K.O.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/7A_2m7Rodik[/FLASH]
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/7A_2m7Rodik[/FLASH]
Keith Olbermann lays waste to President Bush
- Thread starter kewlphucker
- Start date
Damn, Olbermann eithered bush. LOL.
but most of his points aren't legitimate...
^^^^^^^^Thissssssssssssssssss MF
actinanass said:
Detail what you mean by this, sir!!?? (in the snarky tone Keith uses)
The premise is that Bush keeps changing the reasons for being in Iraq and the reasons for the changing tactics (the surge being the latest). One side of his mouth tells the U.S. citizenry what they wanna hear (drawdown troops) while the other side talks of the war being carried on by the next Republican presidential candidate. I saw the statement last night and the Bush lies are quite evident.
Vagina Feaster
Banned
I'm sure you meant "ethered".Mr.Bizkits said:
I do agree, though, that Keith just told the truth about Bush. Bush shouldn't be "playing" with anything when people are losing their lives over his war. The author of the book Dead Serious will be on his show today (9/5/07).
actinanass said:
Act, quit playing the role...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3XjHS6yUdio"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3XjHS6yUdio" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
actinanass said:
If you feel this way the same post is over at the main forum post that same quote .
actinanass said:
By saying that most of his points aren't legitimate you mean the majority of them right? Which ones? It's hard for me to see through you vagueness.
P.S. To everybody else trust me I don't need any help from anybody.
olberman makes some points, but the problem w/ all of this is it doesnt get heard , bush is gonna continue his plan of whatever in iraq and people are gonna have to face the fact that this guy is head strong on what he's gonna do. i appreciate olbermann, jon stewart and people of that nature but the mainstream media is not doing the job, so the american people are gonna look at people like stewart and olbermann and assuming he's talkin out of his ass.....when in fact they are the ones really bringing the news 2 you. If ya'll pay attention fox has their own agenda, cnn has their own, they determine what's news and not news. just like we got a war goin on and they more worried about paris hilton or michael vick did....it's sad.
Detail what you mean by this, sir!!?? (in the snarky tone Keith uses)
The premise is that Bush keeps changing the reasons for being in Iraq and the reasons for the changing tactics (the surge being the latest). One side of his mouth tells the U.S. citizenry what they wanna hear (drawdown troops) while the other side talks of the war being carried on by the next Republican presidential candidate. I saw the statement last night and the Bush lies are quite evident.
First, he *President Bush* hasn't change the initial reason why we are in Iraq. From day one, the main reason we were going into Iraq is because Saddam was a major threat at that particular time. When it was known that Saddam relocated the wmd's to Syria *something the media don't cover" it was known that the best thing to do is to sway Iraq into being a peaceful nation.
Secondly, be careful who you call a LIAR because the party that speaks just like Olbermann, and the party that most of Olbermann's bosses are a part of, lies more than a sports agent. Don't believe me......here's proof...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Finally, before you make yourself look like a complete idiot, study what Bill Clinton did during his terms, and see all the bs he let pass by.
*edits* back on Olbermann.
for ONE, Olbermann do not have any solutions once we our soldiers come home, and Iran takes over Iraq. What would anyone do if that happens? Please don't play this "how you know that's going to happen, bs". If this situation is SOOOOOOOOOO much like Vietnam, wouldn't it make sense for our enemy "back then the communist, right now radical Islam" to take over an unstable Iraq?
Secondly, Vietnam was escalated by DEMOCRATS. In fact, most of the wars our nation has been in were fought by Presidents who happens to be Democrats. Whats my point? In that whole rant, Olbermann never speak the words of VICTORY. Do you know why? Victory with Bush is defeat to everyone Olbermann supports. The media do not want Bush to have a victory.
Third of all, Liberals tend to think that everything is about politics. Reason being, Liberals are all about control. The crazy thing about it, if Olbermann, or anyone on MSNBC had any sense, they should be hoping if Bush succeeds in Iraq. Yet, they want to play on the American people's emotions *knowing that most of the American public will not pay FULL attention to whats going on* to stir up some controversy.
Finally, to me, I don't respect Olbermann because he seems like a pussy to me. I believe in winning, not griping. I want to see results in this war, and I feel like the results are coming slow because of politics. The best advice I give everyone is to STFU about when the troops come home, get behind our military, and have the patience OUR enemies have. I have all the patience in the world, and IF I was called to fight I would. Remember..this scene
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nA93yV9StN4
Last edited:
I won't sit here and say you're all the way lost, but you are lost as with many persons on this board. What you say about Bill Clinton is true. Bill Clinton was far from a good president... he just had style which sad to say, black folk loved and were blinded by. But where I see you are very lost at is within the ongoing institutional web of deceit. Instead of lecturing I will just pose the following questions:
1. Do you honestly believe the U.S. or it's allies (Israel & the Saudi Royalty) were threatened by Saddam Hussein? Please understand that Iraq couldn't even as much as lift a plane off the ground and the 'legit' inspectors said they were clean. And sorry, any informed person knows that no weapons were taken to Syria.
2. Why are you threatened by Syria, Iran, and to throw out another Hezbollah?? If you ever read from various sources, or even listen threw the scare tactics and just to the actual statements being made by both the US/Israel and Syria/Iran/Hezbollah, you will notice it is THEM that need to feel threatened. They have not done anything to the US/Israel but RESPOND to CIA and Mossad (the Israeli Intelligence Agency) attacks. You don't think it wild that in todays world, just a country defending itself from the US/Israel deems them a Terrorist State?
3. Lastly, a simple one. Do you think OIL has anything to do with the US interest in the Middle East??
For everyone, everything you read and hear is not just black and white... there are many shades of grey. The title of republican, democrat, liberal, or conservative mean nothing. They are just tools to divide everyone into a departmentalized form of thinking. Think outside of these 'boxes'.
well answer this question. During the 30's, were the Nazi's a true threat before 1939? Should we sit back and let Iran, Syria, and before the war Iraq get stronger because we focus ALL of our resources in Tora Bora? In all sense, we have outflanked Al Queda by going into Iraq. We put Al Queda in a situation that would, more than likely, put them in a P.R. hell in the long run. If Iraq becomes what Bush wants it to be, Al Queda will have a main enemy in their region. We become obsolete because whats more offensive to Al Queda, a country thats in their region that believes in freedom like the west? In the terrorist eyes, you are either for our beliefs or against it. If Iraq seems like they are against it, there will be more wars amongst the Middle East. If they are divided, we are safe. Now do you get it?
The No. 1 reason given for the invasion was, <font size="4">WMD</font size>. It was only AFTER that didn't pan out that the reason SHIFTED to other peripheral reasons. There is NO WAY Congress would have authorized the invasion, but for the WMD hype.actinanass said:
Al Qaeda WAS NOT in Iraq, before the invasion. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were diametrically opposed. Al Qaeda only entered the picture in Iraq AFTER the invasion.actinanass said:
Insinuating that we invited Al Qaeda to Iraq is, well, asinine. Bush was hoping beyond hope that an insurgency didn't start up. Unfortunately, it did and it turned out not just some sectors wanting to oust the U.S. from Iraqi soil but a sectarain conflict between Shia and Sunni emerged. Al Qaeda entered Iraq during the chaos that ensued with the insurgency/sectarian conflict. The U.S. had enough headaches with the insurgency, it damn sure didn't want more by inviting Al Qaeda to the fray (though in a sense, it could be said that we invited Al Qaeda, by invading Iraq with no real plan to get shit under control and keeping it under control; but that invitation was by poor planning and mistakes - - not by design).
QueEx
Que, you know every time you bring up the "Terrorist was not in Iraq before the invasion" argument, I'm going to bring up what Al Gore said in 1992. You really need to end that argument because I'll shoot it down every time.
On your first point, I said that Saddam post the BIGGEST threat in the middle east. Both parties agreed on this back in 1998 during Clinton. So why is it bad when Bush act on it? Is it because no one really likes Bush, so anything he does is a BAD IDEA? Face it everyone, the opponents of this war do not really care about the war itself. They really want Bush to fail for political, and ideology gain. Its actually sad because we probably could of been out of Iraq by now if EVERYONE was united for this mission.
Brother, I don't give a fuck WHAT Al Gore said or didn't say.
Al Gore doesn't determine a damn thing; hence, whatever he said it was just HIS opinion, which may or may not have been contrary to the FACTS.
Now, if you can show us how Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion, you need to get about doing that and stop yapping. Show us the evidence!
It must be hard for you to discuss an issue without Bush-Gore or Republicans-Democrats.actinanass said:
Anyway, damn near everyone would agree that Saddam was a sombitch. But, according to our policy since the events of the 70's with Allende, etc., the OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE U.S. was NOT TO TAKE OUT DICTATORS BY ASSASSINATIONS OR OTHER KILLINGS. Create unrest and get him unelected or one of his countrymen shoot his ass, but the U.S.'s policy was against us DIRECTLY killing the sombitch.
Therefore, not only was it against long policy for us to take Saddam out; there was a serious, serious question whether Saddam had done anything to the U.S. which justified us removing him by way of an assassination attempt (remember we tried to kill his ass by smart-guided weapons just before the invasion) or by invading Iraq. Saddam was Iraq's problem.
In some circles in the Middle East and South Asia, Muslims probably feel Bush needs to be assassinated or taken out. Maybe thats why policymakers came up with the idea that we should stop engaging in political assassinations - what goes around can come around (i.e., John F. Kennedy ???).
Get real. The political debate in the U.S. over the war in Iraq has NOT STOPPED U.S. forces in Iraq from doing a damn thing! The debate in the U.S. didn't cause the insurgency and it didn't cause the Shia-Sunni sectarian shoot-out. Fact is, poor planning probably bears most the blame - probably behind not invading in the first place.actinanass said:
You can't blame political debate for this disaster.
QueEx
1. yet you keep on bringing up the "Bush Lies" argument. I guess it makes you mad when someone from the other side PROVES BUSH RIGHT. About that "show us where al queda was before...." ask the person that DIDN'T WIN IN 2000, he OBVIOUSLY knows....
2. Maybe because majority of the Democrats are the ones who DON'T want Bush to succeed in IRAQ. Its Politics...
3. Why are you bringing up a Carter Administration Policy?
4. I swore they said that BEFORE 9-11. After that bs, Saddam became our problem. Now I know you going to pull out the "Saddam wasn't a part of 9-11" which is factually true. However, his threat of having chemical weapons *that we gave him back during the 80's* and selling them to certain Organizations... Did anyone forget that Saddam used to pay suicide bombers families in Palestine? If thats not supporting terrorism, then I dont know what is.
5. I agree with the flaws in the planning. Bush should of had the gloves off in the first place. However, we can't dwell in the past. Congress needs to quit the debate, and support WINNING this war. The faster we do that, the faster our troops will come home. Too bad MOVEON.ORG can't see that.
I NEVER, EVER said "Bush Lied". Don't talk ANYMORE shit until you point out where I said that. I told you, its hard to discuss matters with you because every time you can't seem to discuss anything without reaching into your Bush/Republican - - You/Democrats bullshit. So, you understand, I am on NEITHER SIDE. It ain't easy, but I try to be on the side of right, no matter which party or politician that might happen to coincide with.
And you said you were an Independent.
When you show me you can talk about an issue without obviously taking sides, . . . I might believe you're, Independent. All I can see now is that you're independently one-sided.
Man, as patriotic as this may sound, its the truth: I'm only interested in the good of MY country. So, fuck your republicans and your democrats. Hence, I'm interested in this country doing the right thing. If George Bush can find the way to do that, I'm all for it. If the democrats can do it, I'm all for that too. Somebody. Anyfuckingbody. Get this shit right!actinanass said:
What ??? I've asked you 100 times to stop that democrat/republican whodunnit bullshit. I NEVER mentioned Jimmy Carter; but obviously you THOUGHT I did when I referred to the anti-assassination policy. Well, Sir, it was . . . . . < opening envelope > . . .actinanass said:
President Gerald Ford, a Republican, that issued Executive Order 11905, which declared that “no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination,”
LOL. You get so tied up in trying to blame democrats for shit until you end up arguing against yourdamnself.
Why is it some people are quick to yell STFU when some people start saying shit they don't want to hear . . . ? ? ? ? ?actinanass said:
Debate, an inherent part of freedom of speech, should NEVER, EVER be silenced. When that happens, we lose the very thing we claim we are fighting to protect.
QueEx
Yes the President lied. Yes the Congress lied. There is truth and then there is what a you can prove. The reason we went in Iraq is the grudge between Saddam and the house of Saud. George Sr. is the one who brokered the deal with the House of Saud and American Oil Companies. Also Saddam was going to take his oil off the dollar and tie it to the euro.
We have a tentative relationship with the House of Saud and their rulership of OPEC. We had to show that if anyone bucked the system and put the oil market into chaos they would pay, dearly. So with the attack on 9-11 our government had the perfect excuse for regime change in the Middle East and to send a message. George Sr was advised not to go in because his authorization of force was only to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and the threat of Soviet involvement (even though they were weakening at that time ironically due to Osama Bin Laden in Afgahanistan).
Now the official cover of looking for WMD was the cover to punish Saddam and pressure Iran. We have Iran Squeezed on 2 borders. We will be in Iraq indefinitely so the draw down redeployment and troop withdrawal is all smoke and vapors. Look at the plans for the Embassy and the bases we have in Iraq. It will be like Germany and Japan we will have a standing force there for decades. The politician had to lie to the people and the militay and wrap it in the flag to sell it. Look at all the companies moving to Dubai. We are moving closer to a corporate world government. Now you can argue about the details but not about the goal of those in power.
We have a tentative relationship with the House of Saud and their rulership of OPEC. We had to show that if anyone bucked the system and put the oil market into chaos they would pay, dearly. So with the attack on 9-11 our government had the perfect excuse for regime change in the Middle East and to send a message. George Sr was advised not to go in because his authorization of force was only to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and the threat of Soviet involvement (even though they were weakening at that time ironically due to Osama Bin Laden in Afgahanistan).
Now the official cover of looking for WMD was the cover to punish Saddam and pressure Iran. We have Iran Squeezed on 2 borders. We will be in Iraq indefinitely so the draw down redeployment and troop withdrawal is all smoke and vapors. Look at the plans for the Embassy and the bases we have in Iraq. It will be like Germany and Japan we will have a standing force there for decades. The politician had to lie to the people and the militay and wrap it in the flag to sell it. Look at all the companies moving to Dubai. We are moving closer to a corporate world government. Now you can argue about the details but not about the goal of those in power.
I NEVER, EVER said "Bush Lied". Don't talk ANYMORE shit until you point out where I said that. I told you, its hard to discuss matters with you because every time you can't seem to discuss anything without reaching into your Bush/Republican - - You/Democrats bullshit. So, you understand, I am on NEITHER SIDE. It ain't easy, but I try to be on the side of right, no matter which party or politician that might happen to coincide with.
And you said you were an Independent.
When you show me you can talk about an issue without obviously taking sides, . . . I might believe you're, Independent. All I can see now is that you're independently one-sided.
Man, as patriotic as this may sound, its the truth: I'm only interested in the good of MY country. So, fuck your republicans and your democrats. Hence, I'm interested in this country doing the right thing. If George Bush can find the way to do that, I'm all for it. If the democrats can do it, I'm all for that too. Somebody. Anyfuckingbody. Get this shit right!
What ??? I've asked you 100 times to stop that democrat/republican whodunnit bullshit. I NEVER mentioned Jimmy Carter; but obviously you THOUGHT I did when I referred to the anti-assassination policy. Well, Sir, it was . . . . . < opening envelope > . . .
President Gerald Ford, a Republican, that issued Executive Order 11905, which declared that “no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination,”
LOL. You get so tied up in trying to blame democrats for shit until you end up arguing against yourdamnself.
Why is it some people are quick to yell STFU when some people start saying shit they don't want to hear . . . ? ? ? ? ?
Debate, an inherent part of freedom of speech, should NEVER, EVER be silenced. When that happens, we lose the very thing we claim we are fighting to protect.
QueEx
1. An independent can view a situation INDEPENDENTLY. All I hear from you, and most of the people on this thread, is Bush is wrong. Yet, when I bring up something Al Gore said *not to mention, most of the Democratic party believed this during that time*, you say "quit bringing up politics". Dude you can't have it both ways. My whole point of bringing that up is to prove that at one time "war critics" were the ones Bush got his facts from. Yet, Bush is wrong for going into Iraq? Forgive me from INDEPENDENTLY showing you how much ONE party is full of it. Now, since I am an Independent, I can INDEPENDENTLY chose what side I want to be on within ANY ISSUE. So, please, que, DO NOT JUDGE ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN WINNING THIS WAR. Your politics "or lack thereof" are not in agreement with me, on this issue. Like I said in the other post, I just happen to like Bush's financial, and foreign policy. That do not make me a republican because of that.
2. Define whats GOOD for this country? Do our country need a P.R. makeover so we can look good to Paris?
3. Ok, Gerald Ford. I knew it was ONE of the "not shit" presidents. My apologies....
4. Debate is good, when the intentions are good. I have no problem with debating the war if its BEFORE the war. When my cousin is in Iraq, I take offense to the likes of Harry Reid saying "the war is lost". The thing I've been saying is this. HOW ABOUT LETS TRY TO WIN? Is that too hard? All I hear is "we lost" and "pull the troops out".
5. I'm not blaming Democrats actually. I'm just putting the other side out there. When someone says "Bush lied" I simply put what the Democratic Party said back in the 90's. I'm not throwing blame at any party, however I will show how much bullshit they are spewing. In many cases, I find that the Democrats tend to spew more bullshit than the Republicans. I'm not saying the republicans are clean. I don't agree with most of the immigration policy that the republicans are suggesting. I don't believe that if you get caught with less than an ounce of weed, you should go to jail for that.
Que, I want to point out the reason why I keep politics in this conversation. Some people still believes that the Democrats can't do any wrong. They can't be racist, sexist, or any other "ist". I feel that some shit needs to be pointed out, so there would be some kind of "balance" on this forum. That is all...
BTW, the good of our country is to not have a war on our soil.
Now let me ask you something. If this "world government" means that we will stay free, is it really bad?
Beside the fact that it mirrors the justificaton for seperate but equal and jim crow.
To answer the question: no as long as you are right side of that government.
But winning the war will take generation b/c u have to sow good will the youth of that nation and show them the benefit of your aid and support. So we are commited for decades to come. Anything else will result in failure and more hostile country on the border of Saudia Arabia and that will not be allowed. And watch Russia and China b/c they are trying to take advantage.
Bro, you're never going to make me defend the democrats on this issue, no matter how hard you continue to try. I asked you to point out where I said Bush lied; you couldn't. I told you I don't give two shits about what the democrats said about Iraq, before the invasion; reasons being, (1) I don't have to accept what democrats said as being factual; and (2) whatever democrats said WAS NOT OFFERED as justification for the invasion.actinanass said:
So, attempting to remind me of what democrats said in the 90's really has shit to do with the decision to invade Iraq. Had the democrats tried to invade Iraq using whateverthefuck they said in the 90's, I feel certain that their "facts" wold have been challenged by many, including the republicans. Sadly, democrats didn't challenge very well Bush's facts in 2003 - - the reason being, IMHO, the political climate following 9-11 and the Bush administration's posturing following 9-11 made damn near anyone with an opinion different from their's appear unpatriotic in the face of a nation scared and still shaking in its boots at that time. Still, no excuse.
One honest question: Have YOU ever seen where I have taken the position that democrats can do no wrong? If so, please cut and past what I said, here in this thread.actinanass said:
Otherwise, please do us both a favor, STOP saying that shit; and stop bringing up that useless rhetoric in our discussions. Maybe then, we might get some place.
QueEx
sorry que, I was really meaning what Olbermann was claiming. I know you are pretty much independent.
As for the justification of going into Iraq, if both parties agree that Saddam was a threat in 1998, does that justify this war?
Another thing, Democrats will not challenge anyone if it doesn't suit them politically. Like I said, both parties knew what Saddam was capable of doing. Both parties do understand whats in stake if we DON'T succeed in Iraq. If not, Congress would of shut the funding of the war already.
Not to mention Iran, and other fundamentalist regimes that might show up.
Speaking of this, did anyone hear about what Israel did to Syria? Yet, many Arab countries aren't condemning Israel. Does this mean that other Middle Eastern countries are actually seeing our progress in Iraq? Think about it, this is unheard of, Israel attacking Syria, yet NO Arab country condemns Israel? I'm not considering Iran because we know how Iran feels.
No actually the Naxi's were not a TRUE threat to the U.S. The United States entered the WWII to MAKE MONEY. The Naxi's would not have been HALF as powerful if it wasn't for U.S. interest financing the German army. Look up and research Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather, and then come talk to me about support this war and presidency.
Bush knew and wanted there to be an insurgency, because without one there would be no need to keep troops in Iraq. Bush wants a permanant staging group in the middle east to protect OIL.
It's nice to see you all believe in our government, but there's a lot more dirt and back room deals going on than you think.
Absolutely not! No one, that is, not anyone, has shown that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States, anymore than any other two-bit dictator.
Again, damn what they said; what kind of threat did Saddam pose at any time from 1998 through <s>2003 when Iraq was invaded</s> December 30, 2006 when Saddam was executed ???
Iraq had no Navy to speak of and had no way of landing troops by sea; no Air Force capability outside of the general area of Iraq (can't say Isreal because Saddam couldn't stop them from bombing fuck out of its nuclear power plant); no intercontinental or other weapons that could strike the U.S. or its allies, except, perhaps, Israel - but he talked the talk but wouldn't dare walk any kind of a damn walk against Israel; and, U.S. jets had patrolled over Iraq since the 91 war and was unable to bring down even one (1) of them.
What was the threat that would justify an invasion ???
Neither party will challenge things if it doesn't suit them politically.
And what was that ???
QueEx
Wow, let clarify you comment. Prior to Desert Storm, Saddam posed the biggest threat to UNITED STATES OIL ACCESS. Prior to our INVASION, IRAN posed and still does pose the biggest threat to UNITED STATES OIL ACCESS. The INVASION was a POSITIONING MOVE, not a U.S. defense move.
Damn, you're really off. You are definately part of the flock.
I guess thats why (an insurgency) U.S. troops are still in South Korea; England, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc., et al, right ???fck said:
I call it trying to understand and know the truth for what it is, as opposed to finding convenient excuses and saying, "thats it".fck said:
QueEx
Similar threads
