Nic Berg Beheading

[shercolt]

beheading

On April 12, 5 days before D-Day, Kennedy stated: " I want to say that there will not be, under any conditions, an intervention in Cuba by the U.S. armed forces. The basic issue in Cuba is not one between the U.S. and Cuba. It is between the Cubans themselves."
Kennedy lied. Bay of pigs failed for several reasons, one of which was an underestimate of Castro's military organization and resistance.

Again, with the "deliberate " lies. I have already addressed that point, besides when is a lie not "deliberate ?" Ex: The pictures that the administration showed, via Powell, of "mobile biological labs" turned out to be false. Either there was a lot of lying going on; the Bush administration is full of idiots who do not check their sources; or, the Bush people underestimate the intelligence of the American public. Perhaps all three.

What is this implication about Clinton being found guilty " He, nor Hillary, were charged with any crime in the White Water deal, or any other. If the former case was dependent on McDougle, yet shattered by a "rift" in the investigation, they must have had little or no evidence to begin with. Again, the only thing Clinton was found to be guilty of was lying about his afffair with Monica. What else was Clinton and Hillary charged with and found to be guilty of ?

Finally, your last point demonstrates the Bush administration's deception. Don''t you see why people are so pissed off with Bush et al. ? We, and the world, were all told he was a threat and they had all this evidence. Now, no evidence. So, Bush et al. now say, it is about freeing 20 million people from a brutal dictator. They accuse Kerry of flip flopping. They should look at themselves.

You said Kennedy lied about the bay of pigs. What did he lie about?Also it could be argued that it failed because he pulled the air support.

There was also other evidence such as the beak in and memos ect. My point is if you believe that Bush deliberately lied to go into Iraq at least provide some credible circumstantial evidence.

That almost sounds like a direct quote from Bill's interview last night. Clinton was not found "not guilty" in any of what you mentioned exept for the Vince Foster issue. Most of it there was insuficent evidence. The white water case for example evaperated when jim McDougle was thrown in solitary confinement in prison with out his heart medicine and died. There was a rift in the investigation. Some people felt they had enough to prosecute both Bill and Hillary some didn't. The notion that he was found not guilty is false.

We went into Iraq because the administration believe that they were a threat to us. That is why we went in. He didn't stand up at the state of the union and say lets give the Iraqi people freedom. However, now the reason for going in to Iraq isn't mentioned very much and it's about freedom.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Again, with the "deliberate " lies. I have already addressed that point, besides when is a lie not "deliberate ?" Ex: The pictures that the administration showed, via Powell, of "mobile biological labs" turned out to be false. Either there was a lot of lying going on; the Bush administration is full of idiots who do not check their sources; or, the Bush people underestimate the intelligence of the American public. Perhaps all three.

There were several reports of convoys of trucks headed toward Syria. I really hope that there were no mobile labs/WMDs, as opposed to there are WMDs that moved to Syria but the administration took too much heat from going into Iraq so they can't or won't do anything about it. All the evidence so far shows that the administration made the decision to go to war on bad intelligence.There is also the motive problem. Why would the president lie to go into Iraq?

What is this implication about Clinton being found guilty " He, nor Hillary, were charged with any crime in the White Water deal, or any other. If the former case was dependent on McDougle, yet shattered by a "rift" in the investigation, they must have had little or no evidence to begin with. Again, the only thing Clinton was found to be guilty of was lying about his afffair with Monica. What else was Clinton and Hillary charged with and found to be guilty of ?

My point was you said that Clinton was found not guilty on a list of charges which wasn't true. There was evidence in all of them. They convicted over ten people in white water. My opinion is that they handled the case very badly. For example, they didn't question/ lean on people they convicted or make a big deal about how Jim McDougal died which would have been the equivalent if dean died before testifying against Nixon. Not that they would have cooperated as people who become a liability to the Clintons have a habit of committing suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head. Clinton was the first president to be impeached because of perjury, subornation of perjury and abuse of power.

Finally, your last point demonstrates the Bush administration's deception. Don''t you see why people are so pissed off with Bush et al. ? We, and the world, were all told he was a threat and they had all this evidence. Now, no evidence. So, Bush et al. now say, it is about freeing 20 million people from a brutal dictator. They accuse Kerry of flip flopping. They should look at themselves.

Allot of people hated and were pissed at Bush before he made it to office. They believe he stole the election. The bait and switch does bother me but it still doesn't prove or offer any circumstantial evidence that he lied.

 

[shercolt]

Korean beheading

If there were indeed WMD moving from Iraq to Syria, the Bush administration would not hesitate for one second demanding Syria to turn them over or else. Bush et al, are so desperate for "proof" they would do anything to show that they did not lie. As far as "heat" the administration is still taking it, if not more ! Why lie to go into Iraq ? The longstanding desire to create an oil pipeline through Afganistan and Iraq. The US needs to control such a pipeline to guaranty our supply and control of oil / gas. This proposed pipeline has been talked about for over 30 years in the oil and gas business. This is the reason why during the 1960s, powerfull oil men in Houston flew key Taliban leaders to Houston, put them up in a mansion in River Oaks, entertained them, then jetted them down to Rio for more fun.
Skip this next paragraph.

There were several reports of convoys of trucks headed toward Syria. I really hope that there were no mobile labs/WMDs, as opposed to there are WMDs that moved to Syria but the administration took too much heat from going into Iraq so they can't or won't do anything about it. All the evidence so far shows that the administration made the decision to go to war on bad intelligence.There is also the motive problem. Why would the president lie to go into Iraq?

Again, Clinton was not found guilty except for lying about Monica Lewinsky (i.e., perjury). You say there "was evidence in all of them." " They convicted over ten people" Then you go on to state your opinion about what should have been done, and what might have happened. I do not follow your logic when you speak of Jim McDougal and then refer to people commiting suicide. Ken Star imprisoned Susan McDougal for 18 months because she refused to state (lie) what Ken Star had wanted her to say about the Clintons. You need to separate your opinions from the facts of the case.

Bush was the first president to be "appointed" president by the Supreme court, regardless of him possibly stealing the election, or people's dislike of him to begin with.

All of the points people have made about Bush's use of poor intelligence after being told it was poor is circumstantial evidence. It is one person's word against another. It is bits and pieces that, when added up, present a circumstantial picture of Bush's questionable behavior. If the paper trail was ever to be found, then circumstantial becomes real. I feel that I have labored over this issue of circumstantial evidence long enough. Lets look at the consequences of Bush's actions: The U.S. is in deep **** and will be for a very long time.
____________________________________________________________________

My point was you said that Clinton was found not guilty on a list of charges which wasn't true. There was evidence in all of them. They convicted over ten people in white water. My opinion is that they handled the case very badly. For example, they didn't question/ lean on people they convicted or make a big deal about how Jim McDougal died which would have been the equivalent if dean died before testifying against Nixon. Not that they would have cooperated as people who become a liability to the Clintons have a habit of committing suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head. Clinton was the first president to be impeached because of perjury, subornation of perjury and abuse of power.

Allot of people hated and were pissed at Bush before he made it to office. They believe he stole the election. The bait and switch does bother me but it still doesn't prove or offer any circumstantial evidence that he lied.

 

[shercolt]

Korean beheading

Sorry, VG, but my response got mixed into your previous message
[
QUOTE=shercolt]If there were indeed WMD moving from Iraq to Syria, the Bush administration would not hesitate for one second demanding Syria to turn them over or else. Bush et al, are so desperate for "proof" they would do anything to show that they did not lie. As far as "heat" the administration is still taking it, if not more ! Why lie to go into Iraq ? The longstanding desire to create an oil pipeline through Afganistan and Iraq. The US needs to control such a pipeline to guaranty our supply and control of oil / gas. This proposed pipeline has been talked about for over 30 years in the oil and gas business. This is the reason why during the 1960s, powerfull oil men in Houston flew key Taliban leaders to Houston, put them up in a mansion in River Oaks, entertained them, then jetted them down to Rio for more fun.
Skip this next paragraph.[/QUOTE]

 

[VanillaGorilla]

If there were indeed WMD moving from Iraq to Syria, the Bush administration would not hesitate for one second demanding Syria to turn them over or else. Bush et al, are so desperate for "proof" they would do anything to show that they did not lie. As far as "heat" the administration is still taking it, if not more !

1. Our troops are spread too thin and we couldn't invade them anyway.
2. If we occupied Iraq, Afghanistan,and Syria, the case would be made that we are planning to invade the whole middle East and more talk of US imperialism.
3. Europe is all ready upset about us going into Iraq. They would go nuts about Syria.
4. The election is coming up.

 

[shercolt]

Syria

1) put politcal pressure on Syria; don't have to invade.
2) would not have to occupy Syria. If we saw the trucks move, I am sure we have satellite photos of where they are. If Syria doesn't turn them over, we would bomb the trucks where they were hidden.
3) Bush et al. did not care about the "old Europe" when he went into Iraq. Why would he now.
4) My answer to this would start another long series of debates.

1. Our troops are spread too thin and we couldn't invade them anyway.
2. If we occupied Iraq, Afghanistan,and Syria, the case would be made that we are planning to invade the whole middle East and more talk of US imperialism.
3. Europe is all ready upset about us going into Iraq. They would go nuts about Syria.
4. The election is coming up.

 

[BigVrunga]

Not to break tangent here, but...
As you guys already know those fu*ks beheaded the South Korean prisoner today. These crazy zealot bastards really need to get wiped off the face of the planet one way or another. Its unfortunate but necessary that the US and its supporters have to take the long way around to get the job done.

BV

 

[shercolt]

S.Korean beheading

Those people are savages and need to be dealt with, with extreme prejudice. I have a feeling that our government has engaged the services of special mercenaries to deal with these people.

Not to break tangent here, but...
As you guys already know those fu*ks beheaded the South Korean prisoner today. These crazy zealot bastards really need to get wiped off the face of the planet one way or another. Its unfortunate but necessary that the US and its supporters have to take the long way around to get the job done.

BV

 

[BigVrunga]

Those people are savages and need to be dealt with, with extreme prejudice. I have a feeling that our government has engaged the services of special mercenaries to deal with these people.

Personally, I would like to see them boiled alive on national TV - but then we'd be stooping down to their level, I guess. They do need slow and painful deaths, however. I hope that is what they recieve.

BV

 

[shercolt]

I have thought about this before. I think the U.S. should build prisons close to the North Pole and place these terrorists there. Putting them in prisons in Iraq or Cuba is like placing them under conditions similar to what they have experienced in life. Let them freeze in a place where there is no night, and nothing but white snow and ice.

Personally, I would like to see them boiled alive on national TV - but then we'd be stooping down to their level, I guess. They do need slow and painful deaths, however. I hope that is what they recieve.

BV

 

[VanillaGorilla]

1) put politcal pressure on Syria; don't have to invade.
2) would not have to occupy Syria. If we saw the trucks move, I am sure we have satellite photos of where they are. If Syria doesn't turn them over, we would bomb the trucks where they were hidden.
3) Bush et al. did not care about the "old Europe" when he went into Iraq. Why would he now.
4) My answer to this would start another long series of debates.

He would care now because he had much more support in this country when we first invaded Iraq. That support has now waned considerably to the point of possible costing him the election if we went somewhere else.

 

[shercolt]

election

My greatest fear is that the November election has already been determined. The powers that put Bush in the White House are not going to let him leave mid-way after only 4 years. My concern is over the electronic ( "touch") voting machines. They have already been shown to be highly susceptible to being hacked into. The company (i.e., "Dibold ") that made these new machines is owned by a very wealthy Republican. There is no paper copy of one's voting.

After the billions of dollars that have been spent to invade Iraq and Afganistan, and after the "Patriot Act" has taken away many of our personal freedoms, the forces behind all of this are not going to let John Kerry, or for that matter anyone, take control from them. They have just began to change our way of life for what they deem to be " the better." Check your PM

He would care now because he had much more support in this country when we first invaded Iraq. That support has now waned considerably to the point of possible costing him the election if we went somewhere else.