Date: Wed Apr 9 08:04:43 2008
Sender: Just Oz
Interesting to see that the Drudge headline today says that Democrats want Iraq
to pay up in oil for the cost of the war.
So the Dems essentially are trying to make their predictions (Bush is in it for
the oli) come true.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUB9AO3.html
Date: Wed Apr 9 08:24:46 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Is this Republican amnesia again?
The Bush Administration that said Oil would pay for the War and it wouldn't be
that big of a burden on America.
I won't look up the exact quotes,(unless I have too) but I remember when the
US had spent around 30 bill, Wolfowitz saying we wouldn't spend much more
because Iraq oil would pay for the rest.
Of course that was 580 billion dollars a ago.
Date: Wed Apr 9 08:32:07 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
for the record:
was March of 2003, Wolfowitz went before Congress and the American people and
said Iraq oil revenue ALONE would pay for Iraq reconstruction - there would be
no burden on the American Taxpayer.
"The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over
the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on
that money, but … We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction and relatively soon."
I don't suppose the Drudge Report, cared to remember that ?
--------------------
of course Wolfowitz also was famous for
" There has been a good deal of comment—some of it quite outlandish—about what
our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions
we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several
hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are
wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to
provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war
itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his
army—hard to imagine"
Date: Thu Apr 10 02:11:14 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Yes, AJ. You're absolutely correct. Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for the war
as outlined in Bush's plan (the evil-warmongering Bush). However, the Dems (all
the bigwigs) voted to support the war. So, I guess the fact remains (and AJ
provides the needed proof) the Democrats voted to start and fully supported
this 'war for oil' in 2003.
I notice the Clintons made $109 million over a 7 year period. I wonder how
much from oil speculation. I wonder how much the Kennedy's and Kerry's made
from their oil stocks. I guess it couldn't be too much, only evil republicans
make money from the oil business.
Date: Thu Apr 10 08:36:16 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Again.... Again.... Again....
Everyone supported the War, including me. Condi Rice came on the news and told
us their were nuclear warheads pointing at our cities. Dick Cheney said we
would have mushroom clouds.
Then we were told the intelligence reports never said that, and they were a
bunch of liars.
If you can't see the difference there.
Date: Thu Apr 10 13:03:43 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
I am, as always, cool with kicking everyone out of office who voted for or
supported the war. Every last one. It's called responsibility. In the business
world, you mess up that bad, you lose your job.
Date: Thu Apr 10 13:44:11 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Unless your a CEO.
Then you get a 300 million dollar compensation package to step down.
Date: Thu Apr 10 13:47:41 2008
Sender: Jeff Luddingsmash
That's awesome. Where do I apply to become a CEO?
Date: Thu Apr 10 14:52:40 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I think you have to be someone's nephew?
Date: Fri Apr 11 06:49:29 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" Everyone supported the War, including me. "
Then you are a supporter for the "war for oil". Did you change you mind,
like the dems, and say they were against the war after it started, too? And,
like the dems, are you in favor of the profiting from the oil in Iraq, now?
Some would call that hypocritical.
Date: Fri Apr 11 09:52:13 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
This is a stupid conversation...
I supported defending my country when I was told by a bunch of lying scumbags
that nuclear missles were about to be launched on my city.
I CHANGED MY MIND when it turned out they made all that crap up just to trick
the country into going to war.
I don't see how you can't understand it. Other than the fact your in the 1% of
the population that still thinks Saddam Hussein has some super high-tech
underground nuclear missle factory on the moon or something.
Date: Fri Apr 11 09:54:08 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Profiting?
How the hell am I profiting? Do I have a check in the mail? I know my taxes
are paying for it. If this is profitting it's a pretty bad business.
It was your damn Pro War neo-cons who said Iraq could pay for their own
reconstruction. (as part of your pro-war lies)
They said it- So lets see it-
Date: Fri Apr 11 10:03:38 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William- I don't mean "your", when I say lies. I mean coming down from public
office, not you personally.
Date: Sat Apr 12 06:57:16 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" I supported defending my country when I was told by a bunch of lying scumbags
that nuclear missles were about to be launched on my city. I CHANGED MY MIND
when it turned out they made all that crap up just to trick the country into
going to war. "
And those lies came from democrats, too. But you only blame the republicans.
You never lay ANY of the blame on the scumbag democrats that lied to the
American public. Again; some would call that hypocritical.
" Do I have a check in the mail? I know my taxes are paying for it. "
Yes, it should arrive in a month or two. Haven't you been paying attention
to the news? You're getting a tax rebate.
Date: Sat Apr 12 09:00:32 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Because it's been proven members of the Bush Adminsitration willingfully
manipulated intelligence information to serve their purpose.
Members of the Congress and House just recieved that distorted information and
acted as expected.
Date: Sat Apr 12 14:40:44 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" Because it's been proven members of the Bush Adminsitration willingfully
manipulated intelligence information to serve their purpose. "
What intel info was manipulated that the dems didn't have (and use) 2 years
BEFORE Bush came into office?
Date: Sun Apr 13 22:32:47 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
What is most important here is that McCain wants to keep us at war for 100
years. Obama can prove it, look at YouTube.
Obama 08. Honesty.
Date: Mon Apr 14 08:39:06 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William-
lets see there is this:
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East
until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking"
intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html
and
this:
The Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas Gimble, told the senate armed
services committee that the office headed by Douglas Feith, formerly the number
three man at the defence department, took "inappropriate" actions in pushing
the al-Qaida connection not backed up by America's intelligence agencies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/09/usa.iraq
and this:
A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a
Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam
Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/ap/politics/mainD8N67L6O1.shtml
and this:
A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found
that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information
prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it
to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles7/Leopold_OSP-Manipulation.htm
and this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/17/rendon-group/
At the center of this operation was John Rendon and The Rendon Group, “a
controversial, secretive firm that has been criticized as ineffective and too
expensive,” paid more than $56 million by the government since the 9/11
attacks. (Google the Rendon Group.)
etc,etc,etc,etc..
Now- do you think everyone Senator and Congressman is on the front lines of
intelligence gathering? Some of them don't see much more than we do.
Intelligence goes through the DOD, the Pentagon, the White House where all of
the Bushites get to filter it long before Joe Schmoe senator ever sees it.
Date: Tue Apr 15 05:44:53 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" cherry-picking intelligence, pushing the al-Qaida connection, depicts a
Pentagon, manipulated reams of intelligence information "
Those are great quotes. But WHAT INFO was manipulated? All you have is a
couple quotes that describe the exact liberal mentality related to the
information gathered by democrats prior to '98. You have done nothing but show
what a good parrot you are - repeating whatever you're told to repeat.
My favorite has to be this one (could there be a more opinionated statement
on info gathering? Sounds a lot like the 'sniper fire' speach Hilary gave): "
manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the
so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who
used it to win support for a war in Iraq. "
My turn ;)
" The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the
well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi
government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a
government that respects the rights of its people."
President Clinton, Oval Office Address to the American People, December 16,
1998.
" People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan
or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I
left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical
weapons."
Former President Clinton, During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live",
July 22, 2003
" Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states: It should
be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime
headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime. "
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, 105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998
Gee, sounds like the democrat wanted to attack Iraq as much as you claim
the republican did. I wonder what intel Clinton "manipulated" to get his fellow
democrats to support his anti-Iraq policy so strongly? Maybe you can help me
out and find more quotes.
Date: Tue Apr 15 07:51:36 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
If they wanted to attack they would have- they weren't that dumb.
they were following the words of Dick Cheney in 1995 who essentially said it
would be stupid to attack Iraq because we wouldn't be able to handle the post
war reconstruction.
----------------------------
I gave you a CIA report, some news reports, one from the 9/11 committee.
Of course I quote them, and give you the source. If I don't you accuse me of
making it up. When I don't you call me a parrot.
You want so hard to believe in WMD's and the whole post 9/11 lie that you just
refuse to look at information before you, or you try and deflect it to Clinton
somehow.
I can't believe you've convinced yourself everyone is lying but Bush.
Date: Tue Apr 15 18:28:35 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" I can't believe you've convinced yourself everyone is lying but Bush "
I think it's more like I think everyone is lying AND Bush. Not ONLY Bush/co
is lying, as you lead us all to believe. Is Bush lying when he said WMD's were
present in Iraq? Is Clinton lying when HE said WMD's were present in Iraq? I
say; perhaps. How are we ever going to find out what the truth actually is? We
need to believe someone, but both Bush AND Clinton say WMD's were present. You
and your sources say they were not. Which is it?
Date: Tue Apr 15 19:14:58 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
It's very frustrating to find out that the people who said we shouldn't be
going to war were probably right, but the people who were wrong the first time
but got listened to are saying now we can't leave, and they might be right.
There was a very good episode of "This American Life" the other day titled "The
Center for Lessons Learned." They bring on an expert who was asked to write up
a report before the war about how the occupation should be run. He wrote a
detailed report explaining exactly how things could go wrong (not securing key
cultural institutions, disbanding the army and sending home a bunch of men with
guns, overestimating popular support, etc.) that almost all came true after the
army ignored his report.
Then the host of the show makes a very interesting point: there seems to be a
sort of drumbeat for withdrawal that very much like the buildup toward war.
It's sort of taken on an inevitability with a serious national discussion of
what the consequences might be.
Date: Tue Apr 15 19:38:09 2008
Sender: Kyle Mayhugh
Is it fair to say that if everyone made the same mistake, the person/group with
the most responsibility should take the most consequences? Isn't that what
responsibility means?
It's even worse with Bush, because he campaigned on not doing exactly what he
ended up doing.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
