The Republican Party is in such a state of confusion that it is mystified over what it is supposed to be baffled about.

Newt Gingrich said in March that the Republican establishment was “mired in stupidity” and on Sunday Bob Dole said the party should be “closed for repairs.”

The Republican National Committee issued a report a few months ago quoting focus groups as saying the party was “narrow minded,” “out of touch” and full of “stuffy old men.”

[In fairness, the GOP is full of stuffy young men, too.]

On Capitol Hill, the gulfs within the Republican Party grow greater every day. Some Senate Republicans have finally come around to the view that they were elected to pass legislation, do the people’s business and actually accomplish something before retiring and becoming wealthy lobbyists.

But House Republicans feel differently. They believe they were elected to block new legislation, repeal old legislation like Obamacare and make sure nothing gets done before retiring and becoming wealthy lobbyists.

The Democrats have been unable to do much in the face of this, though they continue with the transformation of their image.

With the killing of Osama bin Laden, persisting with the war in Afghanistan (while promising to end it,) maintaining Guantánamo as a detention center for suspected terrorists (while promising to close it) and using drones to rain death from the skies upon our enemies, the Democratic Party has transformed itself into the party of strong defense, while making the Republican Party look weak and wimpy.

The Republicans at first thought that they could use drones as an issue, but it hasn’t turned out that way.

In a lengthy speech last week, President Barack Obama said we are at war and that as a wartime president, he has taken certain measures to protect America including the use of drones. “So this is a just war — a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense,” he said.

Former presidents probably would have been baffled by Obama’s need to defend the 400 drone strikes he has ordered that have killed about 3,000 terrorists and militants during time of war.

When Harry Truman made the decision to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan, “proportionality” was not an issue. Truman (and the rest of the America) was still outraged by Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in which 2,402 Americans were killed.



http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gop-dazed-and-confused-drones-91957.html













Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gop-dazed-and-confused-drones-91957.html#ixzz2UhH0ymOM (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/%3Cfont%20color=)">http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gop-dazed-and-confused-drones-91957.html#ixzz2UhH0ymOM

and imagine the fake outrage when the doj tried to find out the source of a leak, inside the administration!!  amazing!!  how dare the obama team investigate itself!!  that is just so wrong!  so what if classified info is leaked that might do harm to agents and contacts and to our security in general!!

Your lack of outrage at Obama killing Americans with drones is duly noted.

So whats the obama body count now...500,000+ civilian collateral's 

BTW...got a DOW report today?

Obama has also murdered AMERICANS with his drones and lack of action and allowed 4 AMERICANS TO BE MURDERED BY HIS BROTHER MUSLIMS! Obama has a drone over the low income housing you live in right now be careful or he will use it on you libtard bitch! LMAO

The fact is, if Obama was telling the truth about adopting stringent drone use standards and that is a very big if, he will never again be able to use drones to strike our enemies!

fuck anybody that has killed and/or tries to kill by some chickenshit terrorist attack american soldiers and americans in general, motherfucker.  by drone or by cruise missile or swat team or tank or cannon fire.  fuck them.  fuck you.  don't want to be blown up by a drone in a foreign country?  don't become a fucking terrorist or be near one when he gets taken out.  pretty simple, bitch.  even you might could do that....

wvit's just a angry hatefilled zombie, America is not the place for commies like him..

obumba is a warmonger, why hasn't the hypocritical press brought that up like the screaming from the top of their pointed heads they did when we had a good president like Bush..


Maybe Americans should invest in stinger missiles to take down the libturd drones over their neighborhoods.. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

 Does anyone know what this profane idiot is trying to say?

Wvit,
 
Don't you mean LIBS are dazed and confused by Obama's wars?  After all, it's LIBS who don't like military use of force, remember?  It's the LIBS who should be upset at Obama for his wars, not Republicans.

And they have developed better tools to do it, too...

You may like this because it's amazing or because it's scary what can be seen.
What the drones overhead at 17,000 feet can see (down to a 6" image) and record.

http://www.youtube.com/v/AHrZgS-Gvi4 (http://www.youtube.com/v/AHrZgS-Gvi4)

UN Says Obama Drone Strikes May be “War Crimes ... (http://www.libertynews.com/2012/06/un-says-obama-drone-strikes-may-be-war-crimes/)
UN Says Obama Drone Strikes “War Crimes ...


"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken..."

Link - http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/c…

Obama waging a war of aggression and authorizing torture.


Barry is a marked man....  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

I supported Bush's War on Islamofascist Terror as well.  Welcome to the club.

the Americans that were killed were terrorists or were hanging around with terrorists, which is a good way to get yourself killed.

When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

Who were these American killed by drones?



Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.


Samir Khan was one of them and was the guy who ran the website where the Boston bombers got the plans for their bombs.

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi - a 16-year-old American boy and the son of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  His dad shouldn't have been keeping his son around him while plotting against America.

Yes.  He is saying he supports going to war to kill terrorists on their own soil (instead of ours).

He is saying he supports going to war to kill terrorists on their own soil (instead of ours).
 
Obama's way works. He kills them wherever they are.
 
Bush's didn't.  He let them run free for 7 years.

bush and cheney both admitted saddam hussein had no ties to al qaeda or to 9/11, AFTER ABOUT 6 YEARS...FINALLY....stupid fucking nancy dan.   why does anybody, even somebody as stupid as you, somehow THINK INVADING AND OCCUPYING ANY COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY ONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IS A GOOD WAY TO FIGHT TERRORISM, YOU FUCKING MORON?  are you fucking crazy?  bush couldn't even find and eliminate bin laden after he had him cornered, he was so busy planning how to lie us into iraq, bitch.  we got rid of more dangerous dictators than saddam hussein, milosevic and qaddafi, without LOSING ONE SOLDIER IN COMBAT....idiot.  that is how you do it, not stupid shit world war 2 type invasions and dumbfuck nation building, soldier killing occupations....idiot. 

Some Senate Republicans have finally come around to the view that they were elected to pass legislation, do the people’s business


Allow me to translate this:

Some Senate Republicans have finally come around to the view that they were elected to pass legislation that is part of Obama's agenda, so the so called mainstream media doesn't beat up on them.

They are called RINOS

Obama’s speech on Thursday also comes as key lawmakers are looking at revising the post-9/11 law that underpins virtually every aspect of the so-called war on terrorism.

The law, best known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, sailed through Congress by overwhelming votes shortly after the 2001 terror attacks. It gave the president the power “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

hey, no fair presenting facts!! or the fact that the drone program was first used by bush in 2004....that would burst their snot bubble....

the Democratic Party has transformed itself into the party of strong defense, while making the Republican Party look weak and wimpy.

So, they're saying that the Democrat Party was weak and wimpy during the Bush administration?   It worked for Obama.

Reality is that parties have been transforming themselves every time majority power switches between D and R.  And that's the problem.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting.

The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting


"USE OF FORCE" RESOLUTION
SJ 23 ES
107th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

Former presidents probably would have been baffled by Obama’s need to defend the 400 drone strikes he has ordered that have killed about 3,000 terrorists and militants during time of war.

Tells you the American people are waking up.

UN Says Obama Drone Strikes May be “War Crimes ... (http://www.libertynews.com/2012/06/un-says-obama-drone-strikes-may-be-war-crimes/)
UN Says Obama Drone Strikes “War Crimes ...


"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken..."

Link - http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/c… (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/c…)

Obama waging a war of aggression and authorizing torture.


Barry is a marked man....  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

Liar.


You tell me.  You're the one who advocated it.


Maybe he should have been in the helicopter Barack Obama was in when he shot bin Laden.

Why do you insult our military that way? I'm sure they tried to get him, don't you think. What should the military have done differently at Tora Bora?   I'm glad you at least admit that it was the proper thing to do to invade Afghanistan to get at least that close to getting Osama.

You had it coming to you, nancy hoserehad.  Facts are your kryptonite.

learn to read, little bitch, right after you learn to think.  everything i post is completely true.  you are just so fucking stupid, simple minded and brainwashed you believe right wing lies instead.  not my problem, assmunch.  maybe you should go predict how many seats in the house repubs will pick up in the next election....this should be a hoot.  clinton and obama took out much bigger threats, much more powerful war criminals, without losing ONE SOLDIER IN COMBAT than bush ever took out when he lost thousands and thousands and thousands of american soldiers when he lied them into iraq and turned them into nation builders and sitting targets. 

I read it just fine, bitch.  Now it's up to you to admit it.


I'm sorry, nancy hoserhead.  Did you say something?

hosersnake and wvit are haters of America, what a pathetic life these two must have spending their days at the bath house squealing like a pig.. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Luke,
 
They probably love what Obama is doing to the country, given their hatred of it.

Whacko Repugs still cannot get over Obama's successful and effective pursuit of terrorists (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Whackos hate America because they have an overwhelming hate of Obama's success in finally getting Bin Laden, saving American manufacturing industry, saving the financial system and stock market, saving the homos, and hard working illegal immigrants from mass deportation by facist Republicans, saving new jersey and oklahoma as well as the gulf coast!!!!

They cannot stand all this success, nor the falling unemployment rate, or the fact that Republican governors are welcoming Obama to their states to oversee federal efforts on behalf of the victims of natural and corporate disasters (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

So sad that whackos have grown to hate America, American disadvantaged so they can continue in their  hatred of a black man who dares to succeed as leader of this great democracy annd the world. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Shame on whackos and Republican leaders who refuse to do their jobs and move forward for their country and fellow Americans....   

Ogabe targeted a teenager, who was an American citizen, with no proof that he had anything to do with terrorism.
 
What a chickenshit.

Keno

Your disgustinly faux concern about the death of a teen ager who was consorting with those who are planning to attack Americans shows how whackko    you are. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

 
Liar.  We approve of Obama killing terrorists.


Yes, they do.  We tried to stop them, but they won reelection anyway.

because they have an overwhelming hate of Obama

What are you talking about?  The whackos who hate America LOVE Obama.  That's why they elected him.


Thanks to the intelligence network established by Bush!


Nope.


Nope.


Thanks, John Boehner.


No one was advocating that, liar.  But I do find it interesting that you support and reward criminal behavior.


You do realize that "facists" are liberals, right?


Actually, they were both destroyed by natural disasters.  Obama didn't do a damn thing to prevent it.


Actually, the great Obamaspill of 2009 occurred on HIS watch.


What success?  His presidency is a collossal failure.  He rules like a dictator.  Unfortunately for America, he is utterly clueless, so his policies being forced down our throats are destructive.


7.5% is a colossal failure.


Yep.  But then again, the whacko libs have always hated America.


That's true.  Whacko libs do indeed hate Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, J.C. Watts, Allen West, etc.


It's a Republic!

Yep.  And don't forget the democrats who join the whackos and Republicans in liberal policies which are destructive to America.  Shame on all those libs for doing that.

who is ogabe, dumbfuck?  president obama has never targeted anybody, bitch.  and the guys who did do the targeting never targeted any american overseas except for one, a well-known leader of al qaeda at that time, who deserved to fucking die.  tough shit if you don't like it, bitch.  what part of that do you not understand...and why even bother trying to figure out that hot mess of edited quotes crazy ass nancy dan lies about all the fucking time.  even jerkwater called to call him a fucking chickenshit liar with all those edited quotes....


In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who “were not specifically targeted.”The American involvement in Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration until now had refused to confirm it. Likewise, Mr. Holder confirmed the government’s role in the deaths of Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike, and Mr. Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who died in another strike. The letter disclosed the death of a fourth American named Jude Kenan Mohammad but gave no further details.


we bombed dozens of german and japanese cities to the ground in WW2, and who knows how many expatriated americans might have been living in those cities...i wonder if chickenshit bitches like queeno would have cried about their deaths in those civilian targeted bombings???  what a little bitch. 

nancy dan is so fucking stupid he thinks nazis were liberals!!  goddamn.  somebody dart this dope!!!!

Obama, dumbfuck.
 

So you think Obama is just an incompetent boob for not being in control of his staff?
 

Nancy hoserhead is so fucking stupid, he didn't even know that "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist."
 
Somebody needs to slap some sense into that moron.

Keno

Your disgustinly faux concern about the death of a teen ager who was consorting with those who are planning to attack Americans shows how whackko    you are
 
 
My Nigga
 
 
Your support of the chickenshit child targeter shows what a low life commie prick you are.
 
GFY, Alphonso.

I cant believe so many stayed here this long feeding the Trolls.

who is ogabe, dumbfuck?  president obama has never targeted anybody, bitch.  and the guys who did do the targeting never targeted any american overseas except for one, a well-known leader of al qaeda at that time, who deserved to fucking die.


Ogabe is Obama/Mugabe. GFY.

Ogabe targeted him alright, and he was a teenager, with no known ties to terrorism. Facts to you, are like sunlight to a vampire.


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-drone-strike-kills-16-year-old-american-citizen/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-drone-strike-kills-16-year-old-american-citizen/)

fuck you, pig.  nobody targeted the kid, why should they?  can you fucking read?  why do you insist on being such an easily played bitch, bitch?  you might be as stupid as nancy dan and hayes. 

Possibly.  One thing's for certain.  We are all more intelligent than you.

You can not just say you are at war with crime to justify the government murdering people in cold blood with nothing but suspicion, which is exactly what the drone murders are.

And the claim that it is the victims own fault for being near people or places that some arrogant plutocrat thinks suspicious? Total bullshit.

We have courts and trials for a reason, mere suspicion is not enough to kill someone and is certainly not enough to kill anybody who happens to be around.

If you think someone is plotting a crime, PROVE IT. In court.

The drone murders are NOT acts of self defense, they are brutal acts of murder by a totally corrupt bunch of plutocrat scum.

YOU GO TRY AND ARREST THEM, ASSHOLE!!  goddamn, who do you think they are targeting, jaywalkers?  red light runners?  DO YOU EVEN HAVE A FUCKING CLUE WHO WE HAVE TARGETED, BITCH?  A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED AND THEY ARE ALL FUCKING ENEMIES OF THIS COUNTRY...FUCK YOU.  you have to be the dumbest fucking traitor in history. 

First of all you could at least CHARGE them with something and have a trial in abstentia.

And no, they are not enemies of this country. And you do not know who any of them are either.

I can however pull up a list of all the CHILDREN the drones have murdered in cold blood acts of savagery outside any warzone. You can not dismiss that as "collateral damage" when it is not even in a warzone.

It is a very long list. Shall I post it?

You hang around with and support terrorists and your just likely to get blown up along with your buddies.

In the past we bombed entire cities and towns to get the bad guys.  Now we just hit houses. 

So why not bomb suspected criminals here and say if you "hang around" criminals then you deserve to die? Same thing. After a drive by shooting you could go bomb the suspects. After an armed robbery, go bomb the suspects. If a cop is shot, go bomb the suspects. And blame all the victims of your bombing.

That would be no different than what is being done now. Wait, no it would be different, because then there would be actual crimes the bombs are in retaliation for. Right now there are often not even actual crimes. They have admitted that, they bomb people not for what they have DONE, but because of suspicion they MIGHT do something. Sometimes it is not even that much, only suspicious activity at a place with no one person being the target.

So how about it? How would you like that happening on your street, done by the government? Would you cheer it on? If not then you are a hypocrite.

You are not getting the bad guys. You are the bad guys.

Darkflower believes terrorists should be immune from attack if just one innocent civilian is near by!

But views terrorists perfectly justified in their attacks against the USA such as September 11th!

and it's hard to send the police over to Pakistan to make an arrest.

You all are the ones who claim 911 was justified, not me. I claim the opposite, that such attacks ARE NOT JUSTIFIED and ARE CRIMES. You however claim such attacks are perfectly justified (when you are the ones doing it). Your only gripe about 911 is someone else did it. But you totally agree with the reasoning behind justifying it. I do not.

And terrorists, more specifically terrorist SUSPECTS, like all criminal suspects, should be immune from bombing, especially if only one non-suspect is nearby. duh. You arrest suspects. It is a crime to murder them and any nearby.

"and it's hard to send the police over to Pakistan to make an arrest."

Even harder when you do not even have a warrant or a charge. Even harder since you do not even have jurisdiction.

How about we solve crime by having other countries come bomb suspects here and say oh it would be too hard to arrest?

Get a clue already. IT iS WRONG.

No they are not criminals they are illegal combatants and rank the same as spies and saboteurs!

They must be held until the war is concluded and then tried in military courts for war crimes!

If they come to this country we will arrest them and put them on trial.  If they are in Pakistan or Afganistan or some other place under the protection of the locals then I don't want to risk one American soldiers life on arresting them.

They are criminals.

Spies and sabateurs also happen to be criminals. Terrorists are criminals, no different than any other person who commits acts of violence.

Quit drinking the kool aid. Your brains have been fried by it.

"I don't want to risk one American soldiers life on arresting them."

Fair enough. Then don't arrest them. Or do anything else about them.

Darkflower seeks to reward illegal combatants with immunity for their actions!

Pity him!

you go try and arrest these ADMITTED KILLERS AND TORTURERS, BITCH.  goddamn.  i wonder if she would have called fdr and churchill and american pilots and british pilots scum and nazis and all that shit while they were bombing the fuck out of whole towns filled to the brim with fucking civilians, and not gotten the shit beat out of her by other americans who heard her....but 3 or 4 getting caught in the crossfire or too close to a targeted terrorist by a drone!!  oh...my....god!!!!

ww2 was a war. This is not a war.

Yes, this is a war!

A proxy war on behalf of Iran, Syria, the Palestinian territories,  Iraq that was, Afghanistan that was, North Korea, China, etc.!

In protecting terrorists you legitimize terrorism!

September 22nd, 2011


Under the Constitution, the Constitution prevails over international law. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), signed into law ten years ago this week, prescribed no time limitation or geographical limitation. It was, potentially, a world war of unlimited duration.



On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

Congress’s power to declare war does not require the use of magic words. Congress need not say “declare” and it need not say “war,” and there may be practical and diplomatic reasons to couch a war declaration in terms more congenial to the regime of “international law,” which favors the language of individual and collective self-defense over the old-fashioned, indecorous language of war. But war it is. More to the point, constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Authorization for Use of Military Force is an exercise of Congress’s legislative power “to declare war.”

No, terrorism is a crime. It is no different than any other crime. Victims of terrorism are not any more dead or hurt than victims of other violent crimes.

The "war" view is bs propaganda from a government using it for unlimited power.

There is no war.

The war on terror will never be won until the nations who provide support to the terrorists cease that support!

Failing to remove those pillars of support will ensure a war on terror everlasting!

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

no, iraq was not involved with al qaeda or 9/11 and not a legitimate target, idiot.  it would be a stretch to say afghanistan...the real root of al qaeda is saudi arabia, if you had a clue about reality.  iraq was the least terrorist involved country of ALL THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES, BY FAR....why are you so factually challenged, to say the least?  and who the fuck is stupid enough to invade and occupy a whole damn country even if there are 15,000 al qaeda guys living in remote areas inside that country?  how does that make sense to anybody, even right wingers?

Wars are between nations. Not between a nation and a criminal organization, or a nation and a type of crime. That would not be a real war and does not justify what happens in real war.

The aumf was itself rubbish.

There is no war. You can not wage war on terrorism so stop trying to use war to justify what is clearly unjustifiable.

Terrorism is a crime. You "fight" it with cops and lawyers, not with armies and drones.

 Bin Ladin sure fooled you!

fuck you.  they mean to kill us, with chickenshit terrorist attacks, bitch.  and, more muslims than americans!!  killing them first is a win/win, when we can clearly identify them, have a good positive case against them and cannot stop them by ANY OTHER METHODS THAT WOULD NOT PUT OUR SOLDIERS AT UNDUE RISK TO KILL THESE ASSHOLES, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.  move over there and bitch about these assholes being killed, bitch. i am tired of your traitor fucking bullshit, asshole. 

"Under the Constitution, the Constitution prevails over international law."

The nazis should have tried that at their war crime tribunal and see how far it got them. Not far at all.

So according to Darkflower if the USA sponsored one or more terrorist groups and encouraged them to attack Muslim nations that would be OK?

"they mean to kill us"

So do ALL criminals. Drive by shooters mean to kill us. So? Bomb them too? Yes or no?

fuck you, traitor.  i don't give a fuck what the constitution says about killing enemies by all means necessary.  they started it, now we are going to kill every one we can identify, unless they want to surrender....it's their choice, asshole.  why don't you promise them a blow job for every new american they kill, traitor bitch?

They are criminals, not enemies. Idiot.

Hoosier the profane is misspelling profusely all over again!

Congress didn't declare war against all criminals only the ones who carried out 9/11 and the people who aide them.

Where in the Constitution does it say we can only declare war on countries and not groups?  I don't remember reading that part.

in darkflower's world, if the cops chase some assault weapon carrying criminals into a house and they make a stand,  the cops HAVE TO GIVE THEM A FAIR CHANCE BY ASSAULTING THEM HEAD ON...after all, they have not been convicted of anything..., not throwing a gas grenade in the house never knowing if any of the alleged killers have an allergy that could really mess them up if they inhaled that gas, might even KILL THEM!! HORRORS!!  hell, blow the whole house down, fuck the goddamn killers if they don't give up after an hour or so...that is what a logical person would do. 

Hoosier, do you know what a run on sentence is?

ho, answer my question. Yes or no? Drive by shooters mean to kill us. So? Bomb suspects of drive by shooting too? Yes or no?

fyi, the victims of drone murders are not given the chance to surrender and are not accused of any crime. They are not terrorists, they are just people that some plutocrat feels like killing that day. No proof of any crime. No charges. So quit blaming the victim.

wvit, logic says you can not declare war on groups. War is for fighting countries, not groups, so you can not declare war on groups.

And nixon declared war on crime. So if the war on terrorism is such a great idea, why not fight all crime that way? What is so freaking special about terrorism? Nobody answers that. Crime is crime, and all crime terrorizes people. All crime is equally an attack on the country.

do you know what mental retardation is, dvd?  can you even spell retardation, dumbass?  so what are you suggesting?  we should actually send in troops to try and arrest these KNOWN terrorists when they are hiding out in remote places in different muslim countries, putting our soldiers at great risk WHEN WE DO NOT HAVE TO?  are you fucking crazy?  THEY ARE NOT IN OUR COUNTRY, THEY ARE IN REMOTE FUCKING AREAS PLOTTING WITH OTHER ASSHOLES TO KILL MUSLIMS AND AMERICANS IN MORE TERRORIST ATTACKS.  they will not be taken alive.  they have enough assault weapons to kill a few of our guys assaulting their position, idiot.  FUCK THEM.  kill the motherfuckers.  why are you comparing this to drive by shooters in this country that we can arrest almost always without losing any cops? in your perfect world, a soldier in world war 2 would be bound to try and capture enemy soldiers FIRST, and only then, if he had actually witnessed him shooting another soldier in the back while he slept.  you are fucking ridiculous. 

Drive by shooters actually kill us.

Drone victims do not. You keep accusing them of things there is no proof they are guilty of.

Leave ww2 out of this.

THIS IS NOT A WAR.

I got no problem with taking out drive by shooters by any mean possible.

Repocons just jealous that they didn;t have balls to do thsi first
 

Though even in ww2, they never would have gotten away with bombing neutral countries claiming they "suspected" some nazi sympathizers were there.

That would have been a war crime.

Well your mooslim friends think this is a war, moron.. it's amazing they are smarter than you but not out of reach since their IQ is about 40..

"I got no problem with taking out drive by shooters by any mean possible."

So, no need for trials. No need for charges. Accusation = guilt, and no problem even if children are bombed in the process.

That is what this country has come to. bin laden won, America was completely destroyed 911. This is not America, this is some twisted, hollowed out zombie corpse.

Right.  That's why I say we are at war with Islamofascist terrorists.
 

So according to Darkflower if the USA sponsored one or more terrorist groups and encouraged them to attack Muslim nations that would be OK?

Amazing!!! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)  Whackos all concerned about Obama's success in killing terrorists and no remorse for Repug  mismanaged and unnecessary invasion of Iraq at the cost of thousands of US lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives most of whom were not even terrorists! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

I wonder why that is???  Could it be because Obama (whackos fill in the blank here)

Whackossssssssssss explain your hatred of America, of its diverse citizens, its immigrants and  their offspring.  Shame on you (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Mikefx, how much intelligence can you get from questioning a corpse?

Obama has created a massive void in our knowledge of Al Qaeda and they will take advantage of that void!

"So according to Darkflower if the USA sponsored one or more terrorist groups and encouraged them to attack Muslim nations that would be OK?"

Um, it actually HAS done so.

And where have I ever said anything was ok? Beyond arresting people who commit crimes (and terrorism is a crime).

 
No.  We are the good guys.  The bad guys are the ones targetting innocent people

"The bad guys are the ones targetting innocent people"

The drones target innocent people.

Actually this is a war between good and evil, a war of civilizations if you will..

Their evil book, written by a pedophile like obumba, tell them to covert us or enslave us or kill us, what is about that you fools don't get..



btw chump, muzzies only kill innocent people, even their own, what kind of people would you say that was..?

 That is a lie!

Provide proof the USA has sponsored terrorism?

Treating terrorists as criminals worked fine until 9/11/01.  Then we discovered that Islamofascist terrorists were organized and were not acting alone.

 
Actually, it was.

Republicans DID establish the Predator Drone program.  Just ask Uday and Kusay Hussein.  Next time do some research.

The drones only do what they are told.  You know, like liberals.  Their masters (drones) get their direction from commanders.  And they don't intentionall target innocent people.  That makes no sense.  Nothing can be gained by trying to kill innocent people.  It is absurd to suggest that anyone would do that.

Whackos on the board come to your senses!!! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif)

Read Dan the man from sarah palin land posts As well as luke17.  They are American hate mongers with the hate aimed squarely at America, their very own country!!! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

So sad that this is what the far right Repug party (e.g. Tea party) has become.

Don't you agree (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

So post what it is I hate about America you loon..?

Are you a complete moron?  Or just a liar?  Where do you come up with your bullshit that I am a hate monger?

"treating terrorists as criminals worked fine until 9/11/01.  Then we discovered that Islamofascist terrorists were organized and were not acting alone."

It still worked on 911. Criminals kill people, that does not mean treating them as criminals fails to work. And terrorists are not the only criminals who are organized and not working alone, many criminals work in groups and many are very organized. Mafia, cartels, street gangs, are far more dangerous than islamic terrorists but they are still treated as criminals.

Treating it as war is bad not just for the innocents killed but bad for us too.

"And they don't intentionall target innocent people.  That makes no sense.  Nothing can be gained by trying to kill innocent people.  It is absurd to suggest that anyone would do that."

It is absurd that anyone does it, but it is still true. The drones target innocents. Show me even one conviction for anybody murdered by a drone. Go on, find me the conviction that makes the difference between guilt and innocence. I bet you can not even find one. Much less hundreds for all the hundreds of drone strikes. I on the other hand can show you hundreds of names of little children killed by the drones. So yes, the drones do target and murder innocents. That is fact.

sometimes innocents are killed in a crossfire when cops fire at criminals, sometimes innocents get killed when police chase a killer on the highway...NOTHING IS COMPLETELY SAFE AND PERFECT, IDIOT.  we do the best we can...overall, more muslim lives are saved than lost by eliminating these mad dog killers, asshole.  so fuck you. 

treating terrorism as a war is what bush did when he invaded iraq, A country not connected at all to terrorists, as bush admitted, and occupied iraq on complete lies.  killing terrorists in remote areas with a drone so american soldiers can live is the best option we have.  fuck the terrorists.  they deserve nothing but death, unless they decide to surrender.  they kill more muslims than americans and they are like rabid dogs that must be put down.

 December 15, 2008
Bush On Al Qaeda Not Existing In Iraq Before Invasion: ‘So What?’

Yesterday, after an Iraqi journalist used “[t]wo of the worst insults in Islam” against him, an unfazed President Bush sat down with ABC’s Martha Raddatz for an exit interview in Iraq. When Raddatz asked Bush about his legacy, Bush first boasted about “52 months of uninterrupted job growth.” (There have been 1.9 million jobs lost in 2008 alone.)


Bush then turned to Iraq, and justified the war there by suggesting it had been al Qaeda’s home base. When Raddatz corrected him, Bush dismissively replied, “So what?“:

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Bush On Al Qaeda Not Existing In Iraq Before Invasion: ‘So What?’

Prove they are terrorists. Show me the court convictions. Until then, they are innocent victims of an insane president.

And if you want to protect the soldiers then bring them home, dumb dumb.

Nazi's, Facist,Communist,now Islamic Terrorist,where would be without a war on something?(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

They confessed to committing terrorist acts. Don't you believe them?

" we do the best we can"

Wrong, you do not do the best you can, you are murdering innocents.

"...overall, more muslim lives are saved than lost by eliminating these mad dog killers"

Who gave you the right to play god by deciding who lives and dies? And prove they are "mad dog killers" because the only mad dogs killer I see is your president who freely admits to his murders. So fuck you.

"They confessed to committing terrorist acts. Don't you believe them?"

Proof of that claim?

You are not cops chasing bad guys. You are mad dog killers murdering innocents in order to expand the power of the evil empire. You make me sick.

Their own public statements.

THEY HAVE BOASTED ABOUT THESE ATTACKS ON GODDAMN TERRORIST INTERNET SITES AND OTHER MUSLIM SITES, YOU STUPID FUCKING BITCH...READ SOMETHING, GODDAMN IT.  you argue about something you have no FUCKING CLUE ABOUT, ASSHOLE.  we just got another fucking al qaeda leader today, asshole.  read something!!

Pipe down, nancy hoserhead.  I got this.

you don't have shit, punk.  you just lied about there being al qaeda in iraq before bush invaded on lies, bitch.  like i said, nancy dan, you don't have shit, you fucking lying asshole. 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

There are estimates as high as 98% (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=1) of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/) those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

In March 2013, Ben Emmerson, the United Nations Special Rapporteur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Rapporteur) led a U.N. team that looked into civilian casualties from the U.S. drone attacks, and stated that the attacks are a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan. Emmerson said government officials from the country clearly stated Pakistan does not agree to the drone attacks, which is contradicted by U.S. officials


2) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Investigative_Journalism) estimates the following cumulative statistics about US drone strikes:
^{[
27
]
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#cite_note-27)}
(As of March 2013)

• Total strikes: 366
• Total reported killed: 2,537 - 3,581
• Civilians reported killed: 411 - 884
• Children reported killed: 168 - 197
• Total reported injured: 1,174 - 1,465
• Strikes under the Bush Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_W._Bush): 52
  
• Strikes under the Obama Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Administration): 314

You are the ignorant ones, repeating unproven propaganda from an evil administration which you for some crazy reason trust without question.

I offer proof. You offer propaganda.

fuck those guys, shithead.  they hate america as much as you.  why not just tell us what rush thinks or fox?
those assholes are not proof, stupid bitch. you thinking they are shows what a complete moron you are, asshole.

"The Wall Street Journal reported and said that the bulk of the drone attacks are signature attacks," Paul said. "They don’t even know the name of the person.

wall street journal is owned by murdoch.  who gives a fuck, bitch.  i trust our military more than any of the fucking punks you believe, asshole.  they are not wanton killers.  fuck you.  you ought to be fucking bitch slapped for even comparing our soldiers to nazis, you fucking piece of shit. 

You should be bitch slapped for condoning the slaughter of civilians by your evil president.

you just hate america so much you are blind to the truth.  not my problem, shit for brains.  move to some goddamn muslim country, bitch.  they like traitor americans over there....

"you just hate america"

You are an idiot for believing that. Why the hell would I hate it, I was born and raised here you moron. That is as stupid as saying jews are anti-semetic for opposing what israel does. It is as stupid as saying a white person must hate white people if they oppose slavery of black people.

And it is you who is blind.

fuck you.  you always believe our enemies, not our government, not our soldiers.  go fuck yourself. 

Liar.


Liar.  Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before Bush invaded on truths.  Now shut your perty little mouth and let the adults handle this.

Yeah, punk.  You should be slapped for condoning the slaughter of innocent babies in the womb approved by Obama.

You think everyone who questions the government is "your enemy" and you accept what it says on blind faith, even in defiance of obvious fact. That sort of thinking is what is the real treason.

I question. You accept on blind faith.

Let's be honest.  You BOTH hate America.

you are a delusional bitch, nancy dan....are you saying bush lied about al qaeda not being in iraq?  why would he do that, nancy dan....he would have to as big a liar or as stupid as you to do that to himself, moron....

Bush On Al Qaeda Not Existing In Iraq Before Invasion: ‘So What?’


By Ali Frick on Dec 15, 2008 at 10:17 am


Yesterday, after an Iraqi journalist used “[t]wo of the worst insults in Islam” against him, an unfazed President Bush sat down with ABC’s Martha Raddatz for an exit interview in Iraq. When Raddatz asked Bush about his legacy, Bush first boasted about “52 months of uninterrupted job growth.” (There have been 1.9 million jobs lost in 2008 alone.)


Bush then turned to Iraq, and justified the war there by suggesting it had been al Qaeda’s home base. When Raddatz corrected him, Bush dismissively replied, “So what?“:


BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–


RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.


BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Prove it, nancy hoserhead.
 

Nope.  Bush didn't say al Qaeda was not in Iraq, dufus.  He simply refused to agree with the premise presented by the interviewer.
 
Just how stupid are you?

you really are crazy, aren't you?  how can you read what bush said and somehow come up with that bullshit...you need to be medicated, nancy dan. 

Bush On Al Qaeda Not Existing In Iraq Before Invasion: ‘So What?’


By Ali Frick on Dec 15, 2008 at 10:17 am


Yesterday, after an Iraqi journalist used “[t]wo of the worst insults in Islam” against him, an unfazed President Bush sat down with ABC’s Martha Raddatz for an exit interview in Iraq. When Raddatz asked Bush about his legacy, Bush first boasted about “52 months of uninterrupted job growth.” (There have been 1.9 million jobs lost in 2008 alone.)


Bush then turned to Iraq, and justified the war there by suggesting it had been al Qaeda’s home base. When Raddatz corrected him, Bush dismissively replied, “So what?“:


BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–


RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.


BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Real Americans oppose the war on terrorism. Real Americans value liberty and human rights more than security and mistrust government power.

Real Americans realize that foreign policy of the last decades has been about power and has been destructive to liberty and democracy, here and abroad. Real Americans know that power corrupts and realize that means the "most powerful man on earth" is inevitably "the most corrupt man on earth."

Real Americans realize that governments are only trustworthy when they are not trusted, that trusting government inevitably leads to it not being trustworthy. And that includes foreign policy.

Real Americans realize that people who think "that would never happen here" are fools inviting it to happen here.

You people are not Real Americans. You are pretenders.

you are a fucking fruitcake.  go away. 

See?  I told ya so.
 

Raddatz was wrong to correct him.  Bush had it right.
 

Bush refused to accept his false premise.
 
But all of this is irrelevant.  Why are you talking about it?

bush admitted it, shit for brains.  is english your second language, bitch?  what do you think, "yeah, right, so what?"  means, stupid?  COULD IT BE ANY CLEARER?  no...why are you in such deep denial?

Bush On Al Qaeda Not Existing In Iraq Before Invasion: ‘So What?’


By Ali Frick on Dec 15, 2008 at 10:17 am


Yesterday, after an Iraqi journalist used “[t]wo of the worst insults in Islam” against him, an unfazed President Bush sat down with ABC’s Martha Raddatz for an exit interview in Iraq. When Raddatz asked Bush about his legacy, Bush first boasted about “52 months of uninterrupted job growth.” (There have been 1.9 million jobs lost in 2008 alone.)


Bush then turned to Iraq, and justified the war there by suggesting it had been al Qaeda’s home base. When Raddatz corrected him, Bush dismissively replied, “So what?“:


BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–


RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.


BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Darkflower,

Do you agree with me that Obama's abuse of the IRS and Justice Department is in indication of Obama's deep seated corruption?

Liar.  Bush didn't say that, Raddatz did.
 

Yes.  No.  Yes.
 

It means he does not accept the false premise.
 

yes.
 

Sheer dishonesty.

Obama killed four Americans with drones.  Three of them were not targeted.  It's pathetic when your kill ratio of targeted Americans to untargeted Americans is only 25%.  That is even if you accept the dangerous notion that Obama should be the prosecutor, judge, and jury.  That's even if you ignore the same poor ratio for non-American civilians.  What's wrong with you people?

Hosier!!!  You own Dan the Man from Sarah Palin  Land (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

When Dan gets going you know he exposes his standard bull shit approach that Repugs do so well, until someone bothers to check the facts and callthem out (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) 

You're a moron.  I destroyed him.

There.  I fixed it for ya, Mike from Dick Durban land.

"Darkflower,

Do you agree with me that Obama's abuse of the IRS and Justice Department is in indication of Obama's deep seated corruption?"

Possibly. Not nearly as bad as him killing people. His going after the press in one of his worst domestic offenses.

the imam lied....people died....the testicle lock-box queen hitlery lied....people died.....

"What's wrong with you people?"

Chuck, I think it has something to do with the psychology of "us vs them" which is a real psychological phenomenon. Logic and principal go out the window when some psychologies are in play. "Follow the group" could also be a factor. People will remain in a room filling with smoke due to that one.

But....but....but...Ogabe has a Nobel Peace Prize!

The only war criminal with a peace prize...you can't make that shit up

The Republican party throughout the Bush years has been filled with ignorant jingoists, and still is, but Democrats have no excuse.  All they are are blind followers.  They can't be confused because they don't have a brain in their little drone heads.  Principles?  They have only one -- follow the leader.  The anti-war Democrats are dead, transformed into warmongering lemmings.

To find out what is wrong with both parties look at what they agree on when each has majority power, not what they pretend to disagree on otherwise.

Pointing out the fallacy of the war on terror is out of bounds, whether it is MSNBC or FOX News.

Good News- Drone Attack Takes Out Key Taliban Leader In Pakistan...

Whackos, so upset because Obama is so good, so smart and so much more effective than Republican "know nothings" (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

Why do you end up hating America inyour zeal to discredit our wonderful black President who has saved our country from financial ruin and effectively put Al Quaeda on the ropes??? (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/angel.gif)

So sad you whackos have backed yourselves into an intolerable corner of hoping for American failure only to be confronted with the American success both in the economy and foreign relations (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

Don't disgrace yourselves further by trying to refute what I am saying.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)

Oz, obama violated international law to murder someone in Pakistan. That is hardly good news no matter who it was. Why do you think it is good that obama can murder people at will and get away with it?

Whackos, so upset because Obama is so good, so smart


My nigga, what planet are you living on?

Oz, obama violated international law to murder someone in Pakistan.
 
No, he didn't.  Both the U.S. and the U.N. agree with killing terrorists wherever they can be found.
 
 
 

Jim, Can we do anything about the nasty mouth and stupid profanity from some of our left wing posters?   There is no one in the cyber world who has a dirtier mouth than Ho Daddy.  It is insulting to intelligent conversation.

Try to find something more profane than:
 
My nigga, what planet are you living on?

Kensan IV. 

Such concern over nasty language. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/laugh.gif)  What  a whacko hoot you are!! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif) (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Oz, the un most certainly does not agree.

And fyi, terrorists are just criminals, there are no special rules for them under international law. Post 911 amerika may have made up some idiotic no-mans-land (because the sheeple let plutocrats trick them into something very very stupid) but international law has not been corrupted in that manner. Terrorists are nothing special and claiming "oh it is a terrorist" does not mean you get to ignore international law and human rights and just go around murdering people. Murdering people in other countries just because you claim it is a terrorist is no different than claiming you just bombed a drug dealer. Or a drug addict. You just violated international law. And human rights. And let a president murder on his own say so.

You are approving a president murdering anybody when he feels like it. If he (or another president) feels like murdering you or your family some day, you will have no right to complain about it. The time to complain is NOW. Not wait til it is you.

The lawyer leading a UN drone inquiry has praised a speech by US President Barack Obama as a "significant step towards increased transparency".

Ben Emmerson said Mr Obama had set out more clearly than ever before the legal justifications for targeted killing.

Pakistan, the main focus of the strikes, has reiterated its view that drones are "counter-productive".

Mr Obama pledged to continue strikes, but with tighter oversight of the programme and stricter targeting rules.

Mr Emmerson, a United Nations human rights special rapporteur, launched an inquiry into drones in January, saying their use "represents a real challenge to the framework of international law"

He said in a statement that Mr Obama's speech had broken new ground on a number of issues.

"It sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under," he said.

"The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22653476

Ben Emmerson said Mr Obama had set out more clearly than ever before the legal justifications for targeted killing.

What about untargeted killing?  Where's the legal justification for that?  Three Americans and many foreign civilians unjustly killed by Obama and his drones.  There is no justification.  Zero.

And his legal justifications do not coincide with his actions.   The American he targeted and killed was not an imminent threat.  Obama equated him to a sniper on a roof-top firing at people.  The American he targeted and killed was not shooting, harming, nor imminently about to harm someone.  He was suspected of plotting, or so it was purported anyway.  And if we are going to trust Obama to make that determination without the benefit of due process, then we may as well just do away with due process altogether, because, well, we know he is completely worthy of our trust -- and that's that.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001

Not an immenent threat?  One of the Americans was the one who published the website the Boston bombers used to get the plans for the bombs they used.

So I get.   It's the old "war is hell" argument.  Of course, when you get together with the terrorist "enemy" like in Syria and Libya to help do your regime changing, well "war is hell".  You Democrats sound exactly like the Bush jingoists these days.

Who were these American killed by drones?



Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.


Samir Khan was one of them and was the guy who ran the website where the Boston bombers got the plans for their bombs.

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi - a 16-year-old American boy and the son of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  His dad shouldn't have been keeping his son around him while plotting against America.

The legality of targeted killing is disputed. Some^{[
who?
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)]} Israeli and American academics, military personnel, or officials describe targeted killing as legitimate within the context of self-defense, when employed against terrorists or combatants engaged in asymmetrical warfare.
 
BTW:  Poll after poll shows Americans approve of killing terrorists by drone attack by about 80%.
 
 

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi - a 16-year-old American boy and the son of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  His dad shouldn't have been keeping his son around him while plotting against America.


His dad was two weeks dead when he was murdered.

granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001


Which of the recently killed persons plotted, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11/2001 attacks?

The only thing the Republicans are "confused" about is that it not a Republican president doing all the shooting and killing.  The news I have for them is that the so-called "war on terror" is just as much a part of the New World Order as Agenda 21 is.  There is no party line standing in its way.

"Anwar Awlaki was – he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab – the Christmas Day bomber – went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.


Samir Khan was one of them and was the guy who ran the website where the Boston bombers got the plans for their bombs.

Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi - a 16-year-old American boy and the son of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  His dad shouldn't have been keeping his son around him while plotting against America"

Anwar, you claim he did things in 2009 and 2010. Was he charged? Was he tried in abstentia? If not, why not? If no trial and conviction, then he was innocent until proven guilty.

Samir, killed over a website? Are you fucking kidding me? WHAT THE FUCK???

The kid, you think it is ok just because his dad was a criminal suspect? Is it ok to kill other children of criminal suspects? Weeks after killing the suspect?

Spare us the "they plot to attack us" bullshit. Every criminal plots to attack us. That does not begin to excuse going around murdering people in cold blood and calling it self defense.

If you think those drone murders are ok then you are just as evil as any terrorist and I say fuck you.

" legal justifications for targeted killing"

There are no justifications for it. Murder is murder. It makes no difference if it is alqueda or the government.

Shame on you who support it.

go fuck yourself.   it is not murder to kill an identified enemy.  you are a fucking idiot.  go fucking move to some muslim country asshole.  they love american traitors over there....

Does Pakistan have WMD's, did they do anything to us, did the Pakistanis pose a threat to our soil? An attack on Pakistan is an act of war.

Obama is a Murderer of American citizens without trials. An indicted war criminal.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-charged-with-war-crimes/

you are too stupid to discuss anything.  go lay back down.  we will ring a bell when we need an irrelevant, alcohol induced post. 

UN Says Obama Drone Strikes May be “War Crimes ...
UN Says Obama Drone Strikes “War Crimes ...


"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken..."

Link - http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/c…

Obama waging a war of aggression and using renditions.

Criminal suspects are not identified enemies and yes it is murder to kill them. And that is what they are doing. All violent criminals are guilty of the same thing terrorists are: plotting to kill us. That does NOT make it ok to murder suspects and everyone around them.

It is also murder to kill people who are simply someplace you think suspicious, without knowing who the heck you are killing, which they also do.

It is also murder to kill first responders and funeral mourners. The government does that too.


Take your warspeak and shove it, there is no war, terrorists are criminals not enemies, it is not self defense to bomb people just because you "think" one or two in a crowd "might" be plotting something. It is cold blooded murder, targeting civilians on purpose, murdering civilians on purpose. It is exactly the same as 911, the only difference is that everyone admits 911 was wrong except a handful of savage thugs, while a whole lot of savage thugs think it ok for the government to murder civilians.

You who support the drones are no better than alqueda.

yes, they are.  fuck you. who died and gave you any power to define anything, bitch?  and no, the UN has not even tried to pass any resolution about drone strikes, lying bitch.  so what if some chickenshit assholes in the UN don't like it?  fuck them, and fuck you chickenshits.  war is hell.  fuck the goddamn terrorists.  fuck you if you don't like it. 

Terrorists are civilian criminals. Waging war on civilians is a crime. Wars are fought between nations for territory, not against civilians.

You don't wage war on crime, you fight it with cops and judges, idiot. You don't go around BOMBING EVERYONE who happens to be around one of your suspects. THAT IS A CRIME.

What part of "they are civilian" are you not grasping? It is 3 little words, you should be able to understand it.

"fuck the goddamn terrorists"

Well you are the terrorists, so yeah, fuck you.

Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single high value target on a funeral procession! 


That is terrorism. obama is a terrorist.

Obama is rising to new heights being classified as a war criminal....   Where is code pink?

you are too stupid to even try to discuss anything, stupid bitch.  you need to go fuck yourself and shut the fuck up.  you even deny global warming, you stupid clown.  just total bullshit.  people can try to kill us, can brag about killing us, but if we try to kill their ass, then WE ARE THE BAD GUYS...fuck you. 

How many Murdered Americans by the President of the United States , without charges or a trial,  is too many for you HO?

well, bush murdered 100,000 iraqi civilians when he lied our soldiers into that useless invasion and occupation which also got 4500 american soldiers killed for nothing....suck on that, little bitch.  president obama has murdered no one.  you are a fucking punk.  see the difference?

 Hoosier where is your proof?

Show me the 100,000 autopsy results proving each one of those Iraqi (see how nicely capitalization works) "dead" died at the hands of American soldiers!

The fact is the vast majority of those killed during the liberation were killed by Saddam/Sadre/Al Qaeda supporters!

That's your claim, not true at that. They were not American, Soldiers Volunteered, so you comment is not pertinent.


Get real and answer the question.

Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single high value target on a funeral procession! 


You think that is ok?

And just how the hell is someone in Yemen or Pakistan supposed to kill any of us? You are crazy. Street gangs kill way more and nobody bombs them.

IT IS WRONG. You are brain dead to think it is ok.

How many of your supposed and yet unproven claim to 100,000 were terrorist or those killed by the terrorists?

You got nothing but Bull shit first class. All without answering the question about HOW MANY AMERICANS WITHOUT A TRIAL HO????

Darkflower, no links, no facts, all fraud!

"Darkflower, no links, no facts, all fraud!"

Hmm, it is on PBS, NY Times, Guardian, and many more places. You think they all hate obama?

They all say it, he has hit funerals and first responders. Both are sick acts of a depraved man.
                                                                                                                                       

No links, no facts, all fraud!

Back up your claims!

Don't be a Hoosier!

OH NO, Don't do that to the poor ignorant person. Ignorance can be cured, being a Hoosier can't.

no he didn't.  nobody would target a known funeral procession.  you are a lying pig.  in world war 2, we PURPOSELY CARPET BOMBED WHOLE CITIES IN GERMANY AND JAPAN WITH VERY LITTLE MILITARY VALUE...idiotic traitors like darkflower would have gone fucking crazy over that and if anybody heard her, they would probably beat the shit out of her for BEING SO GODDAMN ANTI-AMERICAN.  war fucking sucks.  these assholes started it.  they will either be killed or give up being terrorists and fade into oblivion.  nobody gives a shit if lying assholes like traitor bitch make up bullshit lies about anybody purposely targeting a goddamn funeral.  what a lying bitch. 

PBS, NY Times, Guardian, THEY ALL SAY IT.

obama targeted funerals. And he targeted rescue workers.

Look it up and LEARN SOMETHING.

You too d2, learn to use google some time. 

Yet, you are wholly unable to link to any of them!

I see no links.

Could it be that you are a LIAR?

no, it couldn't.  NEXT!

Then that is a lie.

Provide LINKS. Answer the question. I can get this to the top everyday forever until you do!

www.google.com

There is a link. Bookmark it, lazies. I don't lle when I say they have it, so LEARN TO USE GOOGLE

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/afghanistan-pakistan/secret-war/new-study-asserts-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-target-rescuers-funerals/

PBS, lazies

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=0

NY TIMES

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan

GUARDIAN

And guardian also includes mention of it being prosecuted by amerika when other terrorists do it. So amerika considers it a crime yet does it too.

More links

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12

http://www.technewsdaily.com/15930-drone-count-double-tap.html


LEARN GOOGLE

Still waiting HO! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

anybody can find a lying source, darkflower.  idiot...you ever read any of the crap sources right wingers use to "prove" obama was born in kenya, idiot?  fuck you and your lying sources.  we have never targeted a known funeral procession.  ever. 

PBS, NY  Times, Guardian, all the rest, they are all liars? Everyone is just making it up?

So Darkflower believes terrorists will not attend funerals for fellow terrorists!

This is war and you must take every opportunity to kill you enemies even when they attend funerals!

if they said we targeted it on purpose, with a drone strike, then yeah, they are lying.  i do believe some pilots did attack a funeral or a wedding procession when they started shooting pistols in the air or something, but that was human error and the pilots made that decision, not anybody connected with the drone program.  we only target known terrorists with drones, dumbfuck.  which is perfectly legal, moral and righteous. 

No, drones target funerals and rescue workers. They do not "just" target "known" terrorists. Which would still be wrong anyway.

Has it ever crossed your mind they might be WRONG about their so called terrorists? One of them did nothing more than post a website. You call that being a "known" terrorist? And they go around the world to kill him and anybody around, and you call that legal and righteous?

You are so full of it.

You are a no nothing. Even when presented with links proving you are wrong, you dismiss them out of hand say they are lying for no reason than you dislike what they say.

That makes you a no nothing.

Has it ever occurred to you they might be right in calling them terrorists?

Why do you want the slaughter of the innocent to continue?

speaking of "know nothing," what does "no nothing" mean?  you hate our government more than you hate terrorists who kill muslims and americans for their own trumped up reasons, as if that ever got anything changed.  in fact, i am not sure you even hate terrorists, just american soldiers and the american government.  fuck you. 

d2 I am sure that in some cases they are right. Maybe quite a lot of cases. I am also sure that they are wrong some of the time because nobody is perfect. And I know for fact that many hundreds of times they have killed little children who obviously were not terrorists.

What to do to be more sure? That is the purpose of trials, to be sure.

Not going around wrecklessly throwing bombs, hoping to kill a criminal here or there.

And imagine if all the money wasted on the war on terrorism had been spent here to catch criminals. A lot of lives could be saved both here and overseas. Or imagine if that money had not been spent at all. The economy would be in much better shape.

I hate evil. Don't blame me for the government being evil. Blame obama, and yourself for being one of the sheeple supporting the evil.

And gee, I say terrorists are criminals ALL THE TIME. What part of calling them criminals do you think sounds like love?

I say obama is a criminal, you say I must just hate the government. I say terrorists are criminals, you say I like them.

You are so stupid it is amazing.

But yeah, you can spell know nothing. A spelling savant.

darkflower seems to think we should have just gone over to Germany and arrested Hitler instead of killing all those innocent Germans who were merely working for him.

When terrorist suspects are in places we can arrest them they have been arrested by the police and stood trial.  McVeigh, the shek who bombed the World Trade Center, the Fort Hood shooter, ...

But when they are outside an area where the police and military can operate safely then our president is authorized by Congress to do what he deems is needed to stop a threat to our people.

I agree that it is unfortunate that civilians get killed but I would much rather see the terrorist sympathizers killed than more of our soldiers.  And even if you sent soldiers in to arrest these terrorists there would be civilians in danger.  When our soldiers went in to get bin Laden there were 4 others killed in the raid that were not the targets - bin Laden's son, the courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti's brother, and a wife.

" stop a threat to our people"

Terrorists are not a threat to our people. They are criminals. Nothing more than that.

The government is a threat to our people. The terrorists are not.

And when it is too dangerous to arrest a criminal, the answer is to a) try harder, or b) let them go. The answer is not c) go bomb them.

You really think terrorists who are willing to commit suicide will submit to arrest?  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)

Silly you.

Terrorists are not a threat to our people.???

Even silliier you.

Hmm. A website owner is so dangerous they gotta bomb him. osama bin freaking laden? Meh, two or three choppers is a plenty.

Too dangerous to arrest? What a crock.

And this is worth repeating, a lot of the people they target are unknowns, they don't even know who they are killing many times. So spare me the "dangerous terrorist" bs. They don't know. They are at best just guessing. And that ain't good enough.

You want to kill terrorists? CONVICT THEM FIRST.

You think terrorists on the other side of the world are a bigger threat to you than some gang member a few blocks away? Silly you.

Terrorism has been so overblown it is unreal.

The real threat is not them, it is the government using the fear of them to get away with murder, torture, and trashing liberty. Open your eyes already.

Terrorists are nothing!

The government is the danger.

Terrorists are nothing!

Tell it to the folks in NY City and Boston.  Add in Lockerbie, London, Paris and 12 U.S. Embassies.

Ok, right after you tell the victims of all the other violent crimes that they are not as good as your terrorist victims.

And and this, the drone attacks CREATE terrorism in response. Like that Boston bombing, that was because of drones I think. Drones create a whole lot of terrorists.

And yet terrorists are still no big deal. Normal criminals are way more dangerous and a bigger threat.

You really want to defeat terrorism? Ignore it. That is how you defeat it. Going crazy over it does not defeat it, it is practically surrendering to terrorism, letting it destroy your values and overreact.

The police are arresting and looking for the people who committe violent crimes on a constant basis.

A couple of helicopters and dozens of men handled bin Laden.  They also killed 4 other people in the raid which weren't the targets.  Those people are just as dead as the ones that were killed by drones.

Police are looking, police are not going around bombing people. Not yet anyway.

And some estimates are that drones have a 2% target, 98% "collateral" kill rate. Way worse than in the bin laden example.

But the point is they CAN arrest anybody. The claim that it is too dangerous is total bullshit. And even if it is too dangerous, then JUST WALK AWAY. You don't HAVE to kill every suspect on the planet. And in fact are better off NOT killing them, way better off.

Killing them does not make you safer, it puts you in danger. And it is morally wrong. What purpose does it serve? It trades their lives, your security, to give the government power. obama is getting power at your expense, as well as the expense of the lives of all his victims that you appear to not care a bit about. He is putting you in danger, everyone in danger. And you defend him. You defend the guy who puts the whole country in danger of more terrorism, a danger you claim to care about. I don't, I say terrorism is no big deal. But you all are so hot about it, yet you support the guy putting you in danger of it. Why?

Boston bombing was partly obama's fault, some of the blame lies with him for the drone attacks that the bombers were reacting to. They are to blame for their own actions, but so is obama. It is his fault. And all of your fault for supporting him.

Wrong, it is not our response to terrorism that creates terrorism, Darkflower!

It is the fact we are not Muslim that creates terrorism!

If we did as you say and ignore terrorism while retreating from the rest of the world to fortress America, terrorist attacks against us will only increase!

These bastards are pure evil and the only solution is to destroy them completely!

Terrorism has skyrocketed as a result of the war on terrorism.

So um yes, your war is responsible for creating most of it. Some will always exist. And the best way to deal with that is not treat it as anything special, don't encourage it by giving it special treatment. The war on terrorism is special treatment.

If we did as I say, there would be less terrorism and we would be able to hold our heads high knowing that we live by our values, that our values are not mere propaganda but something that we hold dear and take seriously.

As it is now, those values are in the gutter, exposed as nothing more than pure bs.

so the Boston bombing was Obama's fault.  you are a true goofball darkflower.

how has terrorism skyrocketed?  you seem to be just making this shit up as you go along.

I never make anything up. I have seen the numbers. Have you?

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/features/GTD-Data-Rivers.aspx

Take a look.

You can view by region or country. It has exploded after plummeting in the 90's.

Much of it has been Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Total world wide has jumped from around 1000 to over 4000. That is 4x as much.

As long as it's not here.

There are plenty of reasons bombings and such have exploded in that region.  There is a leadership problem in the area and the different sects are fighting each other to establish who will rule.

Right. And it is just a coincidence it happened when the war on terrorism started?

Just like it is a coincidence the Boston bombers were angry about drones, and it was not really obama's fault at all?

  True, as if we did as you say all non-Muslims would be dead!

Obama handles the war in AfPak similar to the way LBJ handled Vietnam...  Nothing to brag about.

 Guaranteeing failure!

So the weak minded agree with caserio,


"Muslims attack us and kill us because we hate them."

That's the type of thinking that get Obama elected.


I see no proof fro HO that Bush murdered anyone. so he is a liar.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised

George  Bush, US President 17 March, 2003, Speech to the Nation


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

 

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons of mass destruction there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

 

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFOOQ8e5J3A
 

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

 

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.


Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then Eit remains a surprise to me now Ethat we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

--George W. Bush, on two mobile bio-labs found that were later found NOT to be mobile bio-labs.
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003


You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on

--George W. Bush, on two mobile bio-labs that were found that were later found NOT to be mobile bio-labs.
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCasualties_of_the_Iraq_War&ei=T2qoUanwHoe69gTUx4GoAw&usg=AFQjCNG4oMf9aLROHOxI0DE3BQZYtgL_gQ&bvm=bv.47244034,d.eWU)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War‎
Iraq Body Count project, 112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. .... of the Iraq war, as well as the human and economic cost of war in Afghanistan and ...

And Clinton said the same thing. Your point? Did you have better info at the time?

We didn't go in BECAUSE of WMDs, so it is a moot point. We went into Iraq in spite of the threat of WMDs.

We went for many other reasons and went after WMD as a first priority because we feared them being used on our troops during the invasion.

Now that is the 5th time I have given you a truthful history lesson and you are to stupid to learn!

Now PROVE Bush Murdered 100000 civilians?

The troops in the Iraq war were safer than being on the Chicago or Miami streets daily, or driving a car daily in the US .

go fuck yourself, dumbass.  did clinton invade and occupy?  did clinton lose any soldiers invading or occupying?  had blix been on the ground with complete access for the last 3 months FINDING NO TRACES before clinton said there was no doubt hussein had this shit?  and yes, the wmds were the MAJOR REASON BUSH SAID WE HAD TO INVADE, WE COULD NOT WAIT FOR THE UN TO NEGATE THE CEASE FIRE AND JOIN US, BECAUSE THE NEXT SMOKING GUN COULD BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD RISING OVER OUR CITIES...YOU GODDAMN PIECE OF SHIT LIAR...we know what the fuck bush said, bitch.  we know he ordered the invasion, bitch.  we know he lied, bitch.  and we know 100,000 iraqi civilians and 4500 american soldiers DIED BECAUSE OF BUSH'S LIES, ASSHOLE.  here is what bush said when he told the american people he was lying our soldiers into iraq, lying asshole-
March 18, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt(lie) that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised(lie). This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. (lie)

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security(lie, iraq was not a threat to our security). That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations - and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.(lie, there was nothing to disarm him of, bitch)

That was not a relevant answer. It was a groups of loaded nonsense questions in an attempt to overwhelm with Bullshit., an irrational rant.  Then you proceed to bad mouth your own made strawmen.

Try again when you aren't on drugs, that was a pitiful attempt at anything.

We didn't go in BECAUSE of WMDs, so it is a moot point. We went into Iraq in spite of the threat of WMDs.

so you admit you can't read...BECAUSE THERE ARE BUSH'S OWN WORDS ON THE DAY OF THE FUCKING LYING INVASION, DUMBFUCK...what the fuck is wrong with you?

No,  they were you words, I saw no link to Bush words that were pertinent to this post or your claims.

In his March 6, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council, Hans Blix reported that the declared stocks of anthrax and VX remained unaccounted for. In the last chance given to Iraq by Resolution 1441, Iraq had failed to provide answers. As Blix reported again in May 2003, "little progress was made in the solution of outstanding issues....the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."



In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the Security Council agreed on a new round of inspections, during which Saddam was to do finally what he had promised to do back in 1991 and ever since: make a clean breast of all his programs, answer all the unanswered questions about his admitted stockpiles of weapons, and fully disarm. Resolution 1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material."

Iraq did not comply with this demand within 30 days--or, for that matter, within 90.

Why do you think we went into Iraq boz?  You seem confused on history, but then your confused on a lot of things and just goofy wrong on most things.
 
 
 
 
 
My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
 
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
 
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
.
.
.
 
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
.
.
.
In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.
.
.
.
.
A transcript of George Bush's war ultimatum speech from the Cross Hall in the White House
 
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq)
 
 
 
 

I think we went into get Saddam, deter Iran and Iraqs threats on Israel. To Secure the oil field from action similar to what Saddam did in Kuwait. Bring democracy to the region. Halt another potential nuke power in the region, Saddams real goal. A lot of good, IMHO. As a result we have had how many free elections? Are the oil field secure? Is the Threat to Israel reduced? Did we find WMds, no, That's good, it saved our troops lives, That does not mean they were not there. Nor does it make it the real reason we went into Iraq.

You think?  Is this another of the feelings you get despite what was actually said?
 
you are truely a dumb shit aren't you?

Liberals have forgotten that Saddam's Iraq was a generous supporter of terrorism offering multimillion dollar rewards to terrorists who kill Israelis and/or Americans!

Saddam's Iraq was a member of the arsenal of terror and under the war on terror was a legitimate target for military action!

Yes they forget a lot in order to maintain their HATE.

You asked me what I thought was the reason wvit, then condemn the idea that it is what I think?

MY GOD WTF is your problem. Irrational hate and vengeance for the drubbing you are taking making you blind.

Blood is coming out of their eyes folks.You want the links to each point, I can produce them shithead. You can't prove Bush lied, get off your arrogant fking high horse loser.

my problem is that you are so full of shit.  you low intelligence goofs are the foundation of the teabagging old republinut farts who are dragging our country down.

multimillion dollar rewards to terrorists...(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Insulting me means nothing, except you lose wvit. If your problem is me, get the hell out of the post and stop asking me questions. Sounds like your problem, not mine.


You make even less sense when livid you know.

 
Yes Oz, . Why don't you know that?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=saddam+reward+for+terrorist+killing+americans

Ignorance is what liberals are best at!

Intentional ignorance is an art form with them it appears.

you low intelligence goofs are the foundation of the teabagging old republinut farts who are dragging our country down.

 Yeah, self reliance and hard work are bringing the country down!

ROFLMAO at the contradiction.

I think he is in mental jackoff mode with wild delusional accusations as if it is reality,and will explode any second.

HO, we are still waiting on that terrorist killed data among those Civilians you claimed were murdered by Bush/

HO, we are still waiting on that terrorist killed data among those Civilians you claimed were murdered by Bush/
 
Already gave them to you 6 times....(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

boz barely knows what's real and what in her mind.  you think she can keep up with what you've said Oz?

ROFLMAO, in your dreams oz.

But your inability to be anything but delusional is understandable

let me ask again.. How many of those claimed 100000 Civilians, that HO said Bush Murdered, were in fact casualties of the terrorists or terrorists themselves? Where is your proof that Bush murdered anyone as HO claims.

Stop lying to yourself wvit. Makes you look the fool to everyone else with that nonsense. 

yeah dropping all those bombs and cruise missles didn't hurt anyone.

here's plenty of information for you boz along with links to various war related deaths estimates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

I already made it clear that wiki will take al Qaeda version of casualties as real and print them as verified. That is not an accurate source given the political force civilian deaths play in the press. I will not accept WIKI neither will colleges.

There is no frigging way you can separate the terrorist killed from those numbers, so your claims are bogus as you are..

And if you took half a sec to look at that piece you will see that the count for what I asked is not there.

Nice try at BS.

boz you do know that there are all kinds of links in that article on wiki don't you?  do you ever read anything or do you just make shit up from the feelings you claim to have?

Yes I did, and I followed them to numbers that did not answer the question.

You POS Democrats want to accuse Bush for the murder of civilians and no credit for killing one terrorist all in the same breath, by posting some total figure that just means little out of context. All base on some conspiracy theory that Bush lied.

You are sick in the head Anti American communists.

In October 1998, the U.S. began to shift from containment towards “regime change,” with President Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act".
 
Amy Goodman:
... many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.... the U.N. sanctions, for example ... led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.
 
Governor Richardson:
 
Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy.
 

Amy Goodman:
 
To ask a question that was asked of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright, do you think the price was worth it, 500,000 children dead?
 
Governor Richardson: 

Well, I believe our policy was correct, yes
 
 
http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions (http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions)
   
 
 

wvit looks so manic depressive, don't you think?

Still no civilians number that were killed by terrorists or terrorist killed by Bush that were in civilian clothes.

Make their claim that Bush Murdered 100000 or anyone very dubious, if not an outright lie.

boz you just make yourself look more and more goofy with each post.  you're actually not very bright are you?

Tell someone that believes you asshole;



Who did the killing?

• 37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. Mostly terrorists.

At the time Bush term ended, the full count was at max 74,000 on estimates.

You do the math and I will call you both God damned LIARS for claiming 100000 civilians murdered by Bush.

And I will call wvit mentally lame for his off the wall accusations and lies to himself.

So the three troll ran and hid from the truth, fortunately we can bring this to the top to remind them over and over that they are lying Foul Communist trolls.

Whats the Matter you GD lying communists. Can't come back and admit the truth.

What low life scum suckers.

Jim,

At what point do you put a post to bed?

When the scum suckers admit they lie.  Just because they ran away cursing and swearing does not mean the post is over or they proved anything. They certainly did not prove Bush murdered 100000 civilians AS THEY CLAIM ROUTINELY .

Shove a couple of these ongoing posts up their ass to actually prove them out will stop posts just like this one from wvit , that is nothing but a HATE post filled with lies and false accusations by him.

Everyone agrees that over 100,000 civilians died in the war, some claim as many as 1,000,000. And every single one of them is due to bush starting the war, their blood of all the dead is on his hands for his starting that evil war of aggression, a war for which he should be arrested and tried in an international tribunal. Starting wars is the worst crime in the world. Those guilty of that crime should be be charged and punished severely for that evil and despicable crime, the worst crime there is.

Tell someone that believes you, asshole. Not a shred of truth to that rant. That's like claiming nobody would have died on US highways if Bush had not been president. That is Sheer desperation.



Who did the killing?

    37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. Mostly terrorists.

At the time Bush term ended, the full count was at max 74,000 on estimates.

You do the math and I will call you both God damned LIARS for claiming 100000 civilians murdered by Bush.

And I will call wvit mentally lame for his off the wall accusations and lies to himself.

If Saddam had stayed in power he would have killed 4 times that many Iraqi civilians.


My statement is just as valid and true as your claim that none would have died if Bush had not invaded.

Bush lied and many died

 You can't prove it, STFU.

It is against our laws and international laws of war for American soldiers to murder civilians.

If all this murdering of civilians by our military occurred, where are the international court cases. Where are OUR military court cases?

HO  and turds like you continue to claim they were MURDERED, you are either LIARS or pressing an UNAmerican Agenda.

No WMD's were found and there was no Saddam - 911 connection....just lies to start a War

That is all conspiracy theory and has been covered extensively in this post. READ IT ASSHOLE>

SUMMARY FOR STUPID PEOPLE


Just because none were found does not mean they were never there. No one claimed a 911 connection but DEMOCRATS.

We did not go into IRAQ FOR WMDS ,,WE WENT IN INSPITE OF THE THREAT OF WMDs.

To top it off, you have to make up your own definition outside the Legal court system to claim no WMDs were  found.

Since the court consider C4 to be defined as a WMD in US court cases.

You have no proof of intent, you have dis-proven talking points and the inability to learn.

Moniell supported the ongoing murder of Iraqis by Saddam and preferred we stayed away to let them be killed that way instead.

I say you  have WMDs so now you have to prove it!!

Bill Clinton told me!  Who told you that the only reason we went into Iraq was over WMDs?


  He told me about saddams danger and his WMD program a number of years ago , then he attacked Kosovo. Remember?


Proof enough! Or are you calling Bill Clinton an intentional LIAR also.

 
If you say I have WMDs, why do I need to prove it , you already said I have them???

Drugs getting in the way?

You have to prove you have them?

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
   
The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

But after extensive interviews with Hussein and his key lieutenants, Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons, but wanted them to enhance his image in the Middle East and to deter Iran, against which Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war. Hussein believed that "WMD helped save the regime multiple times," the report said.

The team also found no evidence of stocks of the smallpox virus, which the administration had claimed it had.

Chemical Weapons

Duelfer's report said that no chemical weapons existed and that there is no evidence of attempts to make such weapons over the past 12 years. Iraq retained dual-use equipment that could be used for such an effort.

"The issue is that he has chemical weapons, and he's used them," Cheney told CNN in March 2002. The National Intelligence Estimate said that "although we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile, Saddam probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents -- much of it added in the last year."

One of the reasons the intelligence community feared a chemical weapons arsenal was that U.N. inspectors said Iraq had not fully explained missing chemical agents during the 1990s. The report determined that unanswered questions were almost certainly the result of poor accounting.

Iraq's responses to U.N. inspectors regarding chemical weapons appear to have been truthful, and where incomplete, with differing recollections among former top officials, mostly the result of fading memories of when or how stockpiles were destroyed. Those were the identical reasons Iraq offered to U.N. inspectors before the war.

After 17 months of investigation, the U.S. team was able to find only 30 of 130 scientists identified with Iraq's pre-1991 chemical weapons programs. "None of those interviewed had any knowledge of chemical weapons programs" or knew of anyone involved in such work, according to the report. There was one exception, the reported noted, from a scientist who maintained he was asked to make a chemical agent, but that story was uncorroborated and there was no follow-up.

At the same time, the missile that U.S. military planners had most feared in the run-up to the invasion appears to have vanished. While Bush administration officials had asserted that Hussein had hidden a small arsenal of Scud missiles, Duelfer said interviews and documents suggest Iraq "did not retain such missiles after 1991."

"There was a risk -- a real risk -- that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said. "In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

Supporters rallied around the administration, which has suffered a string of setbacks recently with revelations that the CIA had warned the White House about the strength of Iraqi insurgents, and from former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer, who said this week that the United States should have put more troops in Iraq during the invasion.

Duelfer's report contradicted a number of specific claims administration officials made before the war.

It found, for example, that Iraq's "crash" program in 1991 to build a nuclear weapon before the Persian Gulf War was far from successful, and was nowhere near being months away from producing a weapon, as the administration asserted. Only micrograms of enriched uranium were produced and no weapon design was completed. The CIA and administration officials have said they were surprised by the advanced state of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear program, which was discovered after the war, and therefore were more prone to overestimate Iraq's capability when solid proof was unavailable.

There also was no evidence that Iraq possessed or was developing a mobile biological weapons production system, an assertion Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others made before the invasion. The two trailers that were found in early 2003 were "almost certainly designed and built . . . exclusively for the generation of hydrogen" gas.

Duelfer also found no information to support allegations that Iraq sought uranium from Africa or any other country after 1991, as Bush once asserted in a major speech before the invasion. The only two contacts with Niger that were discovered were an invitation to the president of Niger to visit Baghdad, and a visit to Baghdad by a Niger minister in 2001 seeking petroleum products for cash. There was one offer to Iraq of "yellowcake" uranium, and that was from a Ugandan businessman offering uranium from Congo. The deal was turned down, and the Ugandan was told that Baghdad was not interested because of the sanctions.

Nuclear Weapons

Despite the U.S. intelligence judgment that Iraq in 2002 had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, Duelfer reported that after 1991, Baghdad's nuclear program had "progressively decayed." He added that the Iraq Survey Group investigators had found no evidence "to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."

There was an attempt to keep nuclear scientists together and two scientists were discovered to have saved documents and technology related to the uranium enrichment program, but they appeared to be the exception.

Although some steps were taken that could have helped restart the nuclear program, using oil-for-food money, Duelfer concluded that his team "uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapons research and development activities since 1991."

Biological Weapons

Duelfer's report is the first U.S. intelligence assessment to state flatly that Iraq had secretly destroyed its biological and chemical weapons stocks in the early 1990s. By 1995, though, and under U.N. pressure, it abandoned its efforts.

The document rules out the possibility that biological or chemical weapons might have been hidden, or perhaps smuggled into another country, and it finds no evidence of secret biological laboratories or ongoing research that could be firmly linked to a weapons program.

Because you claim I have them? What kind of backward thinking is that.

Why don't you claim I have the Clap, that's just as stupid.

Why don't you claim I'm a millionaire. ROFLMAO

Very nice HO, it don't mean shit when you claim is Bush MURDERED 100000 civilians in Iraq.

It does not prove Bush lied or had the Intent to lie. It does not prove that WMDs were the only reason we went into Iraq. It is a small part of the entire picture that you refuse to acknowledged out of shear hate.

Your charges are criminal in nature. Where is your investigation or arrests. You have nothing but blind hate for a good man with honorable intents who did good things for Iraq and the ME.

Saddam would have MURDERED far More given the Mass grave sites found upon invasion.

Did I miss your response, you have plenty of time for other posts. HO

why do i have to keep posting the same facts over and over?  do you wake up to a new world every day?  you have no short term memory.  you have no long term memory.  you forget stuff before it even happens.  i cannot just keep hitting you up with the same facts over and over.  i could, but i just don't care anymore.  you would just say the same dumbass shit the next day about how bush never lied....you are on your own.

Because none of it is the answer to prove your lie that Bush MURDERED 100000 civilian in Iraq.

None of what you posted backs it up. It is all about YOUR OPINION ABOUT WMDs, how they are defined in your little word to make the lie fit, your Opinion on Bushs intent and your conspiracy theories prove nada.  Nothing about all the reasons we went into Iraq. They are ignored by you as inconvenient

You harp on WMDs like Clinton said nothing, and Clinton's CIA director was not also Bushs CIA director.

You lie and compound it with bullshit distraction, opinion and foul accusations.

 Now Prove Bush Lied, given the courts definition of WMDs and that he had intent to lie. Those 100000 dead civilians were killed by terrorists, they died with them in civilian clothes. I claim that all 100000 killed were terrorists. You being a arab hate that fact.

no, it is nothing like that.  bush clearly lied.  there is no other conclusion even right wingers can come to.  that is a given.  so, any orders to invade this no-threat, almost defenseless country halfway around the world are automatically immoral and illegal.  so any deaths that occur during this illegal and immoral invasion and occupation can be called murder, because they are the direct result of a lying and immoral decision to invade made by bush.  it is that simple.  it is the same charge that hussein was charged with and finally hung to death by shias in iraq after he was captured.  that he gave illegal orders to his soldiers to use chemical weapons to kill 70 kurds in some town that was revolting against his regime.  same thing for milosevic. bush put all those small time war criminals to shame just by the sheer numbers who died because of his lies. 

  bush clearly lied.  there is no other conclusion even right wingers can come to

 Then he committed a prosecutable criminal act.  Since you only have things that need a conclusion drawn, you have nothing but circumstantial evidence that is inadmissible anywhere. Take your supposed proof to the Attorney General for prosecution. We are tired of fking hearing it because it is a LIE.

 Strange that the Democrats when they had the Majority in Both houses did not even have a hearing on your charges and continue to vote in favor of funding over and over.

Where is your investigation , charges and trial?

No, HO, you have nothing but hate , lies about our brave heroes, a protective defense of the enemy, and an undeserved superior attitude for someone that can't write a sentence.

You now what is funny, when we went into Iraq, trolls like HOs only rant was we were going in to steal the oil. When that did not pan out they changed stories, to bash Bush. The only thing they had left was WMDs, the last straw to grasp. But they still got nothing. The man is free and living in Texas doing the good life, and shit like HO is crying daily, stuck on stupid spreading opinion that are made up lies.


Who got the better deal. GET A LIFE HO>