Discussion:
Obama Gasoline: $9.00 Per Gallon?
(too old to reply)
Tracey12
2012-04-26 06:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.

"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.

Full Story:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/salazar-no-one-knows-if-us-headed-9gal-gas/499451
Tom Ography
2012-04-26 15:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
Twaysee, you useless troll, gas prices are the equivalent of US$8 to $9
per gallon in much of the EU because of TAX POLICY, you ignorant moron!

The base price of a gallon (or a liter, or any given unit volume) of
gasoline isn't that different in other parts of the world, but tax policies
make a HUGE difference, as do national polices that subsidize prices. If
gas tax in Greece was at the level of a typical U.S. state, prices would
be much closer to prices paid in the U.S.

Now go out and rent a clue, troll.
George Kerby
2012-04-26 16:11:16 UTC
Permalink

Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-26 17:17:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Robert Westergrom
2012-04-26 17:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Why do you say that? Because your fellow progressives have trained you
to believe that?

http://www.examiner.com/article/wikileaks-docs-prove-there-were-wmd-iraq

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88790029

Senate Vote to Authorize War Shadows Clinton


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

An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush
soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General
Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing
the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]

Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President
Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott
was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of
force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt
and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman
were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a
separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the
Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the
Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of
Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10,
2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight
early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote
of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President
Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the
resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the
resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY),
Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep.
Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on
the resolution.
United States Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens.
Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-
ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI),
Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-
MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD),
Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen.
Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen.
Jeffords (I-VT)
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-27 04:12:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Senate Vote to Authorize War Shadows Clinton
The "vote to authorize" was taken BEFORE the Interim UNSCOM report,
the DOD refusal to support the "aluminum tube", "Mobile labs", or ANY
of the stated reasons given the politicians when they made that vote.

After Feb. 2003----NONE of those stated "slam-dunk" reasons were
supported by facts or evidence.

NONE.
Al
2012-04-27 00:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
Patrick
2012-04-27 00:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Al
2012-04-27 00:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Not to mention Saddam, who wanted everyone to believe he had WMD.

But that's sooooo complex, the left needs it real simple and a boogeyman to
rally the faithful.
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Patrick
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Not to mention Saddam, who wanted everyone to believe he had WMD.
But I've been told that's sooooo complex, so I can feel smarter than I really am
and have good feelings when told how wise Republican men will solve this difficult problem.
Dennis M
2012-04-27 01:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Pretty much blackmailed into it with threats of being called "traitors" by
Republicans if they hadn't.

Nobody in their right mind believes Bush and the neocons and Bush and the
neocons alone don't own the Iraq war farce.

The only reason the US didn't get humiliated is because Bush and the
neocons ran up trillions of debt for it, hiring private corporations to
fight it and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens
(which you never saw in the lapdog US media) along the way.
Al
2012-04-27 02:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis M
Post by Patrick
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Pretty much blackmailed into it with threats of being called "traitors" by
Republicans if they hadn't.
What made the Democrats warn of us Saddam's "imminent threat" for so many
years when Bush was a Governor?

Republicans?

Really?

So, why would you vote for anyone so easily cowed?
Post by Dennis M
Nobody in their right mind believes Bush and the neocons and Bush and the
neocons alone don't own the Iraq war farce.
Think real hard now, this is complex...

Why did the democrats vote for GW2 in greater numbers than they did for GW1?

Because for years they said the same thing Bush did, but were even more
strident, that's why.

So when rhetoric acme to action of vote, they either voted on their
conscience and belief in their OWN WORDS, or they voted because they had
backed themselves into a corner by lying just like Bush, and a no vote would
be politically inconvenient.

it's one or the other and either way, they lose. They are weasels.

When the Mosque was bombed and the revolution began, the democrats trampled
each other in the rush to declare "this war is lost", when our people were
there, fighting.

Scumbags.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-27 04:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis M
Post by Patrick
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Pretty much blackmailed into it with threats of being called "traitors" by
Republicans if they hadn't.
That vote was months before Hans Blix and UNSCOM was allowed into Iraq
(about Dec, 2002)

When Hans Blix began to tell Bush that NOTHING was being found---Bush
didn't care.

Wilson had already debunked "yellow cake"

DOD would not confirm the "aluminum tubes" for Nuclear
weapons/research

State Dept said the NO collusion between Bin Laden and Al Queda

There were no Missiles capable of hitting the US

There were no "mobile labs"

There was no nuclear weapons research

The Attack on Iraq was NOT because they had WMD

It was for another (but stupid) reason.
Alan Ferris
2012-04-27 09:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Wilson had already debunked "yellow cake"
So had every other intelligence service, only America and Britain
pushed it forward knowing it was based on false evidence.
A year before Bush used it as evidence the CIA had rejected the
documents as unreliable.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Yellowcake_forgery

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Alan Ferris
2012-04-27 09:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis M
Nobody in their right mind believes Bush and the neocons and Bush and the
neocons alone don't own the Iraq war farce.
The only reason the US didn't get humiliated is because Bush and the
neocons ran up trillions of debt for it, hiring private corporations to
fight it and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens
(which you never saw in the lapdog US media) along the way.
Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'
Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role
during the Iran-Iraq war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Patrick
2012-04-27 16:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis M
Nobody in their right mind believes Bush and the neocons and Bush and the
neocons alone don't own the Iraq war farce.
Thank you.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-27 04:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Christ, you fuckwits are stupid

You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003

By March 1, 2003---NONE of Bush's claims were supported by evidence or
facts.
Patrick
2012-04-27 16:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Along with the clintoons, albore, and the democratic house
who passed a resolution.
Christ, you fuckwits are stupid
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
Post by Patrick
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit t here were 35 murders in the
Month of January. That' s just one American city,
About as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
A. FDR led us into World War II.
B. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..
An average of 112,500 per year.
C. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us .
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
An average of 18,334 per year.
D. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attackd us .
E. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
An average of 5,800 per year.
F. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
Times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
Multiple occasions.
G. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
Has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
Slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking
But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
To take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
In Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to < B> find
The Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard Than it took Ted Kennedy to call the
police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick
It took less time to take Iraq than it took To count the votes in
Florida!!!!
Our Commander-In- Chief is doing a HARD JOB!
The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant To realize the facts
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-27 21:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?

Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
Patrick
2012-04-28 00:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?
Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
Then why did you allow it?
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-28 02:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?
Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
Then why did you allow it?
A minority cannot call up legislation or have the authority to revisit
legislation
Patrick
2012-04-28 17:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?
Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
Then why did you allow it?
A minority cannot call up legislation or have the authority to revisit
legislation
Which minority? Which legislation?
I thought you were trying to blame this all on Bush.
Bush was not a legislator.
Neither was his boy, Colin Powell.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-28 22:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?
Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
Then why did you allow it?
A minority cannot call up legislation or have the authority to revisit
legislation
Which minority? Which legislation?
I thought you were trying to blame this all on Bush.
Bush was not a legislator.
Neither was his boy, Colin Powell.
The vote to authorize was taken and passed.

The ONLY way that vote could have been rescinded was for a MAJORITY to
introduce legislation to stop it.

How is that not clear.

Even if it passed, Bush would have had to agree (not veto)

IDIOT
Info Junkie
2012-04-29 14:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?
Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
Then why did you allow it?
A minority cannot call up legislation or have the authority to revisit
legislation
Which minority?  Which legislation?
I thought you were trying to blame this all on Bush.
Bush was not a legislator.
Neither was his boy, Colin Powell.
The vote to authorize was taken and passed.
By a majority of Congress that had intel from it's own sources:

http://intelligence.house.gov/
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The ONLY way that vote could have been rescinded was for a MAJORITY to
introduce legislation to stop it.
...and yet they saw now need to do so based on their agreement with
the Bush Administration regarding enforcement of
UNSC Resolutions are part of our obligation to fulfil our treaty
obligations to the UN Charter
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
How is that not clear.
Even if it passed, Bush would have had to agree (not veto)
Only IF the UNSC members unanimously agreed that Iraq had BEGUN to
voluntarily:
1. stop shooting at UN member planes that were enforcing the UN-
sanction no-fly zones
2. Fully and uncondtiionally comply with ALL UN Security Council
resolutons

What Iraq DID:
1. "No sooner had Iraq grudgingly accepted the U.N.'s November 8
resolution than it spent six of the following seven days shooting at
U.S. and British planes patrolling the southern and northern no-fly
zones. Resolution 1441 specifically states that "Iraq shall not take
or threaten hostile acts directed at . . . any Member State taking
action to uphold any Council resolution."
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/burdenofproof.html

2. Constructed/retained WMDs in direct violation of UNSC Resolutions
(Only two examples needed)

"Al-Samud II missile program, begun in 2001...Iraq researched and
developed the Al Samud II missile despite UN provisions, which
prohibited such a system with its specification."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al-samoud_2.htm
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

3. Select which parts of the cease-fire agreements they would comply
while holding others off with oil-for-food payoffs on-the side.
"Hussein never had any intention of abiding by the truce......the UN
had allowed Hussein to grab billions in personal wealth by perverting
the embargo in the Oil-for-Food Program...
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/24/wikileaks-documents-show-wmds-found-in-iraq/

I suspect you'll ignore all of this once again...stomping your little
feet like a child that refuses to be told they can't have their way...
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-29 15:02:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The vote to authorize was taken and passed.
Utter nonsense

Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.

The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
Info Junkie
2012-04-29 15:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The vote to authorize was taken and passed.
Utter nonsense
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are free to request
intel from whatever source of intel they desire.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
ROTFLMHO. Congress may question the same sources that provide intel to
the POTUS.

The Senate Intelligence Committe is charged with "oversight", as well
as the House Intelligence Committee:
(http://intelligence.senate.gov/)
(http://intelligence.house.gov/)
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-29 18:53:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:45:48 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The vote to authorize was taken and passed.
Utter nonsense
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are free to request
intel from whatever source of intel they desire.
THe request must go thru majority committee chairs.

AND---the Intel given them was OLD, unreliable, out of date.

The "vote to authorize" was predicated on Wrong and unsupported Intel.

ANYTHING Prior to Feb 2003 had no validity.

The MAJORITY should have revisited that vote, told bush to allow Hans
Blix the time to COMPLETE his inspections.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
ROTFLMHO. Congress may question the same sources that provide intel to
the POTUS.
Congress was controlled by Republicans. No sane person believes a
republican committe would over-ride their president.
Post by Info Junkie
The Senate Intelligence Committe is charged with "oversight", as well
Chaired by a republican. Any Oversight MUST be voted on. The
Majority wins.

The majority was republican
Patrick
2012-04-29 18:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
You are a frickin idiot.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-29 18:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
You are a frickin idiot.
Says the moron who must not understand basic government workings.
Patrick
2012-04-30 00:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
You are a frickin idiot.
Says the moron who must not understand basic government workings.
Yeah, right.
How many embassies have you worked in?
How many State Department members do you know?
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-30 01:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
You are a frickin idiot.
Says the moron who must not understand basic government workings.
Yeah, right.
How many embassies have you worked in?
How many State Department members do you know?
How many "tons of WMD" did bush find?

(ans: As many as Hans Blix said he'd find)
Patrick
2012-04-30 19:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
How many embassies have you worked in?
How many State Department members do you know?
How many "tons of WMD" did bush find?
(ans: As many as Hans Blix said he'd find)
1) In his 3/7/2003 written report, Hans Blix indicated Iraq had drones which
exceeded the UN's 90 mile range limit. These could be used to drop chemical
weapons. BLIX MADE NO MENTION OF THIS IS HIS ORAL REPORT.

2) In the same written report, Blix indicated that inspectors had "credible
evidence" that Iraq still possessed Anthrax. Once again, BLIX FAILED TO
MENTION THIS ORALLY.

Blix is a tool. He knew that there is going to be a war and he knew that it
was relatively unpopular. He wasn't about to make any more comments that
could be seen as a trigger for war. He didn't want to be held personally
responsible for that. It put him in a place where it is better to err on
the side of caution and to understate Iraqi gross non-compliance.

Of course the absurdity is that we all knew that Iraq was in total
non-compliance and wass not truly disarming. The legitimate argument of the
anti-war group is that war is not worth it in spite of that because the
danger does not exceed the penalty of going to war. But unfortunately the
question of compliance is being used as a proxy debate rather than getting
at the real issue which should have been debated more fully by that crowd
before 1441. Undoubtedly some will continue to spin what 1441 meant, but the
diplomats all knew how it broke down but whatever.

Blix came out of this looking like a complete fool. The IAEA absolutely
bungled their assessment of the Iraqi nuclear program years ago when he was
their director. That certainly hasn't helped his rep. If Iraq was found to
have massive amounts of WMD and if some of the claims that he has disputed
prove to be true then he would lose all credibility.

Alan Ferris
2012-04-30 09:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Patrick
Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
You are a frickin idiot.
Says the moron who must not understand basic government workings.
Yeah, right.
How many embassies have you worked in?
How many State Department members do you know?
"+I have told you, I do not learn, I will never learn.
+God said let them lie, so I lie." - P Barker

"+ I lie about you." - P Barker

"+ Don't you worry about my false accusations.
+ I know exactly what I do." - P Barker
Alan Ferris
2012-04-29 18:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Congress has no independent intelligence, it relies on intel given by
direction of the Executive--to the majority, then given to committees
dealing with those issues.
The only itel they got was what Bush gave them
Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
You are a frickin idiot.
From the man who claimed:

"+ Cardinal Ratz has made many, many enemies along his way.
+ As soon as Pope JP2 departs the living, Ratz will be history."
- P.Barker 7/8/04

"+ Ratzo is a power hungry cardinal well placed in the Vatican
who will never have any backing to become Pope. He does
what he needs to do. He provides comic relief for many of us."
- P.Barker 6/10/03
Patrick
2012-04-28 00:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're not honest enough to cite what the KNOWN intel was AFTER Jan
2003
A year after it was proven that NO justification for attacking Iraq
existed?
Hell, we knew that by June 2003.
4/25/2005..................
WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said
Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has "gone as far as
feasible" and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported
programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

"After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the
WMD-related detainees has been exhausted," wrote Charles Duelfer, head of
the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last
fall.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible."

In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provides a final look at
an investigation that occupied over 1,000 military and civilian translators,
weapons specialists and other experts at its peak. His latest addenda
conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.

On Monday, Duelfer said there is no purpose in keeping many of the detainees
who are in custody because of their knowledge on Iraq's weapons, although he
did not provide any details about the current number. A U.S. official, who
spoke on condition of anonymity, said the ultimate decision on their release
will be made by the Iraqi authorities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/
Alan Ferris
2012-04-27 00:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
But we all knew Blair was a liar.
That is why he had such a hard time over it.

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Al
2012-04-27 02:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
But we all knew Blair was a liar.
Apparently, everyone was, and is.

But Bush takes the weight, as any man of history does.
Post by Alan Ferris
That is why he had such a hard time over it.
History will show that Bush tried a different tact to answer a long-term
problem, and he did succeed, close to 50 million people were to some degree
"liberated" to pursue what they can of a modern government of representation.

But they don't have enough liberals in Islam, and the western liberal is
allied with conservative islam in the common enemy meme.

And that pesky issue about democracy being against their religion.

Tough nut to crack, for the west, but the hammer will fall first in Europe,
as always, given the foolish multicultural experiment.
Alan Ferris
2012-04-27 09:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
But we all knew Blair was a liar.
Apparently, everyone was, and is.
But Bush takes the weight, as any man of history does.
Post by Alan Ferris
That is why he had such a hard time over it.
History will show that Bush tried a different tact to answer a long-term
problem, and he did succeed, close to 50 million people were to some degree
"liberated" to pursue what they can of a modern government of representation.
But they don't have enough liberals in Islam, and the western liberal is
allied with conservative islam in the common enemy meme.
And that pesky issue about democracy being against their religion.
Tough nut to crack, for the west, but the hammer will fall first in Europe,
as always, given the foolish multicultural experiment.
What multicultural experiment? We have always been multicultural,
going back to before even the Romans arrived. Muslims have been
living in Europe since the 700AD and their population has always been
growing.

They currently have the largest conversion rate of any religion. Over
100,000 converted in the UK last year.

The problem is that you probably see the press about the groups that
oppose multiculturalism. This is not the reality of life here.

Just as I do not think that your schools are constantly at war, but
that is the impression the press gives about your country.

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
But we all knew Blair was a liar.
Apparently, everyone was, and is.
But Bush takes the weight, as any man of history does.
Post by Alan Ferris
That is why he had such a hard time over it.
History will show that Bush tried a different tact to answer a long-term
problem, and he did succeed, close to 50 million people were to some degree
"liberated" to pursue what they can of a modern government of representation.
The trick is, of course, to pretend it makes MY life the tiniest bit
better.

Paul

Oh, and while jacking off in one's pants describes that for Al, it
ain't gonna work for me.
Harold Burton
2012-04-27 02:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
But we all knew Blair was a liar.
Just like we know you're a liar. And Obumbya.


snicker
Harold Burton
2012-04-27 02:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
Don't confuse idiot leftards with inconvenient facts.


snicker
Al
2012-04-27 03:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harold Burton
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
Don't confuse idiot leftards with inconvenient facts.
But it's so easy, maybe it's a form of abuse. Maybe I should feel ashamed.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-27 04:20:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:38:42 -0400, Harold Burton
Post by Harold Burton
Don't confuse idiot leftards with inconvenient facts.
Is it an "inconvenient fact" that NOTHING claimed by bush was found,
ya dumb fuckwit?

Tell us what was still true by March 1, 2003, you halfwit.

Hint: (nothing)
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-27 04:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
The British, Egyptians, the UN, the Italians and the Germans managed to as
well.
They used our intel.

Our intel was not current

Our intel was proven false by Feb 2003 (after the Blix report)

The False intel was not revised
Too_Many_Tools
2012-04-27 19:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Being a drunken cokehead helped.

TMT
duke
2012-04-28 12:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-28 13:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State

The issue is "what did bush and the majority do after Feb. 2003"--when
they found that NONE of the excuses used to get the vote to authorize
were still valid.
Al
2012-04-28 14:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State
They were fed the same intel that had existed, which was a Majority View.
Generally, a Majority View of the combined intel agencies id the dominant
assessment.

There was no need for intel on the other Articles of war, they were obvious.
Even the UNSC was in rare unanimous agreement.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The issue is "what did bush and the majority do after Feb. 2003"--when
they found that NONE of the excuses used to get the vote to authorize
were still valid.
Of the 22 or so Articles of War, only a few dealt directly with WMD. In most
of those, actual events, not intel or projections, were cited.

The meme that all the articles of war were false is a lie.

The left really doesn't care about any of it, of course.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-28 16:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State
They were fed the same intel that had existed,
NOT after Jan 2003.

UNSCOM was allowed back into Iraq--TOTAL access to any/all sites

Blix told the UN (and Bush) that NO evidence he claimed existed.
Post by Al
There was no need for intel on the other Articles of war,
The UN was the autholrity under which we operated. We did NOT have
unilateral authority to launch an invasion.

Bush made up intel, then refused to accept the UNSCOM truth and defied
UN authority.
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The issue is "what did bush and the majority do after Feb. 2003"--when
they found that NONE of the excuses used to get the vote to authorize
were still valid.
Of the 22 or so Articles of War, only a few dealt directly with WMD.
The reason for the invasion was (supposedly) to "protect" the US
against WMD,-- that Bush falsely used as justificiation.
Al
2012-04-28 18:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State
They were fed the same intel that had existed,
NOT after Jan 2003.
It's too late to stop the invasion, and the left will never execute of jail
anyone due to the Iraq invasion. The sad fact is, not that many people care,
but have fun honing the propaganda with each other.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-28 22:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State
They were fed the same intel that had existed,
NOT after Jan 2003.
It's too late to stop the invasion,
Why?

Why would it have been "too late"?
Al
2012-04-29 02:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State
They were fed the same intel that had existed,
NOT after Jan 2003.
It's too late to stop the invasion,
Why?
Why would it have been "too late"?
Because as you note, it is past tense.

If you are making an argument for prosecution of the guilty, that is too a
waste of time for most.

ten years on, we have new stuff to consider.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-29 03:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Why would it have been "too late"?
Because as you note, it is past tense.
If you are making an argument for prosecution of the guilty, that is too a
waste of time for most.
Making no such thing

THe issue is debunking the claim that the intel prior to Jan 2003 was
true, and that Bush was justified in attacking Iraq.

NO one mentioned (I didn't) prosecuting anyone

But you aren't getting away with saying it was justified.
Al
2012-04-29 15:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Why would it have been "too late"?
Because as you note, it is past tense.
If you are making an argument for prosecution of the guilty, that is too a
waste of time for most.
Making no such thing
THe issue is debunking the claim that the intel prior to Jan 2003 was
true, and that Bush was justified in attacking Iraq.
Ignoring of course the other Articles of War and the fact that America, not
GW Bush, invaded Iraq.

Lost on you is the fact that Iraqis vote now, Afghanis vote now, they are
fighting still for democracy.

And that is not good for the left, which champions totalitarianism over
freedom.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
NO one mentioned (I didn't) prosecuting anyone
Not yet, but the theme of Bush and Cheney in jail or dead is a rather
constant wet dream on the left.

Why?


Because they killed a violent totalitarian and gave 50 million people the
best shot at self-governance they've ever had, or ever will - over the
wishes of the totalitarian-minded left.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
But you aren't getting away with saying it was justified.
In my mind, it was, and is. Freedom is not a cake walk, Bush said time and
again this is a generational movement, a long hard road and it may not lead
to what Americans see as "freedom" relative to ours.

You shiny whiny little marching farts don't have a damn clue about the big
picture, which is why there are so few of you.
Paul Duca
2012-04-29 10:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
THey were fed Bad Intel By Bush, the CIA, DOD, State
They were fed the same intel that had existed,
NOT after Jan 2003.
It's too late to stop the invasion.
And it's too late tor people like Al to pretend that will reward
them....

Paul
Info Junkie
2012-04-29 12:33:29 UTC
Permalink
(Sigh) With all the irrefutable evidence I've previously posted to
shed bright lights on this issue, you (among others) STILL refuse to
admit you're errors on this issue. Instead like roaches hoping the
lights have been turned off, you make false conclusions based on
hyperbole and fallacies while refusing to provide credible evidence to
back your false assertions...again and again.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
NOT after Jan 2003.
UNSCOM was allowed back into Iraq--TOTAL access to any/all sites
Blix told the UN (and Bush) that NO evidence he claimed existed.
Blix’s interim report to the UNSC (January, 2003):
"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain
in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility… ..Iraq appears not
to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the
disarmament that was demanded of it."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=5983&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
There was no need for intel on the other Articles of war,
The UN was the autholrity under which we operated. We did NOT have
unilateral authority to launch an invasion.
The "authority" was through the agreements of member states to abide
by and enforce elements found in Chapter VII of the UN Charter,
specifically Article 42
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

The United States did not go into Iraq “unilaterally” as we were a
member of coalition forces and such enforcement of security council
resolutions were performed by the coalition of UN members
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Bush made up intel, then refused to accept the UNSCOM truth and defied
UN authority.
1. Cite the intel you claimed “Bush made up” and the alleged “UNSCOM
truth”
2. Iraq was already violating UN resolutions
3. The UN “authority” is contained in the UN Charter.

Article 42 authorizes the enforcement by UN members, while "Resolution
687 also linked a decision to lift sanctions with Iraq's fulfillment
of the disarmament provisions. The resolution was passed under Chapter
7 of the UN Charter, meaning that military force could be used to
enforce compliance."
http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 "recalled" all relevant
resolutions that included Resolution 687.
http://c-span.org/resources/fyi/draftresolution2.asp
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The issue is "what did bush and the majority do after Feb. 2003"--when
they found that NONE of the excuses used to get the vote to authorize
were still valid.
Of the 22 or so Articles of War, only a few dealt directly with WMD.
The reason for the invasion was (supposedly) to "protect" the US
against WMD,-- that Bush falsely used as justificiation.
You’re confusing your attributions as it was not the Bush
Administration made that claim, but Bill Clinton:
"Clinton said he and his national security advisers agreed that Saddam
Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the
Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere."
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41731

The Bush Administrations’ reason to enter Iraq was as a member of
coalition forces to enforce UNSC Resolution 1441. This is proven by
Congress’ passage of a “Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”
http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/414text_of_joint_resolution.htm

(IF you respond, how long will it take before you "snip" the cites
I've posted and/or provide credible evidence that refutes my own)
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-29 15:00:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Info Junkie
(Sigh) With all the irrefutable evidence I've previously posted to
shed bright lights on this issue, you (among others) STILL refuse to
admit you're errors on this issue. Instead like roaches hoping the
lights have been turned off, you make false conclusions based on
hyperbole and fallacies while refusing to provide credible evidence to
back your false assertions...again and again.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
NOT after Jan 2003.
UNSCOM was allowed back into Iraq--TOTAL access to any/all sites
Blix told the UN (and Bush) that NO evidence he claimed existed.
"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain
in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility… ..Iraq appears not
to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the
disarmament that was demanded of it."
Blix's interim report told bush that NOTHING could be found

The reason it was termed as such---is that Blix requested another
period of time to confirm what he believed, but did not have evidence
to support.

He believed that after the Gulf War---ALL of Saddam's WMD were
destroyed in the bunkers by Bush 1 and the UN forces, that the
capabilities to produce any were gone, that no evidence showed he was
attempting to reconstittute anything, and that Saddam was using the
blocking of UNSCOM inspections to make Iran believe he still was.

The invasion proved what Hans Blix could have done in a short period
of time---making the invasion unnecessary

That bunch of shit you laid out is bogus.

We know it's bogus because we found EXACTLY what Blix said we'd
find----NOTHING.
Info Junkie
2012-04-29 15:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Info Junkie
(Sigh) With all the irrefutable evidence I've previously posted to
shed bright lights on this issue, you (among others) STILL refuse to
admit you're errors on this issue. Instead like roaches hoping the
lights have been turned off, you make false conclusions based on
hyperbole and fallacies while refusing to provide credible evidence to
back your false assertions...again and again.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
NOT after Jan 2003.
UNSCOM was allowed back into Iraq--TOTAL access to any/all sites
Blix told the UN (and Bush) that NO evidence he claimed existed.
"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain
in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility… ..Iraq appears not
to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the
disarmament that was demanded of it."
Blix's interim report told bush that NOTHING could be found
...because the Iraqi's were';t cooperating? LOL
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The reason it was termed as such---is that Blix requested another
period of time to confirm what he believed, but did not have evidence
to support.
After 12 years of ignoring UNSC resolutions, it was time to start
ignoring the countries that kept delay actions with oil-for-food
scams.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
He believed that after the Gulf War---ALL of Saddam's WMD were
destroyed in the bunkers by Bush 1 and the UN forces,
He was proven wrong.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
that the
capabilities to produce any were gone, that no evidence showed he was
attempting to reconstittute anything, and that Saddam was using the
blocking of UNSCOM inspections to make Iran believe he still was.
So tell us sonny, IF in January 2003, Hans Blix found NO evidence (of
WMDs). prior to coalition forces entering Iraq (March 2003), how was
it possible that two months LATER, that these non-existant, UN-
prohibited WMDs have been used as... "....Iraq launched approximately
five Al Samud II missiles against Coalition forces during OIF..."?
ROTFLMHO
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al-samoud_2.htm

Bottom line: Based on the amount of materials discovered, Hans Blix
was proven wrong again and again.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The invasion proved what Hans Blix could have done in a short period
of time---making the invasion unnecessary
Military forces have discovered MANY caches of WMDs.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That bunch of shit you laid out is bogus.
...and yet you offer no evidence to counter my own...as usual
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
We know it's bogus because we found EXACTLY what Blix said we'd
find----NOTHING.
So THAT's why you "snipped" the evdience, you;re pretending it didn't
exist...at least in your mind, eh? Go back to sleep, let the adults
deal with facts and resolutions and we'll wake you when it time to
change your diaper again. ROTFLMHO.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-29 19:01:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:21:14 -0700 (PDT), Info Junkie
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Blix's interim report told bush that NOTHING could be found
...because the Iraqi's were';t cooperating? LOL
Wrong

Iraq, AFTER Dec 2003 WAS cooperating

Blix didn't have time to visit ALL sites, all suspected sites, all
palaces, all bunkers, and told bush that. Bush was not interested in
hearing.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The reason it was termed as such---is that Blix requested another
period of time to confirm what he believed, but did not have evidence
to support.
After 12 years of ignoring UNSC resolutions,
Then you agree.

The UN was the authority---and did NOT give Bush permission.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
He believed that after the Gulf War---ALL of Saddam's WMD were
destroyed in the bunkers by Bush 1 and the UN forces,
He was proven wrong.
Oh, Then you found them?

Tell the government if you know where they are. They are still
looking.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
that the
capabilities to produce any were gone, that no evidence showed he was
attempting to reconstittute anything, and that Saddam was using the
blocking of UNSCOM inspections to make Iran believe he still was.
So tell us sonny, IF in January 2003, Hans Blix found NO evidence (of
WMDs). prior to coalition forces entering Iraq (March 2003), how was
it possible that two months LATER, that these non-existant, UN-
prohibited WMDs have been used as... "....Iraq launched approximately
five Al Samud II missiles against Coalition forces during OIF..."?
ROTFLMHO
"Launched" what in them?

A missile with explosives isn't why we invaded Iraq.

You need all the Bush claims again?
Post by Info Junkie
Bottom line: Based on the amount of materials discovered, Hans Blix
was proven wrong again and again.
NO amount of WMD were ever found in Iraq by troops. The ONLY remnants
of WMD were in remote places where the explosive destruction didn't
explode some (very few) Old artillaryshells.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
The invasion proved what Hans Blix could have done in a short period
of time---making the invasion unnecessary
Military forces have discovered MANY caches of WMDs.
Not so. If that were the truth---you'd have a laundry list of cites
laid out.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
That bunch of shit you laid out is bogus.
...and yet you offer no evidence to counter my own...as usual
Can't prove a negative, stupid.
Post by Info Junkie
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
We know it's bogus because we found EXACTLY what Blix said we'd
find----NOTHING.
So THAT's why you "snipped" the evdience,
There was no evidence.

You're arguing what NO republican OR neocon has ever argued after we
invaded.

You're one of those who simply cannot admit yer lying deserter was
wrong.
Patrick
2012-04-30 00:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're one of those who simply cannot admit yer lying deserter was
wrong.
February 8, 2003-Bush said in his weekly radio address: "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."

March 16, 2003-Cheney declared on NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to
Saddam Hussein, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

March 17, 2003-In his final prewar ultimatum, Bush declared, "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."

+ When clintoon disassembled the CIA intelligence on the ground in Iraq, we
had to rely on sources other than our own.

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
. Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons
. Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime
. Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion

Read the full story of how the US was duped

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war
Alan Ferris
2012-04-30 09:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You're one of those who simply cannot admit yer lying deserter was
wrong.
February 8, 2003-Bush said in his weekly radio address: "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."
March 16, 2003-Cheney declared on NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to
Saddam Hussein, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
March 17, 2003-In his final prewar ultimatum, Bush declared, "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."
+ When clintoon disassembled the CIA intelligence on the ground in Iraq, we
had to rely on sources other than our own.
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
. Man codenamed Curveball 'invented' tales of bioweapons
. Iraqi told lies to try to bring down Saddam Hussein regime
. Fabrications used by US as justification for invasion
Read the full story of how the US was duped
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war
Duped? Bush was told by the CIA that all other intelligence agencies
had declared the yellow cake documents to be forgeries, yet Bush still
used it as evidence.....how is that being duped?

The yellow cake documents were a really bad forgery, they even got the
name of the foreign minister wrong on them.


"CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time
before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was
false. "
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,463779,00.html#ixzz1tW3GfUzd


"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush
in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did
not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior
CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the
Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it
turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up
again."
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/


--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Al
2012-04-29 16:11:11 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Info Junkie
(Sigh) With all the irrefutable evidence I've previously posted to
shed bright lights on this issue, you (among others) STILL refuse to
admit you're errors on this issue.
That's a feature, not a bug, of leftism.
Al
2012-04-28 13:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:11:16 -0500, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
http://youtu.be/T_AAMa_X2dM
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
Time to break out the long list of alarmist quotes again, libruls have such
poor memories.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2012-04-28 16:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
Time to break out the long list of alarmist quotes again, libruls have such
poor memories.
You "break out" dozens of OLD, unreliable, beliefs dated PRIOR to
January 2003

All of which were PROVEN to be false.

So---Break 'em out

Laughing at them is standard.
Al
2012-04-28 18:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by Al
Post by duke
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Keeping a straight face was really hard for bush when he said Iraq had
"tons of WMD"
Your 'rats in Congress believed it too.
Time to break out the long list of alarmist quotes again, libruls have such
poor memories.
You "break out" dozens of OLD, unreliable, beliefs dated PRIOR to
January 2003
What exactly are you accusing the Democrats of, voting in the majority for
an action they knew was based on a flawed Majority View? They all had the
same intel as Bush.

But think about it, how could a democrat who railed against Iraq for years
do an about-face when it came time to match action to rhetoric?
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
All of which were PROVEN to be false.
Enough of the articles of war were factual enough without the WMD intel,
they were when Clinton was President, amd they never changed.

Unlike Clinton (and Obama), Bush took a year to rush to war. He asked
Congress, he asked the UN, he explained at length to the people ALL of the
rationale.

The left never accepted it, and never will, but that doesn't matter now. You
lost. Get over it.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
So---Break 'em out
Laughing at them is standard.
The left always has an explanation why yesterday's statements are no longer
operative. But you're only fooling each other.
Alan Ferris
2012-04-28 19:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Enough of the articles of war were factual enough without the WMD intel,
they were when Clinton was President, amd they never changed.
Bush officials never tire of repeating the following stories as
justification for their policy:

Hussein gassed his own people.
Hussein tried to assassinate George Bush, Sr.
Hussein's soldiers took babies out of incubators during the invasion
of Kuwait.
These stories make for great propaganda, but none of them are true,
and the Bush administration knows it.

Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.

Supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during
the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the
U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the
Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This
means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during
battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College,
Stephen Pelletier & colleague)

In a related lie, Hussein is also said to have committed genocide in
August 1988, killing 100,000 Iraqi Kurds with machine guns, then
burying them in mass graves. U.S. intelligence services have uniformly
dismissed this story. According to Stephen Pelletier of the U.S. Army
War College, no such mass graves have ever been found because none
exist. The incident never happened. Human Rights Watch, which
originally reported the story, has since retracted it, but the lie
lives on.

Saddam Hussein did not try to assassinate George Bush, Sr.

Bush, Jr. loves to tell the story of how Hussein "tried to kill my
dad." But it's not true. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh debunked
the story in a December 5, 1993 article in The New Yorker titled "A
Case Not Closed." The bomb was actually miles away from Bush, Sr. and
was likely a set-up by Kuwait to keep Clinton from easing sanctions on
Iraq.

Saddam Hussein's soldiers did not remove babies from incubators in
Kuwait.

A New York public relations firm hired by the Kuwaiti government
created this story to win American public support for U.S. military
action against Iraq. The fiction was based on the tearful testimony of
a Kuwaiti woman before the U.S. Senate as it debated war in 1990. The
woman claimed to have witnessed the incubator incident with her own
eyes, but she was really the daughter of the Kuwaiti Information
Minister, and hadn't even been in Kuwait on the day the alleged
atrocity took place. (See csmonitor.com/2002/ 0906/p01s02-wosc.html.)

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/1brutal.shtml

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Al
2012-04-28 20:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Al
Enough of the articles of war were factual enough without the WMD intel,
they were when Clinton was President, amd they never changed.
Bush officials never tire of repeating the following stories as
Hussein gassed his own people.
Hussein tried to assassinate George Bush, Sr.
Hussein's soldiers took babies out of incubators during the invasion
of Kuwait.
These stories make for great propaganda, but none of them are true,
and the Bush administration knows it.
Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.
I've read all the propaganda.

It failed, Saddam's gone.

Best of luck changing it all.
Paul Duca
2012-04-29 10:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al
Post by Alan Ferris
Post by Al
Enough of the articles of war were factual enough without the WMD intel,
they were when Clinton was President, amd they never changed.
Bush officials never tire of repeating the following stories as
Hussein gassed his own people.
Hussein tried to assassinate George Bush, Sr.
Hussein's soldiers took babies out of incubators during the invasion
of Kuwait.
These stories make for great propaganda, but none of them are true,
and the Bush administration knows it.
Saddam Hussein did not gas his own people.
I've read all the propaganda.
It failed, Saddam's gone.
Does nothing for me, but I'm told to feel GREAT about it, and someday I might get a reward.
Paul Duca
2012-04-29 15:56:39 UTC
Permalink
In article
I'm admittedly kind of an idiot.
Stopt it Paul, you damn moron.
<snip>

I'm with Paul on this one, Paul. Apparently, so is Paul. What say Paul?
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:15:57 UTC
Permalink
But George WILL wait 53 YEARS for a Republican to lower gas prices...


Paul
Ramon F. Herrera
2012-04-28 14:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Cheery picking much?

You may want to check my arithmetic.

(60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 x 4) - 53

-RFH

ps: Cuatro Años Más!!!
George Kerby
2012-04-28 14:45:55 UTC
Permalink
On 4/28/12 9:24 AM, in article
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Cheery picking much?
You may want to check my arithmetic.
Why?

Your spelling is bad enough.

The MIT alumni would be glad that you are "repping" them so well...
Ramon F. Herrera
2012-04-28 14:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Kerby
On 4/28/12 9:24 AM, in article
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Cheery picking much?
You may want to check my arithmetic.
Why?
Your spelling is bad enough.
The MIT alumni would be glad that you are "repping" them so well...
We have a popular joke in Cambridge. An elevator had a "Maximum
Capacity: 8" sign and there were 8 people in it. Still, a student
stepped in. He was asked:

"Are you from MIT and therefore don't know how to read, or from
Harvard, and therefore don't know how to count?"

-Ramon The Mispeller
Paul Duca
2012-04-29 10:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Kerby
On 4/28/12 9:24 AM, in article
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Cheery picking much?
You may want to check my arithmetic.
Why?
 > Your spelling is bad enough.
 >
 > The MIT alumni would be glad that you are "repping" them so well...
We have a popular joke in Cambridge. An elevator had a "Maximum
Capacity: 8" sign and there were 8 people in it. Still, a student
"Are you from MIT and therefore don't know how to read, or from
Harvard, and therefore don't know how to count?"
-Ramon The Mispeller
I'm sure George went to a college that only cared about making sure he
sat in the football stadium every Saturday...

Paul
George Kerby
2012-04-29 15:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On 4/29/12 5:36 AM, in article
Post by Paul Duca
Post by George Kerby
On 4/28/12 9:24 AM, in article
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Cheery picking much?
You may want to check my arithmetic.
Why?
 > Your spelling is bad enough.
 >
 > The MIT alumni would be glad that you are "repping" them so well...
We have a popular joke in Cambridge. An elevator had a "Maximum
Capacity: 8" sign and there were 8 people in it. Still, a student
"Are you from MIT and therefore don't know how to read, or from
Harvard, and therefore don't know how to count?"
-Ramon The Mispeller
I'm sure George went to a college that only cared about making sure he
sat in the football stadium every Saturday...
Pauline the DumbAssed Illiterate
I'm sure the only college you attended was involving your job as a
Maintenance Technician (Janitor).

No, Pauline, where I went we didn't sit down due to tradition. And, that
tradition also called for kissing our girls every time we scored, neither of
which you would know anything.
Paul Duca
2012-04-30 00:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Kerby
On 4/29/12 5:36 AM, in article
Post by Paul Duca
Post by George Kerby
On 4/28/12 9:24 AM, in article
Post by Ramon F. Herrera
Cheery picking much?
You may want to check my arithmetic.
Why?
 > Your spelling is bad enough.
 >
 > The MIT alumni would be glad that you are "repping" them so well...
We have a popular joke in Cambridge. An elevator had a "Maximum
Capacity: 8" sign and there were 8 people in it. Still, a student
"Are you from MIT and therefore don't know how to read, or from
Harvard, and therefore don't know how to count?"
-Ramon The Mispeller
I'm sure George went to a college that only cared about making sure he
sat in the football stadium every Saturday...
Paul
That tradition also called for kissing our girls every time we scored,
the two things we were taught would be all we'd EVER need to know.
The nice folks like Fox News and talk radio hosts would take care of everything else.
Ted Parvo
2012-04-26 16:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Ography
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
Twaysee, you useless troll, gas prices are the equivalent of US$8 to $9
per gallon in much of the EU because of TAX POLICY, you ignorant moron!
Your beef is with the guy who made the claim, Tommy Boy, not the guy
who posted it.

Now don't you feel like a silly little boy?
Post by Tom Ography
Now go out and rent a clue, troll.
You just got one gratis.
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Parvo
Post by Tom Ography
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
Twaysee, you useless troll, gas prices are the equivalent of US$8 to $9
per gallon in much of the EU because of TAX POLICY, you ignorant moron!
Your beef is with the guy who made the claim, Tommy Boy, not the guy
who posted it.
Now don't you feel like a silly little boy?
Post by Tom Ography
Now go out and rent a clue, troll.
You just got one gratis...the ONLY thing Republicans will EVER give you free.
Harold Burton
2012-04-27 02:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Ography
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
Twaysee, you useless troll, gas prices are the equivalent of US$8 to $9
per gallon in much of the EU because of TAX POLICY, you ignorant moron!
The base price of a gallon (or a liter, or any given unit volume) of
gasoline isn't that different in other parts of the world, but tax policies
make a HUGE difference, as do national polices that subsidize prices. If
gas tax in Greece was at the level of a typical U.S. state, prices would
be much closer to prices paid in the U.S.
Was that the song you sung during the Bush administration? Love the
hypocrisy of leftards.
Post by Tom Ography
Now go out and rent a clue, troll.
Indeed.


snicker
Alan Ferris
2012-04-26 16:53:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
And nobody knows if the price of gasoline will reach $11 either.....so
what is the point of all this?

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Robert Westergrom
2012-04-26 17:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
And nobody knows if the price of gasoline will reach $11 either.....so
what is the point of all this?
Here. Let me help. When Obama took office the price of gas was 1/2
what it is today. He and his boy Chu' want the price of American gas
to be at european levels,at least,not because he can't do anything to
prevent that from happening but because they BOTH want to destroy the
American economy,capitalism,BIG OIL and the middle class. Hope that
helps son.
Post by Alan Ferris
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")
Alan Ferris
2012-04-26 18:02:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
And nobody knows if the price of gasoline will reach $11 either.....so
what is the point of all this?
Here. Let me help. When Obama took office the price of gas was 1/2
what it is today. He and his boy Chu' want the price of American gas
to be at european levels,at least,not because he can't do anything to
prevent that from happening but because they BOTH want to destroy the
American economy,capitalism,BIG OIL and the middle class. Hope that
helps son.
When Bush was in Gasoline prices were over $4 but I did not see you
shouting then? Why not, is it just because of the price now or
because of who is president?

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Robert Westergrom
2012-04-26 18:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
And nobody knows if the price of gasoline will reach $11 either.....so
what is the point of all this?
  Here. Let me help. When Obama took office the price of gas was 1/2
what it is today. He and his boy Chu' want the price of American gas
to be at european levels,at least,not because he can't do anything to
prevent that from happening but because they BOTH want to destroy the
American economy,capitalism,BIG OIL and the middle class. Hope that
helps son.
When Bush was in Gasoline prices were over $4 but I did not see you
shouting then?  Why not, is it just because of the price now or
because of who is president?
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush was POTUS you
leftists screamed to high heaven that it was simply because Bush was a
former "oil man" and he and that other EVILLLLLLLL oil man Cheney were
making gas prices increase to make $BILLIONS for BIG OIL and
Halliburton. Have you suffered a blow to the head recently? Off your
meds or simply a bald faced liar?


http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/04/in-pictures-bush-vs-obama-on-gas-prices/

Yes, the price of gasoline reached historic levels, rising above $4/
gallon during Bush’s second term, but that wasn’t due to a lack of
trying to increase domestic supply. U.S. domestic supply is but one
factor in the global price of oil, and thus gas prices. But when a
president purposefully chooses to decrease our domestic supply by 13%,
with hopes of driving that supply even lower, and objects to U.S.-
Canadian pipelines and new forms of exploration, discovery and
friendly importation, the price consequences are real, and should be
scrutinized.
During the first twenty-six months of President Bush’s first term in
office, the price of gasoline increased by 7%. At the end of his
second term, the price had decreased by 9% from the time he took
office (adjusted for inflation). During the first twenty-six months of
Obama’s term in office, the price of gasoline has spiked over 67% with
no relief in site.

President Bush’s response to $4/gallon gasoline was to lift
presidential and congressional moratoriums on expanded drilling in the
Outer Continental Shelf, a move that many critics say came too late.
But what about Obama?

Some on the right have criticized Obama for having no energy policy.
This is wrong. Obama’s energy policy is working exactly the way it is
designed. This administration knows that unless the price of fossil
fuels skyrocket, expensive alternative energy sources, no matter how
heavily subsidized, will continue to be unattractive to American
consumers.

Obviously, this risky desire to have high gas prices is a punitive
policy that foolishly ignores how Americans use petroleum. While oil
is largely a transportation fuel, solar and wind can only contribute
to our electricity demands. Oil accounts for less than 1% of our
electricity demand.

The liberal fascination with developing expensive vehicles that run
on electricity doesn’t change that: 1) Solar or wind powered vehicles
don’t commercially exist; 2) The cars that do run on electricity, or
even battery-powered hybrids still require gas; and 3) the high cost
of the alternatively fueled vehicles makes them largely insignificant
in the auto market and cost-prohibitive to the average consumer.
Alan Ferris
2012-04-26 18:51:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Robert Westergrom
2012-04-26 22:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")
Well hell,it's already common knowledge that #1 you're not an American
#2 You're a bald faced liar #3 You probably haven't reached puberty.
Alan Ferris
2012-04-26 22:44:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:24:03 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.
Well hell,it's already common knowledge that #1 you're not an American
#2 You're a bald faced liar #3 You probably haven't reached puberty.
Well thank you for confirming that Americans are stupid.



--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")
Well hell,it's already common knowledge that #1 you're not an American
#2 You're a bald faced liar #3  You probably haven't reached puberty.
#4 Robert assumes a Republican will bring back $1 gas, so he can
easily fill up his pickup and SUV...which he never uses for their
capacities (at least other than by driving them around town, everyone
assumes he has a sizable penis).

Paul
Orval Fairbairn
2012-04-27 19:08:01 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Paul Duca
Post by Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")
Well hell,it's already common knowledge that #1 you're not an American
#2 You're a bald faced liar #3  You probably haven't reached puberty.
#4 Robert assumes a Republican will bring back $1 gas, so he can
easily fill up his pickup and SUV...which he never uses for their
capacities (at least other than by driving them around town, everyone
assumes he has a sizable penis).
Paul
So -- is it any of your damn business *WHAT* he does with his
money/vehicles?

The problem with "Progressives" is that they want to tell everyone how
to live their lives.
Paul Duca (tomservo56954@comcast.net)
2012-04-28 13:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article
Post by Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")
Well hell,it's already common knowledge that #1 you're not an American
#2 You're a bald faced liar #3  You probably haven't reached puberty.
#4  Robert assumes a Republican will bring back $1 gas, so he can
easily fill up his pickup and SUV...which he never uses for their
capacities (at least other than by driving them around town, everyone
assumes he has a sizable penis).
Paul
Sounds like Orval can't afford the vehicle, fuel, or even penile
enhancement surgery.

Paul
Orval Fairbairn
2012-04-28 18:34:55 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Paul Duca (***@comcast.net)
Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article
Post by Robert Westergrom
Post by Alan Ferris
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Robert Westergrom
Post by Robert Westergrom
Every time the price of gas increased a penny while Bush
No I did not.
--
Ferrit
 ()'.'.'()
 ( (T) )
 ( ) . ( )
 (")_(")
Well hell,it's already common knowledge that #1 you're not an American
#2 You're a bald faced liar #3  You probably haven't reached puberty.
#4  Robert assumes a Republican will bring back $1 gas, so he can
easily fill up his pickup and SUV...which he never uses for their
capacities (at least other than by driving them around town, everyone
assumes he has a sizable penis).
Paul
Sounds like Orval can't afford the vehicle, fuel, or even penile
enhancement surgery.
Paul
Wrong on all counts! (as usual) I CAN afford my vehicles and don't need
surgery of ANY kind. (unlike certain self-styled "Progressives," who
have a need to control others.)
Tracey12
2012-04-27 08:59:01 UTC
Permalink
   Here. Let me help. When Obama took office the price of gas was 1/2
what it is today. He and his boy Chu' want the price of American gas
to be at european levels,at least,not because he can't do anything to
prevent that from happening but because they BOTH want to destroy the
American economy,capitalism,BIG OIL and the middle class. Hope that
helps son.
\\

Its great to see other people coming to the same conclusion I have.
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
   Here. Let me help. When Obama took office the price of gas was 1/2
what it is today. He and his boy Chu' want the price of American gas
to be at european levels,at least,not because he can't do anything to
prevent that from happening but because they BOTH want to destroy the
American economy,capitalism,BIG OIL and the middle class. Hope that
helps son.
\\
Its great to see other people coming to the same conclusion I have.
Robert hated him LONG before you did...and he isn't even LOOKING to
sleep with teenyboppers.


Paul
Dacato
2012-04-26 19:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
Gas prices in Canada (where something like 40% of our oil comes from)
are higher than they are here. Are you going to blame that on Obama
too? Get a clue asswipe.
Robert Westergrom
2012-04-26 22:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dacato
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
Gas prices in Canada (where something like 40% of our oil comes from)
are higher than they are here. Are you going to blame that on Obama
too? Get a clue asswipe.
Of course not,asslick. Obama is blamed for NOTHING,N-O-T-H-I-N-G !!
NOTHING !!! Hell,he's still blaming all his failures on GW Bush,Dick
Cheney,Halliburton,BIG OIL,Blackwater,tsunami's,bad
weather,earthquakes,Republicans and low testosterone. Stupid
OboBobbleheaded motherfucker..
bill clinton
2012-04-27 04:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dacato
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global
economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full
Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
Gas prices in Canada (where something like 40% of our oil comes from)
are higher than they are here. Are you going to blame that on Obama
too? Get a clue asswipe.
Umm, its because of all the social taxes attached, fool
Paul Duca
2012-04-27 11:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Tracey realizes he can't deliver the $5 a gallon gas by Memorial Day
he previously promised, so he has to update his forecast.

Yet he does so still not getting a promise in return from the
Republicans to lower something else--the age of consent to 12.

Paul
Too_Many_Tools
2012-04-27 19:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
$10 gas would get the US off their butt and make change happen.

TMT
George Kerby
2012-04-28 00:40:17 UTC
Permalink
On 4/27/12 2:34 PM, in article
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full
Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential..>>
.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
$10 gas would get the US off their butt and make change happen.
TMT
And would kick the Nigerian out of office. "Change" that we can USE!

Bring it on, LibTards. You will be buried - forever!!!
Orval Fairbairn
2012-04-28 03:09:44 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full
Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential.
..
$10 gas would get the US off their butt and make change happen.
TMT
Yes -- the first change would be to put the eco-Nazis in their deserved
place! That includes the whole set of self-styled "Progressives."
Paul Duca (tomservo56954@comcast.net)
2012-04-28 13:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Tracey12
Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that "no one knows"
if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and
acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.
"I don't think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to
oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,"
Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per
gallon, as they have been in Greece. "Where it will all end, no one
knows.
Full Story:http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...
$10 gas would get the US off their butt and make change happen.
Which is why the Republican scream about lowering it...to keep their
non-acolytes ON their butts.

Paul
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...