(Advertisement)

Anatomy of a scandal

Posted: May 14, 2013 at 3:37 a.m.

All modern American presidents favored with second terms get scandals or pseudo-scandals.

This story is only available from our archives.

Editorial, Pages 15 on 05/14/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

LETTERS

The road to happiness Have you ever experienced true happiness? I’m not talking about your everyday joy that comes from our daily lives. No, what I’m talking about is true ... Read »

Next Story »

Subject of concern

While the Farm Service Agency was guaranteeing the federal loan to C&H Hog Farms and concluding the farm posed no significant environmental impact to the Buffalo Nation... Read »

John, I would call you a bozo, but that would cause clowns everywhere to revolt.

You said: "George W. Bush's not being able to find a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq after he pointlessly took America to war for a mission he declared accomplished that wasn't"

Let me provide one quote from just one of your dear leaders:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Here is a link to quotes from other Democrats if you care to upset your stomach:
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/w...

By the way, your favorite administration has filed charges against the Boston terrorists. One of the charges is, are you ready for this...Use of a weapon of mass destruction.

What is a WMD? Apparently there never have been any pressure cookers or any other IED's in Iraq.

Liberalism is a mental disease, apparently incurable.

Posted by: patrioteer

May 14, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer,

They did find WMD, they found mustard in Saddams refrigerator and gas in his truck, that's mustard gas in my book a WMD.

GO HOGS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

May 14, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am sorry I forgot

GO DEMS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

May 14, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How many WMDs made it out via Syria through Sinjar? We may yet find out.

brasnomell,

There was plenty of chem in Iraq when we went in 03'. One of my buddies got a nice scrub down after going into a facility holding a bunch of it.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 9:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "There was plenty of chem in Iraq when we went in 03'.">>

Well, there is no person more invested in the claim that there were WMD in Iraq than GW Bush. Perhaps you should have sent him a note that you found some, you know, letting him know. Because that would have been very handy information for him to have. Maybe it's not too late (just kidding, if you actually had anything of substance, you'd be famous).

“And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet.” --G.W. Bush, Prime Time Press Conference #3, White House, Apr. 13, 2004 http://www.dubyaspeak.com/search.phtm...

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why." --Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 8, 2004

And again, smack with the reality stick:

"Saddam had no WMD for a decade"
Thursday, October 07, 2004
LA Times

"WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion last year, according to a comprehensive CIA report released yesterday.
Saddam intended to someday reconstitute his illicit programs and rebuild at least some of his weapons if United Nations sanctions were eased and he had the opportunity, the report concluded. But the Iraqi regime had no formal, written strategy to revive the banned programs after sanctions, and no staff or infrastructure in place to do so, the investigators found.

The 1,000-page report by Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group weapons-hunting teams, is the most definitive account of Iraq's long-defunct weapons programs and comes as the presidential campaign increasingly is focused on President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq primarily to disarm Saddam of suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html...

D.
----------
"President Mubarak and I, had a good discussion about...the fact that the sanctions exist... for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam's ambitions toward developing WMDs.
They have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMDs.
He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." -- Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 9:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Don't you have some abortionist murderer or communist ideology (your one baby per family thing) to stand up for somewhere?

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArtic...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

You want a lesson about the War in Iraq?

cdawg,

You calling the War in Iraq a premeditated war crime is beneath contempt.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 10:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "Don't you have [something bad] to stand up for somewhere?">>

I'll stand up for anyone when they're right, truthful and know what the hell they are talking about. You rarely do, so you get the Truth Stick of No Mercy.

Tnk: "You want a lesson about the War in Iraq?">>

I just gave you one, but am glad to continue it if you like.

Tnk: [link] "http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArtic..."

Perhaps you should stop your bad habit of reading just the headline which happens to agree with what you would like to believe. That's what I did, and I found, in your article:

"The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added."

Thud, that's a dud. Try again.

Tnk: [link two] "the alleged lab showed a bare concrete-walled room scattered with stacks of plastic containers, coiled tubing, hoses and a stand holding a large metal device that looked like a distillery. Black rubber boots lay among the gear."

That was a preliminary report about precursors, and it's clearly a post-invasion facility, which means, not connected to Saddam’s regime. Thud, that's a dud, try again.

I could look into it further and find out why it didn't amount to anything, but I long ago tired of doing your job for you only to then do the knocking down part too.

Again, if you've got anything of substance, you really owe it to Bush to send him a note. He would still love to find out about it. Maybe he could put it in his museum.

Tnk: "[Cdawg] calling the War in Iraq a premeditated war crime is beneath contempt.">>

If the question is, was it an illegal war, this article makes a strong case that the answer is yes:

"Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]"
http://informationclearinghouse.info/...

D.
-----------
"This isn't an issue about intentions or what the hopes were or what the plans were or what the programs were. What took us to war were statements about Saddam's WMDs and the threat of their imminent use." --Sen. Carl Levin (D - Michigan)

And there were no WMD's and certainly no threat of their imminent use. A war waged on rubbish. Hundreds of thousands dead, five million orphans, Iran gets a boost and we blow $3-5 trillion. That's an oops, Texas Bush style.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 10:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You don't know what you are talking about. There was plenty of Chem found in Iraq. You are shucking and jiving.... unless you don't consider chem WMD.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "There was plenty of Chem [WMD] found in Iraq.">>

Again, you better tell Bush. He's the one that really needs to get that info, and apparently nobody told him about your juicy news, which you know, seems rather a bit of an oversight.

“And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet.” --G.W. Bush, Prime Time Press Conference #3, White House, Apr. 13, 2004 http://www.dubyaspeak.com/search.phtm...

"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why." --Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 8, 2004

D.
-------------
"Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion last year, according to a comprehensive CIA report released yesterday.
The 1,000-page report by Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group weapons-hunting teams, is the most definitive account of Iraq's long-defunct weapons programs..."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html...

Silly Mr. Duelfer, he should have just talked to Tankersley and got the real scoop. What an oversight!

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 11:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internat...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/03/...

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/hundre...

^^^ I was pretty close to that one back in my more youthful days. Oh man, the Kufa Cola factory was awesome!

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Shuck, jive, BLAME BUSH. Take light off the current scandal in question. Yep, standard. Gotta go make sure my phones aren't tapped by a tax collector now.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 11:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I forgot FFT has been to Iraq 4 times and witnessed the invasion first hand and I have been the one putting up anti-God billboards in NWA and espousing Chinese Communism... wait... that might be backwards.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 14, 2013 at 11:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A link is not an argument. I quickly and easily unpacked and pulled the pants down on your other ones that you either didn't read or understand. If you have a case to make, let's see it. I'm not going to do your job for you, because then you won't learn.

Tnk: "light off the current scandal...">>

What scandal? I see wingnuts waving their arms around and making fools of themselves. Nothing of substance. If you have something of substance, let's see you get off your bottom and present it.

Tnk: "Gotta go make sure my phones aren't tapped by a tax collector now.">>

Oh, that one. Not focusing on the Teabaggers would be scandalous. If you think the Koch funded Teabagger groups weren't engaged in politicking (and you may actually believe that), I've got a bridge to sell you. Start here:

"THE REAL I.R.S. SCANDAL"

Excerpt:

"It’s important to review why the Tea Party groups were petitioning the I.R.S. anyway. They were seeking approval to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. This would require them to be “social welfare,” not political, operations. There are significant advantages to being a 501(c)(4). These groups don’t pay taxes; they don’t have to disclose their donors—unlike traditional political organizations, such as political-action committees. In return for the tax advantage and the secrecy, the 501(c)(4) organizations must refrain from traditional partisan political activity, like endorsing candidates.

If that definition sounds murky—that is, if it’s unclear what 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to do—that’s because it is murky. Particularly leading up to the 2012 elections, many conservative organizations, nominally 501(c)(4)s, were all but explicitly political in their work. For example, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded in part by the Koch Brothers, was an instrumental force in helping the Republicans hold the House of Representatives. In every meaningful sense, groups like Americans for Prosperity were operating as units of the Republican Party....

So the scandal—the real scandal—is that 501(c)(4) groups have been engaged in political activity in such a sustained and open way. As Fred Wertheimer, the President of Democracy 21, a government-ethics watchdog group, put it, “it is clear that a number of groups have improperly claimed tax-exempt status as section 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ organizations in order to hide the donors who financed their campaign activities in the 2010 and 2012 federal elections.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 11:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I took a peek at your Fox News link. It doesn't hold up either. Apparently you googled and found some old hopeful headlines (there were lots, just imagine the pressure on wingnuts to get the answer they wanted) and didn't read the articles. Again.

I have to ask. Are you really so profoundly dense that you believe that WMD were found and no one thought to tell Bush, and that the 1,000-page Duelfer investigation either didn't find out about them or perhaps forgot to mention them? That David Kay, the CIA's chief weapons inspector, just forgot to interview the right soldier?

This is shaping up to be a rather profound example of cognitive cluelessness. If so, I wonder how common your completely wrong and completely misinformed opinion is among those who like you who are so profoundly invested in believing blatant, ludicrous, falsehoods for purely emotional reasons. Finally something interesting. Staring into the face of pure, unadulterated, delusion. Reminds one of religion a little bit.

***
"The Art of Camouflage"
"David Kay's remarks over the weekend—that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the war and that U.S. intelligence agencies missed the signs that would have told them as much—held few surprises for anyone who'd closely read his official report on the matter last October.

Kay was the CIA's chief weapons inspector until he resigned last week. The difference between his report of last fall and his statements of recent days is that he was still on the Bush administration's payroll when he wrote the former and a free agent when he made the latter. It's the difference between obfuscation and clarity—political allegiance and public candor." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an...

D.
-----------
“The likely economic effects [of a war in Iraq] would be relatively small…. Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.” --Lawrence Lindsey, White House economic adviser, September 16, 2002

“The costs of any intervention would be very small.” --Glenn Hubbard, White House economic adviser, October 4, 2002

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 14, 2013 at 11:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is clear you don't think Chemical weapons are WMD.

On the current scandal thing with the IRS... I guess according to you the CinC and Sen. Reid have no reason to be as angry as they appear on TV then.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 15, 2013 at 12:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "you don't think Chemical weapons are WMD.">>

It doesn't matter what I think, this has been studied extensively and you've clearyl bought into some very silly and false information.

Your attempt to pretend stinky old stuff from the '80's, that papa Bush left there in the early '90's, is the reason baby Bush went to war, is cute but not remotely persuasive.

I have chemicals under my sink. David Kay said what we found in Iraq, being old out of date, would be similar to that. Note:

***
"David Kay:
[Kay] said experts on Iraq’s chemical weapons are in “almost 100 percent agreement” that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

“It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point,” Kay said.

And any of Iraq’s 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld says they are WMD; they are “harmful to human beings.” Of course, so are those things under the kitchen sink.

...Meanwhile, another tidbit emerges: this group of 500 shells was not found all in the same place:
Intelligence officials said the munitions were found in ones, twos and maybe slightly larger collections over the past couple of years.

So much for the mental image many have had of a pile of hundreds of gas-filled shells, piled up one on top of the other." http://patterico.com/2006/06/22/battl...

Tnk: "...according to you the CinC and Sen. Reid have no reason to be as angry...">>

Politicians posture as angry for lots of reasons. Maybe even good ones. If I want to see theater, I'll go to the show.

Tnk: "as they appear on TV then.">>

I don't have a TV. Apparently it can make people dumb. Again, if you don't think the Tea Party was into politicking, then I have a bridge to sell you, cash down, small bills and no checks please.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 15, 2013 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Example of the type of media information that has deceived you, with unpack provided here:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2006...

Excerpt:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter,..."

And, from an interview with Duelfer:

NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?

DUELFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq War. They are all almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.

CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said it was going into Iraq to find before the war?

DUELFER: No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.

[...]

DUELFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned into these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 15, 2013 at 12:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Shuck, jive, BLAME BUSH.

Are you a Jane Fonda fan as well?

THERE WERE WAS CHEM FOUND IN IRAQ.

You know what happens when someone gets too close to cyclosarin (You know the same stuff Saddam used on the Shia in the south and the Kurds in the north) ? Not just "a few shells".
If they are lucky they only have to get a scrub down with Tide like what I witnessed with my friends.

Sorry your self proclaimed combat experience via video games drained you brain along with the other crap you've indoctrinated yourself with.

RE-

"Politicians posture as angry for lots of reasons. Maybe even good ones. If I want to see theater, I'll go to the show."

I agree. I tend to think the CinC is being genuine. You don't for once? Of course. Different rules for your side of the spectrum.

Happy blogging.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.allrightmagazine.com/life-...

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 15, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, They'll keep us defending Bush and keep accusing him of everything, just to keep us distracted from the real issues OF THE PRESENT. They lose when it comes to the present. Maybe there is hope for America after all. Even the news media is now condemning Obama. I can feel the hysteria in freethinker's posts.

Posted by: mycentworth

May 15, 2013 at 10:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "BLAME BUSH.">>

Actually, there's only one sentence in this entire thread that can be construed as blaming Bush. I'm just trying to teach a wingnut that he didn't find WMD in Iraq.

Tnk: "THERE WERE WAS CHEM FOUND IN IRAQ.">>

And there are CHEM found underneath my sink. Stop making a fool of yourself.
I have GW Bush's hand picked WMD inspector, and the head of the 1,400 team assigned to find WMD, saying what was found was the old crap papa Bush left there in 1991. You don't know what you are talking about.

Tnk: "know what happens when someone gets too close to cyclosarin">>

Apparently they lose the ability to think clearly.

Tnk: "have to get a scrub down with Tide like what I witnessed">>

I'm glad your buddies got cleaned up with Tide. That doesn't mean WMD were found in Iraq. We didn't go to war over chemicals comparable to what's under my sink.

Tnk: "your self proclaimed combat experience via video games drained you brain...">>

This is an intellectual battlefield and so far you are ill equipped to compete at a competent level. Raise your game. Acknowledge your errors early rather than late.

D.
--------------
"After the invasion, despite an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group involving a more than 1,400 member team, no evidence of Iraqi weapons programs was found. On the contrary, the investigation concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of WMDs and ceased production in 1991 when sanctions were imposed.[39][40][41]"

1. "Official: U.S. calls off search for Iraqi WMDs". CNN.com, January 12, 2005.
2. "Comprehensive Revised Report with Addendums on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (Duelfer Report)". U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2006-09-09.
3. Negroponte, John D. (2006-06-21). "Iraqi Chemical Munitions" (pdf). U.S. Director of National Intelligence.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 15, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tanker,

What do you mean by saying Shuck and Jive ?

Posted by: continuetocancelme

May 15, 2013 at 12:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Of coarse Comrade Lenin, you equate Call of Duty to actual combat. Why wouldn't you equate cyclosarin (barrels and barrels) to a bottle of Draino.

There is no scandal going on..... BUSH, IRAQ, WMDs.

Pityful even for a moonbat.

Posted by: Tankersley101

May 15, 2013 at 12:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "a bottle of Draino.">>

That's some grade A, pristine, delusion right there.

To support your false belief, which you are clearly heavily invested in for obvious reasons, you are willing to pretend we went to war over Drano (which you can't spell). That is "pitiful" (which you also can't spell).

Those stinky old chem's were defunct leftovers from the '80's. We knew they were there. We left them there in the first Gulf War. We didn't go to war over outdated Drano. Think about it for a day or two, then come back and admit you learned something new. Then tell others.

Remember, Bush said: "I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons, and we've got an intelligence group together to figure out why."

He did that and the result came in. The reason they didn't find the WMD's is because they didn't exist.

D.
--------------
"President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 'bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead."
--Mary Kewatt, aunt of one of the 4,486 soldiers killed in Iraq

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 15, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Was there chem found in West, Texas?
It killed and injured more people than the Boston Marathon bombing.

Posted by: Coralie

May 15, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

" I can feel the hysteria in freethinker's posts."
What you're feeling is his frustration at some people's stubborn inability to listen to reason.
"Even the news media is now condemning Obama."
Oh, you mean the "liberal media" that is owned by a few mega-corporations?
"In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by eight corporations: News Corporation (the Fox family of channels), The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN and Disney brands), National Amusements (which includes CBS Corporation and Viacom), Comcast (which includes the NBC brands), Time Warner, Discovery Communications, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision, or some combination thereof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentr...
ThinK:
Is.it.in.the.interest.of.big.business.to.support.the.Obama.administration?
Why or why not?

Posted by: Coralie

May 15, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well boys, there's a vet living right here in NWA right now that was on a detail to secure a lot of chemical munitions and secretly spirit them out of the country. Now why would they do that when they based a large part of the rationale for the invasion on that very issue? Easy. They were US manufactured munitions we gave them and that was even more embarrassing.

Think about the months preceding the invasion when Saddam used them on Iran and even on his own people. There is plenty of objective evidence of that. So, if he didn't have any where did those go? Oh, that's right, he heard the cops knocking on the door and flushed them down a toilet somewhere.

You guys can fight over whether Bush or Obama is worse. Once can even compare Obama to Nixon. It really doesn't matter because they are pretty much all the same except in the little details. Face it....regardless of left or right, Repuklikin or Demoncrap, our government in Washington is corrupt. It is that simple.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 15, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jeffie,

Bushisum

" Misunderestimated "

GO HOGS

Posted by: continuetocancelme

May 15, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There is just something about actually being there and personally knowing other people that were, too. There is so much more going on you won't find in your local paper and on the internet that if most people had an inkling of it their heads would spin.

I recall the redacted "confidential-no-forn" message that described the outcomes of the DOD wide AIDS study done in 1987. They ordered that one destroyed and everybody that read it, and that wasn't many because they "recalled" it within 6 hours of sending it out, had to agree not to disclose it's contents. Some might say they recalled it because it was a "mistake". Well, it was. But not for reasons sonemight suspect.

I was the staff duty officer when it arrived in the middle of the night and had to read it to see if it was important enough to wake the boss. It wasn't and all I can say is it would "curl your hair" if you read it.

The only thing I can say about it is what wasn't in it. What wasn't revealed proved that homosexuals were not the main source or primary problem concerning the spread of AIDS. The truth was something you would never think of and it was extremely sensitive in it's social and political implications.

Because of that it was erased. Completely. I even "forgot" what it said! Even Freebie with the help of that Assange dude couldn't dig that one up on their precious internet!

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 15, 2013 at 8:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What is an "illegal war"? If there is a law against it, who made it? As I recall, all the members of congress approved the action of going against Iraq. It is extremely difficult for the Obama supporters and a--kissers to continue to defend the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States. The Man from Kenya said he would have the most transparent government in history. His Obamacare was written behind closed doors and Nancy Pelosi urged its passage without it being read. He seems to know nothing about any of the scandals arising up around him like dust off of Pig Pen in the Peanuts comic strip. For a person who is supposed to know what is going on the standard answer for Obama is "I have no knowledge of that." It is tough to defend a charlatan and a liar. Is it possible that those who defend him are just like him, or is it that they are too stupid to see the truth? Brummett's editorial is an extreme example of flailing and floundering to support his party regardless of the fact that his party is participating in banana republic tactics. George Washington would spin in his grave if he could see how rotten government has become.

Posted by: kinggeorge

May 17, 2013 at 2:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KG: "What is an "illegal war"?">>

Which word are you having trouble understanding, the word "war," or the word "illegal?"

KG: "If there is a law against it, who made it?">>

All laws regarding what is "legal" are human made, some national, some international. Enforcement is spotty and inconsistent. Maybe we'll fix that someday when we get our One World Government papa Bush spoke of.

KG: "all the members of congress approved the action of going against Iraq.">>

Nope. And not even all member of congress approved of giving Shrub the power to, if necessary, take the action (which is slightly different).

KG: "It is extremely difficult for the Obama supporters... to defend [him]">>

Not at all. It would be if you had anything of substance to throw. But you never do. I suspect there is a good reason for that.

KG: "[Obama] would have the most transparent government">>

Show that he hasn't.

KG: "Obamacare was written behind closed doors...">>

Still have your learning disorder I see. As you have been told before:

"Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical." http://tinyurl.com/7rybuzu

Gee, doesn't sound like behind closed doors to me.

KG: "Nancy Pelosi urged its passage without it being read.">>

Again this old chestnut. Distortion and half quote. What she said was: "But, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
KG is simply aping the deceptive quoting practices of those on the Fox boxes. Unpacked here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/04/...

KG: "the scandals arising up around him...">>

You mean the ones that just all went fizzle pop flop? See:

"The scandals are falling apart" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...

"In Two Hours Obama Destroys the GOP’s Benghazi and IRS Scandals" http://www.politicususa.com/hours-oba...

Time to move on to your next fake outrage story. These ones have passed their freshness date.

KG: "Obama... "I have no knowledge of that.">>

When did he say that? He maybe be brilliant, but only a wingnut would require that he be all knowing.

KG: "It is tough to defend a charlatan and a liar.">>

Well then it would be very tough to defend you indeed. Obama, not so much. Still waiting for you to provide an example of a lie that you can get off the ground and doesn't blow up in your face.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since the other three scandals just flopped, here's the new one the wingnuts just found.

Umbrella-Gate: http://freakoutnation.com/2013/05/17/...

Clearly worst than Watergate. Impeach!

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BUSHISUM

" I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully "

Sept. 29, 2000

Posted by: continuetocancelme

May 17, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here's the clip of your quote Brasnomell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Jcrk...

No one can say it better than Bush.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 5:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Still waiting for you to provide an example of a lie that you can get off the ground and doesn't blow up in your face."

So what would constitute a lie in your opinion?

Posted by: P5harri

May 17, 2013 at 7:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "So what would constitute a lie...">>

It's pretty straightforward but let's review some reasonable requirements to confirm an instance of a lie. Random House dictionary gives us:

lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

So, I see a three step process:

1) Provide reference showing the statement in question was:
a) actually made
b) is being quoted accurately and
c) is being interpreted charitably, reasonably

This may seem picky but it's essential. In a great number of these attempted examples, the person can't or won't do this.

2) Show the statement is false.

This means, with something beyond mere assertion.

3) Show the person knew the statement was false (or, short of this, show the most reasonable interpretation is that they knew it was false, or show would have been an idiot not to have known it was false).

Easy as 1, 2, 3.

Perhaps an example would be in order. Let me use Romney for one:

1) Statement: "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06...

2) False: Romney (who repeatedly said he supported the war) chose to partake in receiving four student deferments which specifically removed him "from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." --ibid

3) Either Romney is so profoundly dense or forgetful that he his unaware of the four deferments that kept him from the draft, or he is lying. I think lying in this instance is the most reasonable conclusion of the two options.

D.
---------
Ann Romney, comparing a Mormon proselytizing mission with military service:
"He [Mitt] was serving his mission, and my five sons have also served [Mormon] missions. None served in the military,..."
"So, you know, we find different ways of serving," she added. "And my husband and my five boys did serve missions, did not serve in the military."
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 17, 2013 at 9:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How about the false statements that were made during the debates. Statements that were verified as being false or fictional by the news. Non biased news such as ABC, Huffingtin Post, or UK news.

Posted by: P5harri

May 17, 2013 at 10:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For being so smart and promising the most transparent administration Barry sure is clueless about what his people are doing. How transparent is that?

It just isn't fair. Obama has been set up for sure. Living the illusion of omnipotence with an adoring liberal press in support he is the man who would be king.

Perceiving inaction as weakness in his opponents in the face of his granduer and imagined popularity was a grave mistake. While Obama basked in that false aura those very enemies were watching, collecting information, and setting him while feeding his majesty ever more rope to hang himself.

Now the court convenes and all his majesty has to say is "I wasn't aware of that" or "I learned of it the same as you in the news" or "That's outrageous" while his underlings are being grilled.

Normally he might have had the ability to accept their resignations and quietly retire them comfortably for their service to the "crown" and all would fade into oblivion. But hope of that is gone with Bohner's statement that some people "are going to jail.". Faced with that alternative Obama's minions will cave if only to hope for immunity, if they don't magically disappear or have accidents first. Perhaps some will fall and suffer Hillary "concussions"? Oh, well, what does it matter at this point anyway?

This is going to be so fun to watch!

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 18, 2013 at 12:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "How about the false statements...">>

A lie is more than a false statement because a lie involves intent. You need that step #3.

P5: "Statements that were verified as being false or fictional by the news.">>

Indeed. And Romney trafficked in false statements like no politician in modern history. It was a rather breathtaking performance.

D.
-------------
Romney's convention speech shredded, point by point. Thirty-five examples:
"FACTS MATTER: The Ultimate Guide To Mitt Romney’s Convention Speech"
http://thinkprogress.org/romney-facts...

Romney's 27 false statements, first debate:
http://www.nationofchange.org/last-ni...

Here's 31 more in his second debate: http://www.alternet.org/election-2012...

Give or take. Some mistakes are to be expected, and some facts and figures can be stated in different ways of course. But those are very high numbers. Here's the motherload, with several hundred examples of Mitt's mendacity during the campaign:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktiv...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 18, 2013 at 12:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freebie, what's the matter with your mind? Are you some kind of idiot?

If Joe goes out and murders someone and then Jim goes out and murders someone what's the difference? Because Joe murdered someone before Jim did doesn't matter. They both murdered someone and one doesn't exonerate the other.

You logic is akin to that of a weeping child that declares, "He hit me after I hit him back!". You make no sense at all.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 18, 2013 at 1:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Indeed. And Romney trafficked in false statements like no politician in modern history. It was a rather breathtaking performance."

It's not a matter of how many were made and by whom. Even though Romney made false statements, Obama made statements that simply were not true during the debates as well.

Posted by: P5harri

May 18, 2013 at 7:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

One doing "it" doesn't justify another doing "it" so comparing one to the other is dumb. What is important is they both do "it" so both are wrong. The degree of wrong isn't relevant, nor is a comparison of which is "better" or "worse". Wrong is wrong and it doesn't matter who it is.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 18, 2013 at 11:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "It's not a matter of how many were made and by whom.">>

That's ridiculous. The number of false statements actually matters, as does who makes them.

P5: "Obama made statements that simply were not true">>

Of course. Everyone has done that (even Jesus for pity sake). Have you learned the difference between a false statement and lie? It's not that difficult. A lie is a false statement made knowingly, with intent. See steps 1, 2 and 3. You asked what "what would constitute a lie" and I've told you. I've also given you a referenced compilation of approximately 500 false statements Romney made during the campaign (about 30 per week). And I've given you an example of him intentionally lying, Let's see what you've got. We'll see how it compares.

Ankle-biter Jeff has burped something up:

Jef: "The degree of wrong isn't relevant,">>

Typical conservative extremist inability to see degrees, and nuance. It's some kind of defect.
Just as there is a difference between saying something incorrect and intentionally lying, there is a difference between making 500 false statements, and making 10. This is true even if you can't see it due to political emotional reasons.

Jef: "Wrong is wrong and it doesn't matter who it is.">>

See the fallacy of false equivalence. Apparently it's your favorite hobby horse lately. You've been riding it around for days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_eq...

Boring.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 18, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"And I've given you an example of him intentionally lying, Let's see what you've got. We'll see how it compares."

No, you made a judgement on his intention.
Per the definition of lying , unless you know for a fact his intent was to deceive its merely a false statement.

Posted by: P5harri

May 18, 2013 at 2:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "you made a judgement on his intention.">>

Yes, all consideration of human actions will necessarily judgment. I think it's reasonable to think that as Romney was addressing the issue of military service, he was quite aware of the fact that he received four deferments which saved him from the draft. I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption. If you would like to make the case that it is unreasonable, let's hear it.

P5: "unless you know for a fact his intent was to deceive its merely a false statement.">>

As I said, it is possible that Romney is such a blithering idiot that he didn't know he got out of the draft on four occasions but I don't think that is as nearly as likely as that he was simply lying. If you would prefer to believe that the very best and brightest candidate the republican party could come up with is a blithering idiot, that's certainly okay with me.

If you would like more specific referenced examples of him lying, these can be provided. Have you learned what a lie is yet?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 18, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: I'm understand what a lie is, I also understand you unless you know the intent of someone or are quite sure that they are clear on what they are saying was not true, as in happen so long ago they are really not sure of the specifics, you can not justify calling someone a liar.
If that were true, then you would have to hold President Obama to the same standard.

Posted by: P5harri

May 18, 2013 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "I'm understand what a lie is,">>

Excellent. Progress.

P5: "happen so long ago they are really not sure of the specifics,">>

So you are going to go with the line that while directly addressing the topic of military service Romney is too stupid to even know he got out of the draft on four occasions? I don't think that is very likely, but you are welcome to that belief if it gives you comfort.

P5: "you would have to hold President Obama to the same standard.">>

And that's exactly what I do. If you have Obama pretending to forget that he got out of the draft four times, or anything similar, I'd call him a liar too. I don't think any top tier presidential candidate could be that stupid or forgetful but perhaps you do. I doubt it.

D.
-----------
"The stock market is hitting all-time highs, which makes Obama one of the worst socialists in history." --Borowitz

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 18, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

See my post under "Government Run Amock". You are certainly sorely afflicted. That is a shame.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 18, 2013 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"inability to see degrees, and nuance. It's some kind of defect."
Is this a THOUGHT DISORDER?"
Psychiatry A disturbance of speech, communication, or content of thought–eg, delusions, ideas of reference, poverty of thought, flight of ideas, perseveration, loosening of associations, etc."
Poverty of thought?

Posted by: Coralie

May 22, 2013 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )