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted January 6, 2014 If Bush gets re-elected, I'll be shocked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 6, 2014 If Bush gets re-elected, I'll be shocked. Vote Libertarian! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2014 If Bush gets re-elected, I'll be shocked. If Obama does, I'll be shocked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 6, 2014 If Obama does, I'll be shocked. Vote Libertarian! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted January 6, 2014 Vote Libertarian! Or vote for Pee Wee Herman. Same chance of winning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 6, 2014 Or vote for Pee Wee Herman. Same chance of winning. or the eagles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2014 Vote Libertarian! (while constantly supporting anything the republican party does and being the least libertarian person on this board) I do vote that way...but fixed your post for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted January 6, 2014 or the eagles so funny I forgot to laugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 6, 2014 Or vote for Pee Wee Herman. Same chance of winning. If everyone was like you we would still be living in caves. Where do you think the Rs and Ds come from? Oh that's right you think the Republican Party was founded in 1776. You are a massive Meat Head! http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=430556 In this years local elections the British version of midterms -- UKIP took a stunning 23 percent of the vote, up from the 3.1 percent they won in the 2010 national election. Their leader, Nigel Farage, is buoyed by their recent success. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2014 Or vote for Pee Wee Herman. Same chance of winning. Not to defend the old guy...but Ive seen this from you a lot. About "throwing a vote away". Do you only vote for the guy expected to win or not at all? Just seriously wondering. Basically, any vote not for the guy who wins is wasted with your line of logic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 6, 2014 so funny I forgot to laugh. hey, you owe me a sig ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted January 6, 2014 If Obama does, I'll be shocked. Who is Obama? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to defend the old guy...but Ive seen this from you a lot. About "throwing a vote away". Do you only vote for the guy expected to win or not at all? Just seriously wondering. Basically, any vote not for the guy who wins is wasted with your line of logic. That is one of the reasons he is a Meat Head! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to defend the old guy...but Ive seen this from you a lot. About "throwing a vote away". Do you only vote for the guy expected to win or not at all? Just seriously wondering. Basically, any vote not for the guy who wins is wasted with your line of logic. No. I don't just vote for the favorite. I vote for whichever of the two candidates I think will be the better President. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted January 6, 2014 hey, you owe me a sig ? Lay it on me big boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted January 6, 2014 Not to defend the old guy...but Ive seen this from you a lot. About "throwing a vote away". Do you only vote for the guy expected to win or not at all? Just seriously wondering. Basically, any vote not for the guy who wins is wasted with your line of logic. I get the whole "let's change away from the two party/two candidate" routine. But the Presidential election comes once every four years. Taking a stand and voting for someone who, at best, may end up with 2% of the vote, is a wasted vote in my opinion. I'd much rather make a difference in the election. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,113 Posted January 6, 2014 Actualy, the Iraq war was not a failure. The war it's self was a huge success. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,629 Posted January 6, 2014 If we want the war in Iraq to not be a complete failure there would need to be a large surge of US, NATO, and Chinese troops. This will not happen though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,063 Posted January 6, 2014 Actualy, the Iraq war was not a failure. The war it's self was a huge success. Uhh, how so? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,629 Posted January 6, 2014 Uhh, how so? Duhh, because Iraq does not have a single WMD today. We went to war to destroy their wmd's and we must of succeded because they did not have any after the war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,113 Posted January 6, 2014 Uhh, how so? Militarily speaking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 6, 2014 Uhh, how so? check out the documentary "the surge" on Netflix if you haven't and you get some time.We made a lot of progress, unfortunately al Qaeda is flying their flags over some of those cities again. But its a good watch, all of you should check it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 6, 2014 If we want the war in Iraq to not be a complete failure there would need to be a large surge of US, NATO, and Chinese troops. This will not happen though. Bush and Iraq agreed to a timeline for our combat troops to be out of Iraq. Obama followed it. The only thing Obama needed to negotiate was the size of out footprint in Iraq required to avoid it turning into chaos. He fukked that up. This is the result. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTSkiBum 1,629 Posted January 6, 2014 check out the documentary "the surge" on Netflix if you haven't and you get some time. We made a lot of progress, unfortunately al Qaeda is flying their flags over some of those cities again. But its a good watch, all of you should check it out. The surge was a great success, however someone(and I am not going to name any names) decided to move all of our troops to Afghanistan, and the surge in Afghanistan was a total failure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2014 No. I don't just vote for the favorite. I vote for whichever of the two candidates I think will be the better President. Why only 2? What if I feel an independant will make the better president than the 2 main guys? This past election...only Obama really had a shot...so why vote for one of "2" guys when the other does not have a shot when I can vote for who I felt would make the better president? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted January 6, 2014 I get the whole "let's change away from the two party/two candidate" routine. But the Presidential election comes once every four years. Taking a stand and voting for someone who, at best, may end up with 2% of the vote, is a wasted vote in my opinion. I'd much rather make a difference in the election. A vote for Romney was wasted too...he had no shot. I felt much better voting for Gary Johnson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,174 Posted January 6, 2014 Couple thing. 1. With hindsight being 20/20 the Iraq war was not needed. 2. Faulty / incorrect intelligence <> Lying 3. Even though I said number one above, let's not pretend the war had no positives. Sadaam was a bad dude, and now we know (better intelligence) the WMD capability of that country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
