King won't like this even his beloved NYT,a liberal rag,has to admit yes indeed there were WMD's in Iraq !

It's a stunning revelation: American soldiers in Iraq came across thousands of chemical weapons -- and a number of them suffered long-term injuries after being exposed to mustard and sarin gas.

And today, ISIS controls the territory where these chemical weapons were found.

These facts are laid bare by New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers in a long article, “The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons.” How ironic that the left-leaning Times is presenting facts that are at odds with a favorite narrative of the anti-war left -- namely, that the mendacious Bush administration had lied about the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

Elaborating on the magnitude of Saddam's WMD sites, Chivers writes:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.




http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/ny_times_admits_saddam_had_wmds.html#ixzz3GDR5igD4

I stopped reading domestic publications long ago. I'm sick and tired of liberal brainwashing and conservative scare tactics.

Dave, you told us earlier the NYT is "not a real newspaper."

Secondly, these disposed of or hidden chemical weapons aren't the "WMDs" that Bush and Powell ostensibly went to war to remove. Everyone knows Hussein used mustard and sarin on his people.

Here's from the NYT story:

"The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

"After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

"Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find."

Dave, the US "did NOT find what it had been looking for at the war's outset" to back up its flimsy evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction presented to the world and the United Nations by Powell. The US didn't publicize these discoveries because "they did NOT support the invasion's rationale." Make of it what you want. Consensus of the world and your generals who fought the war is that it was a mistake costing 4,500 lives, 11,000 wounded and a trillion dollars.

I read liberal and conservative publications, Jager. How else to measure my own prejudices?

Dave doesn't read the "liberal rag" NYT but appears to have been directed to it by a conservative source offering a different interpretation of the NYT story.

Dave would have us believe the opposite of the NYT story posted, in part, above. It doesn't wash.

A country bearing open wounds of Vietnam should be wary of propaganda from any source i.e. the US must save the world from communism under Washington's Domino Theory ; stop it in Vietnam before it engulfs us all.

Another mistake: 55,000 American lives for barging into a civil war evolving from the Vietnamese kicking out their French colonizers. Ike warned accurately in his closing address to beware of the military-industrial complex.

Read everything you can get your hands on to maintain your interest in the world. Jager.

I put the NYT refence up as its seem to be one libtard rag YOU seem to believe king !

facts are facts King and yes there were indeed WMD's(they are now in ISIS hands thanks to your almighty Obama's flailed attempt at stopping them with out boots on the ground"shock and yawn";

Elaborating on the magnitude of Saddam's WMD sites, Chivers writes:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

You're repeating the opposite of what Chivers wrote, Dave. The rusty remnants were made for the Iraq-Iran war (when my daughter was in Baghdad as secretary of Canada's ambassador to Iraq).

Rusted shells and mustard/sarin residue aren't the WMD's that the US went to war to remove. They were, from your quote above,"chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule."

ISIS wouldn't look at acknowledged junk, having access to all the arms and technology literally handed over to them by the US's expensively trained and equipped Iraqi army.

We are talking about if Iraq had WMD's at the time of the invasion and removal of Hussian,not what the condition of them is now-we could argue that if we wanted to "change the facts" like you do.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

It has also been substantiated that a large amount of chemical weapons were moved to Syria from Iraq prior to our invasion and other stocks were used on the Kurds. I have confronted many lefties on this point and, as usual, they either ignore it or try to change the subject.
One of the principal tenets of these lefties is Hussian HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION even though notable lefties like both Clinton's maintained otherwise before we invaded. However the truth is inconvenient and again as usual they won't admit they were wrong.
This is just ONE example of why I have no respect whasoever for those on the left.
Jim

And they also soon forget that they agreed and supported the War.Of course that was back in the old days when congress held votes and we had a international coalition too !

Democrats who voted for the Iraq war

Baucus (MT) Bayh (IN) Biden (DE) Breaux (LA)Cantwell (WA) Carnahan (MO) Carper (DE) Cleland (GA) Clinton (NY) Daschle (SD) Dodd (CT) Dorgan (ND) Edwards (NC) Feinstein (CA) Harkin (IA) Hollings (SC) Johnson (SD) Kerry (MA) Kohl (WI) Landrieu (LA) Lieberman (CT) Lincoln (AR) Miller (GA) Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Reid (NV) Rockefeller (WV) Schumer (NY) Torricelli (NJ)

C.J. Chivers is a very distinguished reporter, Pulitzer Prize Winner, former US Marine infantry officer, Columbia journalism graduate.

If you believe what he wrote, the evidence is clearly that the discoveries bear no relation whatsoever to the claimed WMDs for which the US went to war.

If the discoveries were relevant, the US would have claimed it to the world. The US didn't because Chivers said they weren't evidence of the alleged WMDs.

It's all there in his reporting, the relative parts I've posted in entirety above. Believe what you want to but I've been on to this story since Jerry Bull, later killed by Mossad, was building Hussein giant cannons for those shells.

Denial, Dismissal, Demonization, and Distortion. Really, was anyone expecting anything different?

Throw in a pointless rationalization about Vietnam, and there you go, the perfect Statist Religious Response...

Now really, if Chivers hadn't "Spun" his story to the Left, do you think the NYT would have printed it?

Great take King. All along, you have told us the puppet masters had duped powell in to testifying before the un about a couple old chem decontamination vans to rally the world against sadam. Now you're saying you had inside info all along about trivial old rusty cans of bug spray that the cdc of the radical islamic state told their citizens not to touch?

Allow me to spin a bit, and please confirm this with your daughter. It's the ole 'tip of the ice berg'. There was so much good stuff, that the bad guys just grabbed what they wanted because it wasn't worth their time or effort to deal with the garbage. You see their cdc is smarter than our cdc. Hmmm, even their leaders are smarter than ours, they'll save chem wmd's for use against their own as needed, because history shows the 'world' won't care one bit.

This is possibly a preemptive move by the NYT. It sets up the "Blame Bush" (or Republicans, or Conservatives, or Christians, or Heterosexuals, or Oil Companies, or whoever it is on their "Demonize du Jour" list) narrative for if any of the weapons are used. They can claim that they weren't 'The WMDs we went to war over", just some rusty old leftover junk that we weren't concerned with.

No, Craig, I said nothing about having "inside info" about what Iraq covered with sand long before the US ostensibly invaded to remove WMDs.

I said earlier that Powell had been duped and that I had been following the story from the day my friend Jerry Bull went whacky and built enormous sabot-lined cannons for Hussein to terrorize the region.

I don't mind if you spin a bit but don't see where the bad guys relate to the discoveries---unless you're referring to speculation that some of the stuff went to Syria. It probably did.

Liberals suppress the fact that Bush's Iraq coalition was much more multilateral than Obama's


“But Bush’s coalition that went into Iraq included more than 30 nations, most of them democracies. Kerry’s and Obama’s coalition against the Islamic State includes maybe eight, mostly autocracies.”

What I would have liked to add, but didn’t have space for, was a reference to the description, made by Kerry as a presidential candidate in 2004, to Bush’s coalition as a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.” That description was recalled by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Marc Thiessen in a blogpost titled “Kerry’s coalition against the Islamic State fails his ‘global test’ ”: the last two words quoting him in one of the presidential debates.


It was vicious of Kerry, and undermined the credibility of the United States, to characterize Bush’s very large coalition in such negative terms — terms that insulted democracies, including many NATO allies. Thiessen provides a much longer list of those who stood with us and sent ground troops into Iraq in 2003: “the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia, Romania, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria, Thailand, El Salvador, Hungary, Singapore, Norway, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Mongolia, Latvia, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Albania, New Zealand, Tonga, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Philippines, Armenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

And the absolute B.S from the left that the were no WMDs in Iraq just goes on and on.
Jim

Has ISIS looted chemical weapons from former Iraqi nerve agent factory that US failed to destroy?

Daily Mail [UK], by Ted Thornhill

ISIS controls a vast compound in Iraq containing 2,500 rusting chemical weapons rockets, according to the Iraqi government.

The site was bombed by the US during the 1991 Gulf War, but the munitions there were only partially destroyed, according to the UN - then left to Iraq to take care of.

However, Iraqi officials wrote to the United Nations this summer claiming that abandoned weapons containing the lethal nerve agent Sarin are still in the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, which made chemical weapons in the 1980s and early 1990s, and that this is now in the hands of the violent jihadists.

The last major report by U.N. inspectors on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was released about a year after the experts left in March 2003. It states that Bunker 13 contained 2,500 sarin-filled 122-mm chemical rockets produced and filled before 1991, and about 180 tons of sodium cyanide, 'a very toxic chemical and a precursor for the warfare agent tabun.'

Defence Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said 'Should they even be able to access the materials, frankly, it would likely be more of a threat to them than anyone else.'

It was revealed this week that about 5,000 chemical weapons were recovered or destroyed in Iraq following the 2003 invasion but the Pentagon chose to keep the findings top secret.

But the information wasn't made public for several embarrassing reasons including the fact some of the weapons were U.S.-made, plus they had been sitting dormant since the early 1980s and therefore didn't support President George W. Bush's rationale for going to war. (How’s that for nonsense? Dangerous enough to be “more of a threat to them than to anyone else,” 11 years after their discovery; dangerous enough to be kept top secret for those 11 years; but not dangerous enough to support one of the many reasons GWB gave for going to war against Saddam.)

At least 17 American military personnel and seven Iraqi police were sickened by poisons - usually sarin and mustard gases. Many of the shells would leak liquid during transportation, exposing the soldiers to the potentially-lethal fumes. Symptoms ranged from disorientation and nausea to blindness and huge, seething blisters. Jarrod Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of 'wounds that never happened' from 'that stuff that didn't exist'.

'I love it when I hear, ''Oh there weren't any chemical weapons in Iraq'',' he said. 'There were plenty.'

How can you be absolutely positive this is an operation against Kurds?

Here we go again! Look at the Daily Mail lead mentioning 2,500 rusting chemical weapons rockets. Nowhere does the NYT story, the Daily Mail follow-up or anyone else refer to them as WMDs. Only Jim and Dave.

Sure, there's lots of spin because of US embarrassment, Iraq panic with IS at Baghdad's gates, and Iraq's US-trained and equipped 300,000-military disappeared like driven smoke. They surrendered the site.

From the Daily Mail again:

"Defence Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said 'Should they even be able to access the materials, frankly, it would likely be more of a threat to them than anyone else.'

"It was revealed this week that about 5,000 chemical weapons were recovered or destroyed in Iraq following the 2003 invasion but the Pentagon chose to keep the findings top secret.

"But the information wasn't made public for several embarrassing reasons including the fact some of the weapons were U.S.-made, plus they had been sitting dormant since the early 1980s and therefore didn't support President George W. Bush's rationale for going to war. (How’s that for nonsense? Dangerous enough to be “more of a threat to them than to anyone else,” 11 years after their discovery; dangerous enough to be kept top secret for those 11 years; but not dangerous enough to support one of the many reasons GWB gave for going to war against Saddam.)"

One of the many reasons but not as WMDs!

Yeah: "Here we go again".
They wern't rusting weapons when G Bush went after them. And:
Furthmere anyone want to bet those chemicals are no longer active as implied above?
You lefties can't admit the truth even when it's staring you right in the face.
An expert in deactiving weapons blew himself up here a couple of years ago. What was he defusing? Why it was a 150 year old piece of ordnance left over from the Civil War.
Not WMDs?? Go tell that to the Kurds.
Jim

To me, this is an awkward thought.

Didn't this issue come up because of a news report that the radical islamic state took control of the chemical weapon dump. You know, these folks that are the ideal enemy.

bo's admin. has stripped all reference to islam out of any military action, conflict or any civil unrest, but everyone knows who the enemy is. If a reporter or two decides to strike all references to wmd's from their articles, then multiple thousands of artillery shells filled with chemicals known to be weapons of mass destruction are no longer wmd's. Why can't these things be loaded in trucks to be carted off in a clean up effort, then accidentally be diverted and blown up in a suicide terror attack.

Some kirby spokesman fellow says don't worry, these things are not usable. How dangerous would it be for a suicide bomber to load 'em up and set 'em off before he got too sick. Are these the same folks that're saying 'don't worry about our allies'. US trained and supplied syrian rebs won't veer off to tend to their own interests against asad. Our partners the turks spectate on the border while 'coalition kurds' are being slaughtered, and then attack kurds within turkey. Are these spokesfolks for the admin. ever going to give us a believable story.

I never mentioned syria, but are you pretty confident that non rusty chemical wmd's made there way to that country. Interesting, the 'facts' are either these things are old junk or accounted for in syria. No other possibilities?

If you believe the articles, and stand by the fact that they are not usable, are you confident that these materials are completely unusable for isis related work place violence. Because the article hints that these materials are hazardous and potential criminals have taken control of them, shouldn't we send the fbi in to at least investigate if a crime has been committed.

Once again BULL

just some facts for ya King,

Bush went to congress and they voted (INCLUDING Kerry,Clinton and others) to go to invade Irag
your BOY Obama (and Reid) are afraid to vote because of politics !

Bush had a coalition of 30 nations-democracies when he went to war A coalition of the WILLING
Obama and Kerry have 7 or 8 autocracies and they ARE losing the war with ISIS.



Saddam Hussein HAD WMD's,he used them several times against his own people and threatened to us them against others !

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2013/03/22/news/saddam-hussein-had-wmd-after-all/

What we knew about Saddam Hussein and WMD

Saddam Hussein certainly had WMD many years before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He used them on Kurdish towns and villages in northern Iraq. (Incidentally that’s the one part of Iraq that has stayed relatively calm lately.) The suffering of those villagers prompted the Northern No-fly Zone during the Clinton administration. It also prompted then-President Bill Clinton to say that Saddam Hussein had to go.

What else do you expect from the blame Bush crowd ?

Dave, the sarin/mustard projectiles supplied by the United States to Hussein aren't WMDs. Saying they are doesn't make them so. The US isn't into WMD proliferation. The fact Hussein used them on his people doesn't make them WMDs.

The fact Bush's invasion was supported by many countries doesn't change the fact it was a mistake acknowledged even by your generals who fought it. Our prime minister told Bush to his face that Canada wouldn't be part of it.

Result: 4,500 dead Americans, 11,000 wounded, cost a trillion dollars, plus the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. The mismanagement of the war from the beginning has sucked the US back into a civil war with no end in sight.

Those are the facts, Dave.

King,

saying Hussian did not have WMD's when its been proven time and time again-WITH FACTS,that he had them used them on his own people just because your liberal ideology FORCES you to deny what real does not work.It never has and never will.

Now once again-I know you like to play your "punks game" and blame Bush but for everthing;

And they also soon forget that they agreed and supported the War.Of course that was back in the old days when congress held votes and we had a international coalition too !

Democrats who voted for the Iraq war

Baucus (MT) Bayh (IN) Biden (DE) Breaux (LA)Cantwell (WA) Carnahan (MO) Carper (DE) Cleland (GA) Clinton (NY) Daschle (SD) Dodd (CT) Dorgan (ND) Edwards (NC) Feinstein (CA) Harkin (IA) Hollings (SC) Johnson (SD) Kerry (MA) Kohl (WI) Landrieu (LA) Lieberman (CT) Lincoln (AR) Miller (GA) Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Reid (NV) Rockefeller (WV) Schumer (NY) Torricelli (NJ)

The facts,AND history will show that your boy Obama is the one to blame for the current ISIS /Iraq mess by NOT agreeing with his generals to leave enough troops behind and protect what was won in Iraq.

It's your thread, Dave. You say "NY Times admits Iraq had WMDs" when it did not. You can't show where it did. No one---not the US, UN, EU, UK, NATO or anyone---has attached the term WMD to what was found except you and Jim.

Go ask the friggin Kurds if Hussein used WMDS on them. They lost at least 5000 people due to the efforts of "Chemical" Ali. *** You're as bad at distorting the truth as the idiot we have in the White House who refuses to call the friggin Islamic murderers terrorists. Everybody else knows good and well they're terrorists but the closet Mulim will never admit it.

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Hassan_al-Majid

Okay, okay, uncle, I give up.

Would you happen to have a handy guide or rule of thumb for when we have to fanatically cling to an acronym or brush off spoken and written words as a punks game. Were you able to check wiki's def. of wmd? Hey, I get it, that's a derogatory term hung around Bush' failed Presidency.

Sure the US is involved in the proliferation of wmd's, 50.1% of the country is dem.

[quote=King Brown]

Sure, there's lots of spin because of US embarrassment, Iraq panic with IS at Baghdad's gates, and Iraq's US-trained and equipped 300,000-military disappeared like driven smoke. They surrendered the site.

[quote]


Comrade King, your capacity for sociopathic obfuscation is boundless.

Here we go again, a denial of objective reality. I'll try to walk you through.

The failure to achieve a Status of Forces agreement enabled Al Maliki to purge the Iraqi army. Even though it was fairly professional and apolitical.When you purge an army of it's effective leaders, combat effectiveness disappears.

It was transformed from being an effective fighting force into essentially an arm of Al Maliki's political machine.

Report: Iraq’s Maliki purged military of top U.S.-trained officers
Special to WorldTribune.com
WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has neutralized Iraq’s U.S.-trained and -equipped military, a report said.
The Brookings Institution said Al Maliki purged the Iraqi military of commanders suspected of disloyalty. In a report, the institution said those forced out by the Shi’ite Al Maliki included some of the most professional Sunni officers trained by the United States.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. /AP/Hadi Mizban
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. /AP/Hadi Mizban
“Unfortunately, despite the boost it gave him, Prime Minister Al Maliki
saw this largely apolitical and professional military as a threat to
himself,” the report, titled “Iraq Military Situation Report,” said.
Author Kenneth Pollack said Al Maliki’s purge began in 2009 when he
replaced Sunni commanders with Shi’ite loyalists, many of them rejected by
the U.S. military. He said the prime minister suspected Sunni commanders as
secret supporters of the former Saddam Hussein regime.
Pollack played down the U.S. training of the Iraqi military. He said
U.S. officers rewarded performance but only marginally improved the
effectiveness of Baghdad’s military.
“So, beginning in 2009-2010, he began to remove the capable, apolitical
officers that the United States had painstakingly put in place throughout
the Iraqi command structure,” the report said. “Instead, he put in men loyal
to himself, often because they had been the ones passed over or removed by
the Americans. The result was a heavily politicized and far less competent
officer corps.”
The report said Al Maliki also reversed nearly a decade of U.S. training
and mentoring of the Iraqi military. The prime minister closed
U.S.-established training facilities and used the military and security
agencies against his rivals.
“Finally, beginning in 2011 immediately after the departure of the last
American soldiers, Maliki began to use his new, politicized ISF [Iraqi
security forces] to go after his political rivals, many of them leading
moderate Sunni leaders,” the report said. “This was a critical element in his alienation of Iraq’s Sunni
community, and further demoralized the Sunni Arab, Kurdish, and other
minority personnel in the ISF.”
The report, dated June 14, said Al Maliki’s purge also disappointed many
Shi’ite officers who sought a professional and apolitical military. Instead,
the military was said to have been transformed into the prime minister
militia.
“Not surprisingly, when this force came under tremendous stress, it
fractured,” the report said. “As noted above, it is now being rebuilt, but
not as a national army: as a Shia militia. And the U.S. should only be
providing it with aid if we are given the right and the ability to turn it
back into an apolitical, national army.”

Ken,Criag,Canvasback, Dave et al:
I am going to give up as you'll get a straight answer in regard to Ebola from the idiot Friedan from the CDC before King Brown or those of his ilk will ever admit the truth.
The only positive thing I see in these threads is we've peeled back the Libtard Bullshit level by level and exposed it until there's basically nothing left.
Hopefuly enough of the intellligent pubic understand this and will vote accordingly on November 4th.
Jim

Good move, Jim: Letting go if you can't find a source to support your claim "the New York Times admitted Iraq had WMDs after all."

Kurds and Americans suffered horribly from chemicals, fertilizer and diesel fuel in Oklahoma and airborne cylinders of jet fuel in NYC.

Those tragedies were described as genocide, terrorist attacks and crimes against humanity but the means never specifically as WMD.

Libtards are having coniption fits right now....their precious Messiah has been lying to them all these years...as has been the NYT themselves....we've been saying that all along...but they always swore the NYT was noting but honest all the time.

CHemical weapons by defintion and as recognised by the UN....are considered WMD's. They were found years ago months after we went into Iraq.

A number of publications DID report it back then....but the left refused to believe anything but offical Party Propaganda distributed by Pravda ( currently known as the NYT and Washington COMmpost)

WHat proof more do you need this is the NYT OWN webiste.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/...apons.html?_r=1

IF you bleived them before...you better believe them now...lest you be a hypocrit by believing only what you want when it agrees with what you believe.

I've been saying the proof was already known long before I even joined this site. Now the lefty press is finally admitting it publically that they were lying all along.

Ken, none of your above contradicts spin for US embarrassment, Iraq panic with barbarians at its gates, or disappearance of the Iraqi army.

The Maliki debacle followed US getting rid of the Iraqi army after shock and awe, and the US hand-picked Maliki feeding fat on tribal vengeance. History.

Fast forward to public opinion wanting US forces out of there, Obama obliging until the beheadings and now public opinion forced him to send them back.

For the longest war in US history.

Timothy McVeigh's chemicals in a rental truck was a WMD?

The NYT story you posted was discussed here earlier at length. Nowhere does the story refer to the discovery as WMDs. No one can show where it does.

Please read C.J. Chivers report in its entirety. Please reference where he said it was a WMD discovery.

Please disclose why you believe the NYT "admitted it was lying all along."

Less chattering here and more thinking, please.

Now you're making me feel like poop. By the way, seeing as how I can't figure out links, did you have the chance to look up the definition of 'work place vio....'scratch that, wmd on wikipedia. Hey King, what does isis stand for, or is that taboo because the pres has stricken it from the sacred scrolls of....scratch that too. Heck this is misfires, so you can type radical islamic militants without getting booted from the country club, or can you?

From a neutral source;


With Iraq’s WMD programs being found by U.S. soldiers, according to a recent New York Times report, many conservatives are claiming former President George W. Bush was right to take out Saddam Hussein. But this reaction to the article has already triggered a debate, with progressives arguing over the word “active.”

In a related report by The Inquisitr, it’s been reported that ISIS terrorists may have used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Syria.

According to the report, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, and it’s believed at least 17 American military service members were exposed to Iraq’s WMDs after 2003. Retired Army major Jarrod Lampier was present when one of the largest chemical weapon stockpiles was unearthed and he says, “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq.’ There were plenty.

he Conservative Tribune claims this “first sentence is nothing short of a lie” and insists George W. Bush “never posited the existence of an ‘active’ program.” Instead, it’s claimed Bush’s warnings over Iraq’s WMD programs were true.

“But the best evidence that Bush never made such a claim comes from The Times itself, not in what the article says, but in what it does not say. If Bush had argued for the existence of an ‘active’ WMD program as justification for the invasion of Iraq, you can be sure that they would have quoted him. The fact that they don’t is strong evidence that they cant. !

http://www.inquisitr.com/1543109/iraq-wm...m0cQQXjIa8dr.99

Let's see if I understand this:
Everyone but the commited Libtards here understands that chemical weapons as used against the Kurds in Iraq are WMDs. However; if the N Y Times didn't specifically use that term there not WMDs.
If someone who has converted to Islam is running around a business shouting Islamic phrases while beheading a fellow worker isn't labeled a terrorist because the idiot occupying the White House doesn't want to offend the "peaceful" Muslims it's NOT terrorism.
Does anyone with an iota of common sense wonder why I maintain that Libtards occupy a parallel universe? Adolf Hitler lived in his own parallel universe from about 1939 until the bitter end. Hopefully we won't suffer as dire consequences due to having our own nutjob in charge.
3 more weeks and hopefully the insanity of the last 6 years will begin to reverse!

In three more weeks, anticipating winning Senate, Republicans will have to show they can govern for win in '16. It will be a different Congress.

Jim, NYT terminology isn't the issue. It's your claiming what it did when it didn't. Not the first time you let one off coming out of the holster.

Dave, there are no neutral sources. Some information sources are more reliable than others. Humans make the words. For all their strivings for objectivity, human nature makes it impossible. They decide what's in and left out of the story. Editors are the second line of defence for fairness. C.J. Chivers is a distinguished journalist, his newspaper one of most respected in the world. Your sources wouldn't rate a mention for responsible journalism. Look 'em up.

the NYT is losing readers-AND employees becuse of its liberal slant,YOU LOOK IT UP King !

here is another

Al Qaeda in Iraq Seizes Saddam’s WMD Facility

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/al-qaeda-in-iraq-seizes-saddams-wmd-facility/

But don’t worry, Obama has announced he’s dispatching Kerry to talk to people in the Middle East so it’s a race between which set of poison gasses will be emitted first.

Sunni extremists in Iraq have occupied what was once Saddam Hussein’s premier chemical-weapons production facility, a complex that still contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department and other U.S. government officials said.


Here’s the CIA report…

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

And there are more details here...

Although the damaged Bunker 13 at Muthanna contained thousands of sarin-filled rockets, the presence of leaking munitions and unstable propellant and explosive charges made it too hazardous for UNSCOM inspectors to enter. Because the rockets could not be recovered safely, Iraq declared the munitions in Bunker 13 as “destroyed in the Gulf War” and they were not included in the inventory of chemical weapons eliminated under UNSCOM supervision.

Liberal and common sense are two words that don't go together Jim,like experimental and aircraft

Not King like to tout the deaths in Iraq under his "punks game" blame bush rants but under obame ?

The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch

Twelve years ago today, nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four U.S. commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

In the war that Congress authorized against al Qaeda only three days after that attack, the vast majority of the U.S. casualties have occurred in the last four and a half years during the presidency of Barack Obama.

In fact, according to the CNSNews.com database of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, 73 percent of all U.S. Afghan War casualties have occurred since Jan. 20, 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.

The 91 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan so far in 2013 are more than those that occurred in the first two full calendar years of the war (2002 and 2003) combined, when 30 and 31 U.S. troops were killed there.

On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

By October 2001, U.S. forces were engaged in Afghanistan, seeking to remove al Qaeda from the sanctuary it had used there to launch the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

Since then, most of the leaders and participants in the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been killed or captured. But the United States not only remains at war in Afghanistan, it continues to suffer significant casualties there.

In total, 2,144 U.S. military personnel have given their lives fighting in and around Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

1,575 of the U.S. military personnel who have sacrificed their lives in this cause were killed during the presidency of Barack Obama.

That means 73 percent of the casualties in the Afghan War have happened on Barack Obama’s watch.("look it up King")

No reason why anyone should feel like poop, Craig. Jim was challenged for saying something that isn't true. The NYT didn't admit or lie about WMDs in Iraq. No one produced evidence it did. Jim withdrew and, like Obama, is back again.

As for definitions, it's not enough to just use a dictionary, as we're instructed regularly by the "purposivists" and "textualists" in the your Supreme Court debates, or similarly by Second Amendment advocates in Misfires.

A good read on this is the book Judging Statutes by the chief judge of US Court of Appeal, Robert Katzman, who supports Chief Justice John Roberts' take on textualists.

Roberts says all legislative history is not created equal. There's a difference between the weight you give a conference report and the weight you give to a statement of one legislator on the floor i.e. Jim vs international authorities.

Experimental and aircraft "don't go together," Dave? The US is home to the largest homebuilt aircraft activity in the world. I built and fly, with my 98-year-old builder and pilot colleague, an experimental high-performance bush plane. As for the unneeded human costs of Iraq, Obama inherited the war from his predecessors, as he did the financial meltdown. Is it the schooling down there or blind partisanship that you don't know these things?

Nothing wrong with my "schooling" King YOU are the chump who comes one here lacking any EVIDENCE and just relies on "look it up" when challenged on the liberal lies while playing your "punks game"

Are liberals giving President Obama a pass for waging the kind of war they would instinctively oppose?

In other words, are they opposed to bombing only when the missions are ordered by Republicans?

Defanging the Left: Why liberals are staying silent on Obama’s war

There is anecdotal evidence, at least, that some on the left have lost their antiwar passion now that George W. Bush has decamped to Texas. Which means they’re more about partisanship than principle.

Dana Milbank, the liberal Washington Post columnist who can be tough on liberals, was at the White House for an antiwar demonstration in the wake of Obama’s airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. A grand total of 22 people showed up.

Here’s what he quoted lefty activist David Swanson as saying:

“If George W. Bush were launching wars with Congress out of town, oh, it would be flooded. They would be screaming.”



Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was asked why so few on the left oppose Obama. “‘He’s totally defanged us,’ she said, citing his party, his affability — and his race. ‘The black community is traditionally the most antiwar community in this country. He’s defanged that sentiment within the black community, or certainly voicing that sentiment.’”

Defanged. Wow, those are damning words.

Now of course a president’s strongest partisans will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to controversial policies. And of course they will be quicker to jump on a president of the opposing party. But war, and peace, would seem to be one of those issues that would trump ideological allegiances.

Rand Paul hurled this charge in a Senate speech last week during a debate over funding for the Syrian rebels:

“When there were Republicans in office, there were loud voices on the other side. I see an empty chamber. There will be no voices against war because this is a Democrat president’s war…The hypocrisy of that should resound in this nearly empty chamber.”

Maybe you recall how easily it is to get hung up on the critical importance of words, say for instance 'wmd'.

Did bo say he was forced to 'inherit' war and financial meltdown, I can't recall it. He has chosen to remind us of the last eight years to imply blame, but he said by his own words many times that he had the qualifications and desire to take on issues that his campaign could spin.

What exactly is 'unneeded' when it comes to human cost. Though constantly contradicting, doesn't bo regularly say he'll 'do whatever it takes' and 'it won't be easy'. Is that wink and a nod code for where's the prompter, I don't like this military stuff. Or, can we infer that the importance of those catch phrases are reserved for domestic policy remaking.

Obama is a disappointment to me, as I said earlier several times, Craig. I also believe because of circumstances he'll be rated in the top third historically and, if he had served under a parliamentary system, a top 10.

What's more radical institutional change for the US than trying to introduce universal healthcare---the country pays a high price without it---and not engaging in poorly planned foreign adventures ?

In debt to its ears, financing China's total military cost with its interest payments, sacrificing its young and treasure as occupation forces, the US told the world it would no longer pay all the costs as the world cop.

Makes sense to me.

Quote:
"Jim, NYT terminology isn't the issue. It's your claiming what it did when it didn't. Not the first time you let one off coming out of "

Holy mackerel:
Would this claim constitute the equivalent of Al Sharpton calling Jesse Jackson an "Oreo" because he's too soft on Whites! K Brown doesn't even have this right as I went back through this whole thread and Dave made the assertion that the Times used the term WMD NOT ME .
The biggest prevaricator on this site having the audacity to call someone else a liar when he's been caught with his foot in his mouth more times then Slick Willie Clinton.
And just like the Slickster I guess from Brown's point of view it's what your definition of WMDs is!
:/Jim

Let it go, Jim. Threshing about, name-calling is unbecoming to a mature person.

Please produce evidence that I've said something here I knew not to be true. Not something you don't agree with. A lie.

Prove to members I'm the biggest liar on the board. Man-up or close.

For our resident LIAR King,who keep his head in the liberal sand no matter what FACTS are presented to show otherwise.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wmd-foun...hemical-weapons

It's been 11 years since George W. Bush ordered an American invasion of Iraq after the 911 World Trade Center attacks. Then, President Bush was convinced Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, had an active chemical weapons program. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found, as reported by the Administration at the time. Nonetheless, a shocking report out Tuesday by the New York Times says that WMD were found in Iraq after all, but the Pentagon did its best to hide the truth.

Sources, namely former and retired U.S. and Iraq veterans, shared appalling stories of U.S. troops coming across dangerous abandoned chemical munitions during a span of time from 2004 to 2011. One such incident took place in 2008 with a team of military technicians charged with disposing of artillery left behind in the toils of war.

They told of handling shells that oozed of some pungent liquid that smelled acrid. "That doesn't look like pond water," said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling. And after swabbing the discharge, the color indicated the presence of the agent mustard, a potent chemical weapon outlawed from past a war, that burns the skin, eyes, and airway of anyone exposed.

Quote:
"Let it go, Jim. Threshing about, name-calling is unbecoming to a mature person"

And what exactly am I supposed to let go of? You call me a liar and maintain I made a statement I don't believe I made and you expect me to just "let it go".
I'll let it go when I get an appology and an admission I never stated what you claimed I did.
An NO I won't let you just change the subject and now your accusing me of calling you names?

I did not call you a liar, Jim. I make a point of not name-calling or insulting in my posts. It's childish, sandbox behaviour. What I did do was challenge your and Dave's interpretation of the NYT story, and provided evidence the NYT admitted nothing claimed in the title of this thread.

Looking for a crutch, you inferred the gassed Kurds probably thought they were victims of WMDs---as if that would make them so. If you go back to reporting of the time, you'll find among the first words from the villagers was "Gas." Whether they linked it with WMD is problematic.

Yes, I accurately called you a name-caller. You said I was the biggest prevaricator on the board. That's a long pull on the bow, Jim. Where's your proof? Challenging some of the nonsense here doesn't make me a prevaricator, or any others of the liberal left and conservative right.

President Bush insisted that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical munitions, the will to use them, the ability to provide them to terrorists, and the ambition to develop further programs, including the development of nuclear weapons. He never posited the existence of an “active” program, despite The Times’ claim.

In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 29, 2002, Bush told Congress and the American people that Hussein had “plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade” — hardly the description of an active program.

When the president gave Saddam 48 hours to leave the country just prior to the invasion in 2003, he said that Iraq “continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” but made no mention — none — of an active program.

All of what Bush claimed about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction turned out to be true, as verified by no less a liberal mouthpiece than The New York Times.

http://conservativetribune.com/nyt-wmds-in-iraq/

Quote:
"Yes, I accurately called you a name-caller. You said I was the biggest prevaricator on the board. That's a long pull on the bow, Jim. Where's your proof? Challenging some of the nonsense here doesn't make me a prevaricator, or any others of the liberal left and conservative right"

And your confusing name calling with fact and an accurate attribution. I say it again You're the biggest liar on this forum. And when you've been called on it as Dave often has you just ignore it until you post your next big whopper. Is there anyone here who would care to refute this statement?
Jim

Dave, first, please read the NYT story.

Second, consider your examiner source. From Wikipedia:

Examiner.com is a media company based in Denver, Colorado, that operates a network of local news websites, allowing "pro–am contributors" to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform, in 238 markets throughout the United States and parts of Canada with two national editions, one for each country. Examiner.com is a division of Clarity Media Group of The Anschutz Corporation owned by Philip Anschutz."

Commenting on its content:

"Jim Pimentel, executive editor of Examiner said,"They're blogs. They don't get edited. We don't give any direction to people on what to write in their blogs. And that's standard operating procedure."

"Pimentel said the Examiner has "a less-strict standard for accuracy and attribution in stories that appear on the Web" than for publications in print. According to Smith, Robert Gunnison, director of school affairs at the U.C. Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism, shares his own view that newspapers "should observe the same journalism standards online as they do in print."

So there you are, Dave. You could have published there similarly.

Normally when one makes such an accusation, they are obliged to prove it. If it's fact, produce the evidence.

I ignore Dave when he calls me a liar because I don't think he knows the difference between a lie and opinion, that a lie is what we say knowing it is not true.

I hold you to a higher standard. Produce your evidence.

Generically though, when lies or opinions are repeated often enough, there's a tendency for them to turn into 'facts'. Take for instance the previous President Bush and wmd's. It probably wouldn't matter if he mustard gassed the RNC headquarters, I don't know why libs just don't come out and say, I don't like him.

Hey, no fair, I brought up wiki first.

Is it possible that editing for pc is worse than blogging, because then you risk having folks say how great a rag like the times is, just because it's edited. Maybe they should've edited jayson blair before they had to go into full damage control mode, eh.

Around here, a "fact" repeated enough to be accepted as fact is called a factoid.

One size doesn't fit all, Craig. I'm a liberal who thinks Bush would be great company, a lot of fun. His hangers-on I didn't like.

I once pitched successfully to JFK an one-hour documentary on the influences on a presidential decision. He said, "Yah, I'd like to know what's going around here."

You can blame as much of the screw-ups on the know-it-alls as their bosses.

He's full of Crap. Obama won the Nobel prize. For what exactly....nobody has actually figgured out exactly WHY yet. Because whatever it was, he never did it.

And incidently King....we did announce it when it happened...the left wing press refused to cover it because it proved them all wrong...so it got very little covereage.

I posted links to the news stories and photos on another board I was a member of when it happened. I think it was before I joined this board.

Lets see for King and other liberals that would prefer to keep there heads in the sand and not call 5000 tanks filled with nerv gas WMD's,how about yellow cake ?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390517/bush-didnt-lie-deroy-murdock


it now transpires that Hussein had some 5,000 tank shells filled with sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, and other lethal agents. This is roughly ten times the arsenal that I reported that he possessed. Had I access to more accurate information back then, my pieces would have reflected the depth of Hussein’s supplies of these munitions.

These recent news stories overlook another discovery from 2004: The U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq “that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program,” according to a DOE press release. This development was almost totally overlooked by the entire press corps,

The notion that Operation Iraqi Freedom rested upon a giant foundation of even bigger lies severely damaged the reputations of the United States of America, Bush, the conservative movement, and the GOP — the latter two of which tended to support the Iraq invasion. (So did then-senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry, and 108 other congressional Democrats at the time


In fact, Bush did not lie about WMDs. They really existed — and in enormous amounts. Moreover, they were sitting in the Iraqi desert, making U.S. GIs physically ill. (In yet another outrage, 17 soldiers reportedly were denied the medical attention or subsequent commendations that they deserved for handling these poisons.

I had to go back a reread this BS, pitched JFK hey ?
How bout his dad Joe,you should have "pitched" Joe about a miseries on bootlegging and buying votes with Sam Giancana to get his son elected then letting go after them in a double cross after he got mobbed up !

old news. old history. who cares?

what are we gonna do bout dem isis dudes? or should we leave erm alone an let erm do der thang?

We could make them listen to your phoney lingo all day to drive them nuts.

Joe was ahead of my time, Dave. The Kennedy boys were easy access. I was with Jack when he won the Wisconsin primary, breakthrough to becoming president, and campaigned as well with Robert and Teddy. Equal time with John Cabot Lodge's battles with JFK and Teddy. American TV crews used to ask why
I had higher security clearances than they did!

Lessee now......the King, who has never been exposed to mustard or sarin gas, nor wore a U.S. Marine uniform and fought in Iraq, knows all about Hussein's WMDs and Ol' Saddam didn't have any when we attacked and invaded Iraq, BUT, the King's friend built cannons for Saddam to fire shells containing WMDs....that about right?

Yes, that's about right concerning Jerry's first publicity as a McGill University professor with an idea of using 16-inch guns to put satellites in space, later funded by US Army, including building him a special range in Vermont.

After a run-in with Pentagon, apartheid South Africa hired his services, and then Hussein to terrorize his region. Mossad assassinated him waiting for elevator in his Brussels hotel. Not the first I've known to become rogue.

One doesn't have to experience warfare to know its history, Gary. I didn't have to wear a US Marine uniform to experience war either; covering the India-Pakistan war while Americans were fragging their officers in Vietnam.

The Mossad does have cojones.........
If you were a combat reporter covering the India-Pakistan war and not in VietNam, how do you know U.S. soldiers were fragging their officers? Did you interview soldiers who admitted to such activities?

Well, I've read this entire thread over a couple times and cannot find anywhere Jim said that the NYT article ever used the term WMD. Jim called him on it several times but our resident liar cannot admit that he was wrong or apologize for his misstatement of fact.

Even more to the point is the insane level of denial and dishonesty that King exhibits when he is so adamant that Sarin, Mustard Gas, etc., are not WMD, simply because the NYT article does not refer to them as such. Isn't that about as dishonest as attempting to say that a "revolver" is not a "gun"??? Just what the hell are they? Why does he find it so important to discredit Dave K's veracity on the smallest technicality?

Of course, I have referred to WMD found in Iraq numerous times myself. I provided links to articles that told of the Polish Army contingent of the international coalition finding artillery shells loaded with cyclosarin, a more potent form of sarin. King always ignored them and dishonestly went on claiming there were no WMD in Iraq and dishonestly claiming we mistakenly and foolishly went to war there because of the 9-11 attacks. Former Senator Rick Santorum R-PA went public in 2006 with stories of WMD found in Iraq, against the wishes of Karl Rove who felt the Republicans had been(dishonestly)beaten on that issue and it was best not to pursue the matter further. Dave K makes the point that George Bush did not refer to an "active" WMD program when he made the case to take out Saddam. Yet King still clings to his deceptive claims because he is all about protecting the lies of Liberal Democrats who, not incidentally, would love to restrict and/or eliminate our Second Amendment Rights.

I do wish Jim had taken a few minutes to reproduce one of King's many lies. I fully understand that Jim might see it as a complete waste of time because King is a compulsive liar who mentally cannot and will not ever admit to his dishonesty. I've proved it numerous times, often using his exact words, yet he maintains that he has never told a lie, "something he knows not to be true" here ever. I just gave but one example above when he ignored written proof of the cyclosarin shells found in Iraq. Here's a big fat Whopper right within this thread. You don't have to search very long or hard to find King saying something he "knows not to be true".



Here's another recent Whopper from the Burger King:



This was King Brown's answer to criticism of ObamaCare in the recent "ObamaCare Effects on Pawn Stars Business" thread. King, who has been in total denial about ObamaCares effects on Health Care costs in the U.S., apparently is attempting to portray that law as "checks and balances" governance when he knows there was zero Republican input accepted and zero Republican support for it. Again, something he "knows not to be true", but he says it anyway.

Or how about his frequent dishonest references to Mitt Romney and Republicans as misogynist while he is able to ignore far more egregious behaviors in his good Kennedy buddies, or those of Bill Clinton who sexually assaulted a young female intern with a cigar and had her perform fellatio on him in the Oval Office. Again, this is something he "knows not to be true" but it's DNC propaganda and lies he will parrot in order to support and give cover to sleazy Liberal Democrat Anti-Gunners.

My favorites though are those when King denies being an anti-gun, anti Second Amendment LULLER. Here's his words, verbatim, from his post # 308159 on 1/8/13 in the "Obama Pushing For Massive Gun Control" thread:

"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind."

Hopefully, this November will be a dandy, and we can at least slow down or stop some of the idiotic nonsense that King is here to promote no matter what lies, dishonesty, or half-truths he has to use. Remember to urge all of your shooting friends to get out and register and vote. A little donation to NRA Political Victory Fund wouldn't hurt either right now.

Oh yeah, how about the lie where you said you'd be done with Misfires after your 5000th post King? 1176 pieces of bullshit later, and you're still here.

Once again, Comrade King, you miss the point.

What disintegrated in the face of 'The Barbarians" was not the army that the U.S. left. If you had bothered to read the cited article you would have understood that. It was essentially a Maliki militia, not an Iraqi army. The blame, as well as the embarrassment, is on the Obama administration, not on the U.S. military. Saddam's army disappeared during the initial phases of the war, due to "Shock and Awe", and we did an excellent job rebuilding the army. All it took was an American president willing to put politics before national interest to destroy it.

All I can add is "Welcome back Keith !!!!!"

How do we know about anything, Gary? How do we know about the goings-on in Washington or Ferguson? Not that we believe all of it, depending on the source. Clergymen describe a bounteous hereafter but no one has ever seen it.

Google fragging in Vietnam, go to your library, get a book, check Amazon. The assault by soldiers on their officers in Vietnam is writ large in the public record. No need to look for survivors to confirm it. It's part of history.

Seriously, Obama destroyed the Iraqi army? It fell apart because of him? Like the myth of Bush invading to remove WMD?

Two weeks after 9/11 Donald Rumsfield wrote in his calendar after meeting with Bush:

"After the meeting ended I went alone to the Oval Office---He was alone
He was at his desk---
He talked about the meet
Then he said I want you to develop a plan
to invade Iraq. Do it outside the normal channels. Do it creatively so we don't have to take so much cover."

Consequences of the debacle are still with us. American occupation made Iraq a breeding ground for jihadists. IS sprung from it, mostly now in Iraq. You are accurate in that the US did an excellent job rebuilding the Iraqi army. Soldiers, however, don't fight for what they don't believe in. The army was riven by tribal animosities. US staying 100 years wouldn't have changed it.

"DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror."---Donald Rumsfield, October 16 2003

here since your now a Rumsfled fan:

Donald Rumsfeld, who served as U.S. Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush, blames poor diplomacy by the Obama administration for the current strained relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Our relationship with Karzai and with Afghanistan was absolutely first-rate in the Bush administration," Rumsfeld told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren on Monday. "It has gone down hill like a toboggan ever since the Obama administration came in."


Rumsfeld pointed to the fact that the Obama administration has failed to get Karzai to sign an agreement that would allow some U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2014, when combat ends.

The U.S. has status of forces agreements with more than a hundred countries, Rumsfeld noted. "A trained ape can get a status of forces agreement," he said. "It does not take a genius. And we have so mismanaged that relationship."

It is possible on the internet to find a world of information that would seem to lend credence to ANY position I would care to take.
A nice way of saying the net has a lot of BS floating around. I wouldn't doubt a 90 day wonder got slammed by men who refused to let him get them senselessly killed, (not enough NCO's to teach the looies how to survive)but you make it sound like it was an everyday occurrence. I have many good friends who survived Nam and all I've talked to paint a different picture than the anti-war advocates who weren't there. Politics should never be a factor in war.

I've forgotten how many cases---I'm sure it's on google---but the fragging was part of soldiers not believing what they were fighting and dying for and they killed officers who were seeing their duty and leading them to it.

I've talked to many Vietnam veterans as well. Had one and his wife to lunch last Saturday. Like most veterans I've interviewed, the Tennessee infantryman remembers it primarily as "the waste, the waste."

Politics is always a factor in war. The old quote from a strategy master referred to war as an extension of politics.

I believe it was General Curtis Lemay,and probably others, who told Lyndon Johnson not to get involved in a ground war in Vietnam. This advice was of course ignored as we well know today.

King,

your becoming the "Baghdad Bob" of Obama's foreign policy combined with the Swiftboat Kerry on here.
Care to add some Hanoi Jane and go for the trifecta of ignoring facts-and using the infamous "look it up" and "I heards" of the internet ?

Sure, Karzai played both sides, with the Taliban and the US, and came out of it as the Afghans always do. Re his judgment, let's not forget Rumsfield said the US would be in and out of Iraq in four months. There would be no occupation. "I don't do quagmires," he said.

I often wonder why Bush even gave Rumsfield the job. He was no friend of the Bushes. He tried to thwart his father's run for the presidency. Nixon loved him "as a ruthless little bastard." Rumsfield had no strategic or tactical sense, sending in less than half the troops Bush senior committed for Desert Storm.

Consider, too, when criticizing Obama for pulling out in response to public demands, Rumsfield ignored the Pentagon's objections to his strategy: not enough troops, not enough materiel. He managed the quagmire: 4,500 US dead, 11,000 wounded, a trillion dollars---and counting.

It's now the West's burden.

The Bottom Line:

FACTS:
Iraq had and used WMDs in the form of chemical weapons against their own people and remains of these WMDs were found while we were there. Remaining stocks were sent to Syria and are still there today.

With all the B.S. spewed out by the left over terminology and who said what in this thread the above facts are irrefutable.

This should cut right to the quick of the Libtard B.S. in the 8 pages of this thread.

Odd, everyone has a take on history and lessons learned except for the pres of the second greatest country. Why are we back, doesn't he know what you know?

Sorry Jim, but you know as well as I that stating facts and providing proof is never good enough for a mentally ill prevaricator. Only one man is responsible for all of the Libtard B.S. within this thread. Only one man here is dishonest enough to try to portray poison nerve gasses as something other than WMD. Only one man here has accused you of saying something you never said. Only one man asked you to produce evidence of lies that he has made on these pages. I took the liberty of giving him four things he had said recently that he knew not to be true... a tiny fraction of his total... and he simply does the Liberal Dance of the Gnomoron, and waltzes along as if nothing has happened. A cockroach has more integrity.

Let's see here. Unless I'm mistaken The use of chlorine is just one step away from the use of far more toxic and deadly chemicals. as WMDs I'm guessing this will be ISIS's next step as it's quicker than shooting everyone.
Never had any WMDs! What a crock from the Libtards.
jim



http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/i...kt_nbr=frpapfh6

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation national radio network today investigated the New York Times story about WMDs in Iraq. The program host said the NYT reported there were WMD in Iraq, and then introduced live senior writer Chivers who broke the story.

Chivers' first sentence categorically denied the host's premise. He said what was found almost as an "incidental" discovery were not WMD that US said it went to war to remove. He said soldiers found rusty remnants of sarin/mustard shells that were buried in the 80s during or after the Iran-Iraq war.

The CBC switched quickly to his reported US military mistreatment of soldiers who were burned and affected from contact with the munitions. Chivers said only through their back-channeling over the heads of their superiors did the Pentagon take it seriously and Hagel promise immediate redress.

Canadians have a strong interest in gas, their troops among the first to be gassed by the Germans, as inventors of the first gas mask during the First World War, and Canada is believed to have gas stocks above and below ground, as do our allies and enemies. No one talks of them, of course.

We don't think of them as WMD.

Can you believe this Jim? King Brown is still acting like a cat trying to bury shit on a marble floor.

Mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin... not WMD! That's like trying to say a shotgun is not a firearm.

I wonder why the Geneva Convention of 1925 banished the use of chemical, asphyxiating, and biological weapons. I also wonder why someone like King Brown has to be so totally dishonest in order to protect the Liberal Democrat lie that there were no WMD in Iraq? Sounds like Ken61's diagnosis of King being infected with terminal Statist/Religious fervor is right on the money.

I prefer to just call him a BIG LIAR since he apparently has a problem with some of Ken's big words.



And King still hasn't apologized to you for putting words in your mouth that you never said. Remember when he made that false claim about me after I quoted him verbatim, and he dishonestly used that as an excuse to pretend to ignore me?

Ok King:
I previously stated I'd call you a liar right when you lied and that's right now. Destroyed containers which had held chemical WMDs just happened to be found lying around in Iraq. Yeah right. I bet you believed Obama when he stated there wasn't a smidgeon of a chance the IRS had gone after conservative groups.
You can put any Libtard B.S. spin you want on WMDs but their still WMDs and none of your inane LIES and excuses will change that.
YOUR DAYS OF POSTING OUT AND OUT BULLSHIT AND GETTING A PASS ON THIS FORUM ARE OVER
Jim

The United States Army, the Pentagon, the president didn't say they were WMD when it would have been advantageous to do so. The New York Times senior writer who wrote the story, on CBC radio from coast to coast to coast today, said categorically they were not WMD. Don't get your knickers in a knot, Jim. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone.

I have always been willing to and readily admitted any mistakes I've made wich of course were inadvertant.
You on the other hand lie repeatedly and that's another thing entirely.
Jim

I repeat:

"Let it go, Jim. Threshing about, name-calling is unbecoming to a mature person.

Please produce evidence that I've said something here I knew not to be true. Not something you don't agree with. A lie."

Dave provides Misfires for members' points of view. Members shouldn't assume others are liars when they read something which is demonstrably inaccurate.

Members may not know any better, or the statement may have been misinterpreted from another source , as you have done and apologized.

Nothing in Misfires is an excuse for breaking a Commandment.

Jim, it's pretty easy to call someone a liar after hearing King being called a liar from another poster for years. If you base your support from this other poster, then you need to look at yourself in the mirror. I might not agree with all King says, but this "liar" crap is bullshit and you know it. I thought you were above this "piling on" crap. Gil

Shitstorm time.....

King may play fast and loose with the truth but to my mind what he does with the truth is no different than what EVERY successful politician does. He spins. I think Ken has the most accurate take of government and politicians these days....there is little difference between the Dems and the GOP...they are all bad, acting in their own self interest, not the country's.

This is true regardless of which end of the political spectrum we are looking at. The way I look at it is they are ALL liars, playing King's "Punks game".

That being said, I view King as an avid practitioner on this board of his 'punks game". We all know that.

So I am intensely tired of reading every thread, on every topic, devolve into a "King's a Liar" thread. Even if complete true.

I don't come here to read 'King's a Liar" threads or "Ed's an Idiot" threads. And I think that is true for most of us.

Personally, I enjoy the endless number of threads started by Jim, giving sensible background to headlines I have little time or inclination to read about in the MSM. It's like he is our own internet news aggregator and I for one appreciate it.

If, in the course of discussing these items, someone....King, Gil, nca, Gnomon or any number of other members.... shows up and "spins" the story, big deal. Call them out and move on.

Kind of tough call. Most of the times, libs just flat out will not admit that the other side has a point or facts to back up a position. The spin can easily be ridiculed in many cases because the minutia is substituted for fact and used to make the case by tugging on emotions.

Every now and then, someone will let slip that there is no possible way to keep all lawful citizens safe from criminals or jihadists on a rampage, at all times. If that scenario can be spun to call for the need for more gun control because we are unsafe, then why not miss fire.

National pride could have a bit to do with it also. There is often a laundry list of short comings that are referenced and are supposed to be accepted as fact before even getting to an unrelated point. There are comparisons to glorified perceptions in banana republics. It's very common to say, it works for us thus it's a shortcoming that the US doesn't follow suit.

Do I want the tactics and spin to stop, no way! But, maybe it's on the spinners to make their case and gain converts. This is not just play, many issue are very real.

There's a lesson in James's message. He uses the conditional "may" in referencing my truthfulness. He's cautious with "spin" and prejudicial in applying it only to politicians. All of us spin. He's right on my expression of the punk's game: politics as it has always been practised, little difference between parties. Let's consider that notion with Steyn's changing parties makes no difference and James's the left owns my child. They're three opinions, not entirely accurate but none is lying. They're spin. Here's Wikipedia on spin:

"In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics."

When we write we should be familiar with meanings of words. Jim seems to use "prevarication" interchangeably with lying. Calling a member a prevaricator in the Oxford English meaning, so what? Lying, of course, is a serious allegation. Here's prevarication from the English and American:

Oxford English first: "The verbs prevaricate and procrastinate have similar but not identical meanings. Prevaricate means ‘act or speak in an evasive way’ . . . Procrastinate, on the other hand, means ‘put off doing something’."

American meaning: "verb (used without object), prevaricated, prevaricating.
1. to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie." (Note deliberately misstate--KLB)

Propaganda until recently had a department in the Vatican. From Wikipedia: "Propaganda Fide: It is the Department (Congregation) of the Holy See founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV with the double aim of spreading Christianity in the areas where the Christian message had still not arrived and of defending the patrimony of faith in those places where heresy had caused the genuineness of the faith to be questioned." Spin.

How each frames opinions is, in effect, spin. Changing parties makes some difference. The left does not own James's son. Politics is not a punk's game. They're words to make a point. Dave is not lying when he says Obama will be impeached. Knowing the meanings and distinctions of words will make Misfires a better place. I don't know that as a fact but it's a valid opinion, not lying.

I like your post, Craig. I hope the above helps. I was thinking of a reply to your post when I wrote it.

From a Fellow at the Hoover institute L

http://www.examiner.com/article/fellow-a...cid=db_articles

Hanson pointed out a missed and not widely reported New York Times 2003 article that said, ”The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq’s illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war. The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general,


“I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery .


“So worried was Barack Obama about the likelihood of Syrian WMD that he almost started a preemptive war against Bashar Assad, but without authorization of Congress and with no attempt to go to the U.N., as Bush had done.”

“So we live in an era of lies about everything from Benghazi and Obamacare to the alphabet soup of scandal and incompetence at the IRS, ICE, VA, USSS (Secret Service), NSA, GSA, and even the CDC, “said Hanson. “But before we can correct the present lies, we should first address the greatest untruth in this collection: “Bush lied, thousands died” was an abject lie.”

I don't personally care whether King labels himself a liar or a prevaricator. Either term is suitable and fits him aptly.

I can honestly say that at this time I do not give a shit if SH had WMDs or not. I suspect most out there feel the same way.

I understand your position, Jim. People when they lose find notions that validate themselves i.e. the birthers.

Of course supporters of Obama and the Democrats now dismiss the WMD issue. It's part of the Denial, Dismissal, and Demonization statist doctrine. Hillary's "What does it matter?" quote is an excellent example. It enables the statist moral position that rationalizes pathological lying as being "Righteous and Good". Since there is no distinction between statist religion and politics, lying is not immoral, but justified.

The "Birther" concept is interesting, since so many incongruities have been uncovered about Obama. The lack of an actual Birth Certificate, as well as having a SSN that does not correspond to Hawaii should raise questions from everyone. As I understand it, a "Certificate of Live Birth" is not a "Birth Certificate".

Since I have some experience with the issue, having adopted two children from overseas, there are some obvious issues. I'm fairly certain that IF Obama was born overseas, his mother never completed the naturalization process that would have enabled him to receive a valid SSN. This required the filing of a N-600 naturalization document, resulting in the awarding of a Certificate of Citizenship which would then be used to receive a SSN. Since his mother was a US citizen, this would have been no problem. This would also explain why he was able to attend college as a foreign student. There are simply too many questions to be answered. The Democrats have only superficially scrubbed his past, leaving many obvious issues.

Here's a story illustrating what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that it's valid, but it should raise question with anyone who's intellectually objective.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusi...bama-continues/

The Republican Party accepted it. Why, if it's problematic? No one takes prisoners in US politics.

It's interesting that the Hillary Clinton campaign started the whole "Birther" issue. I suspect that the Clinton administration may have aided the "scrubbing" of Obama's past, back when he was an "up and coming" Illinois politician. I think that they greatly underestimated the potential threat that he would pose to Hillary in 2008, thinking he would be considered as a presidential candidate after Hillary had served her terms. They couldn't make it a huge issue, as they would have been culpable for the "scrubbing" that occurred of Obama's past. They also underestimated the fervor of the statist, religious, fundamentalist, sociopathic wing of the Democrat party.

Hellish to the extent the privileged do it, Ken. Like the scrubbing of Dubya's military service record, and nothing can be released without his consent.

Obviously, because of the racial aspect, as the Republicans would have, as usual, been labeled "Racist"..

Sure, a good example. It's very possible that he was able to serve in the Texas National Guard because of political favoritism. He was able to graduate Flight School and serve as a fighter pilot.

What's your point? I don't recall any assertions that Bush falsified any records, nor was ineligible to serve as President. He would have been subject to call-up, like any members of the National Guard. Guard call-ups post Vietnam were one of the problems we fixed, as now Guard units are much more integrated into Force Structure, a lesson we did learn from Vietnam.

It's a little different than Obama, as virtually all aspects of his past have been hidden. Since his ideology is so obvious, I think it's easy to speculate what would be found.

Kind'a like you getting a job as a reporter because of your father...

When I graduated high school, I couldn't get a job on Imperial Oil tankers to see southern US belles or those in the Caribbean, so I walked up two blocks to the Herald and asked if they had any jobs, reporter or anything.

Mr. Weldon, the advertising manager handling jobs, said there was an opening for proofreader to get the hang of daily reporting, and if I worked out after three months there would be a job for me in the newsroom.

My Dad then was 10 years from journalism, a village shopkeeper. No scrubbing: my career was featured article in The Financial Post magazine Impetus under "King Brown: the heroic battles of a bluenose paladin, by Harry Bruce, Feb. 1974."

It was distinguished journalist and author Bruce who wrote "Kingsley Brown, the boy wonder of the pioneer days of CBC news reporting, an international hotshot in the deadly competition of big-time television news coverage." Look it up.

The curious and enthusiastic don't need daddies to get them jobs. Mr. Weldon, an avuncular service club man, did just fine by me.

No doubt because of your ideology. Or, did you hide it at that time? Were you a statist religious sociopath then, or did you get converted by a "fellow traveler" along the way? Was it Frank Marshall Davis? If so, you and Obama are kindred souls.

I can't find the article. I did look on the list of CBC personalities on Wikipedia, but couldn't find your name. Were you a "flash in the pan"? As I recall, I did find a citation a while back that described you as a 'Committed Socialist", which was apt, as sociopathic religious statists go.

I have read about your "Back to Nature" lifestyle, your vineyard, etc. Too bad your sociopathic ideology prevents others from having the financial freedom to do the same thing, but it's all for the "Good of the People". But hey, you deserve it, after all, you think "Happy Thoughts" and are "More Equal" than the masses. Just like any piggy from Animal Farm...

Do you refer to your home as a "Dacha"?

I can't find it either.
Well King surely you would have kept a copy of this article for your own files.
Perhaps you take a picure of it and post it here.
Jim

I did find an article by Harry Bruce, pertaining to the CBC lockout of 2005. It's entertaining, and somewhat relevant of why Comrade King would work there. It sounds amazingly like American PBS. Here's an excerpt, from this link:

http://www.friends.ca/news-item/5027

The government, in many respects, is a highly conservative gang of Grits and seems to think the CBC has lost its stature as one of the great public institutions of Canada's 20th century, and degenerated into a nuisance, a left-leaning, artsy-fartsy embarrassment, a mewling nag that endlessly begs for hundreds of millions of dollars.

If the CBC's offering of a whole bunch of reruns, old interviews, out-dated comedy shows, unfamiliar faces, stumblebum voices, stale music and news from Blighty happens to drive away so many listeners and viewers that it might as well vanish from Canada forever, would this government really give a pinch of beaver dung?

When I searched the site a little more, I did find a reference to Comrade King's reporting on two mine disasters...

Comrade King, Have you EVER worked in the private sector? As a J-School grad myself, I'd love to read some of your articles...

List Of Records Obama Refuses To Release

Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii)
Passport files
University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
Harvard Law Review articles
Harvard Law School records
Columbia University records
Columbia University senior thesis, “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”
Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register — but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
Obama’s client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
Illinois State Bar Association records
Baptism records
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
Soetero/Dunham Adoption records

The non-issuance of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980’s, because those records could document whether he was attending as a foreign national. Obama attended Occidental on a Fulbright scholarship — financial aid that is reserved for foreign students.

Here's a video of King's reporting on Civil Rights in the South. It's very good, with him making excellent points about the Constitution. His interview with Dr. Bull is there also.

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/po...egregation.html

I'll reiterate a point about King I've said before, "How did you go from believing in Individual Freedom and Equality to believing in Sociopathic Religious Statism"?

If that's what happened to me, I have no explanation other than public shine and glibness sheds quickly when you change from observer to active participant and do things instead of yap, choose the man you want to be.

King,

Has it ever occurred to you that the Antigonish concept is the antithesis to sociopathic, religious statism? What a paradox...

I'll see if someone with computer skills can post the whole thing, Jim. I can't post pictures because I can't follow the computer lexicon.

I flew my float bushplane a couple hours today loaded with Garmin GPS and Dynon EFIS but I can't navigate my iMac worth a damn.

King:
I have the same problem with directly posting pictures here.
Option:
Get yourself a Photobucket account because uploading pictures there is easy.(It's also free).
Once done you can just do a copy- paste onto this forum. I do it all the time.
Jim
For example:
I just posted the British gun loan broadside(How Soon They Forgot) from my photobucket account.

I left FX for freelance social development because its focus was too oriented to cooperative ideology. Development often requires knocking heads. It recognized my brand had eclipsed its locally, and its Coady International Institute sends its overseas students to me to learn mean. Classes study our acclaimed approach to forestry, voted best in the world by Rainforest Alliance this year.

Private sector journalism: After two years on the provincial daily, waterfront and courts beats, I could cover the general news of the day but would have had a long wait at my age for the legislature. CP war correspondent and Halifax bureau chief Jack Brayley saw my carbons and hired me. Five years in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto bureaux. I think everything is a paradox.

JPGbox is even easier, you don't have to have an account, you post as a Guest. The instructions are in the Sticky. Once it generates the URL, you copy it and just paste it in the box.

King,

I think your work on conservation issues is admirable. As was/is your work with FX. I fail to understand why you are so Red, and have no problem with the infliction your totalitarian views on others. Nor do I understand your slavish dedication to your ideological masters, and your constant need to defend them regardless of the issue. I swear, if they started rounding people up and sending them away for "reeducation", you'd find a way to defend it.

It's the lead feature article on five pages. Shouldn't the "it" to copy and paste be all together without ads, sort of like a blog? The photo alone is page and a third. I'll email my corporate pilot son somewhere in the world and see if he can help. Thanks.

I'll be the first to be rounded up, Ken. My middle name is Lenin. Anyone not thinking that way at the time I was born wasn't thinking. Dad had arrived back from Paris where he had worked on the Herald-Trib and imbibed wisdom in the salons of Gertrude Stein, Louise Bryant and Emma Goldman. He met Mom in Eaton's department store in Halifax; they were love birds till their ends.

Ken, my son just talking to Mr. Klutz. I'll try to scan pages and columns into a document/pdf and see if I can get a one-line thingy. Failing that perhaps I could email to you to get it in the thread.

Did you continue on from your journalism courses? My closest buddy's grandson graduated FX to Columbia, now head of polling and forecasting for a big one---not Bloomberg---and helps me a lot.

In spite of what you read in statist religious media etc about economies don't believe one word emanating from moneymen with skin in the game who can't risk telling the truth. It's bad, worse than we know.

Re Obama and Bush scrubbing, I believe, as you say, "It's easy to speculate what would be found."

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154

If the Financial Post article from February 1974 actually exists, I have not been able to find it or "look it up". Actually, I personally believe it does exist because King the Bloviator never misses an opportunity to pump up his credibility.

The question to me becomes, where did Harry Bruce get his information about King? Since so much of what he claims is unverifiable, it's only natural to assume that it is either exaggerated or simply the product of a wild imagination. If Harry Bruce got some or all of his biographical information from King himself, I don't think it's worth the paper it's printed on. Scan it and copy and paste it here... So what? It's about as believable as Obama's computer generated Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth.

I also found a reference that told of King having lunch dates with Jackie Kennedy. Again, there is no other mention, photo, or anything to corroborate it in any Search Engines massive servers. So again, it appeared to me that some poor Canadian journalist merely regurgitated the bullshit that King fed him.

I particularly enjoyed the recent wild assed claim by King that he was not only close to JFK, but Bobby and Teddy Kennedy as well. He spoke of the jealousy that American reporters had over his higher "security clearance" that gave him greater access to the Kennedy campaigns than any of them had. I'd like to again remind you all that until RFK was assassinated, security for presidential candidates was almost non-existant. The security for RFK at the Ambassador Hotel the night he was shot was a part-time rent-a-cop from Ace Security Service. There were not even any LAPD officers on duty there.

As King says, "look it up." I myself take anything King says with a huge grain of salt. I too could tell you anything about myself in order to boost my credibility. That wouldn't make it true. And especially if I had been caught in as many lies as he has.

I am obligated to correct the unconscionable slur against Harry Bruce, one of the finest journalists, editors and authors in Canada, now in retirement.

Writers check sources, backed by editors and fact-checkers. I was a familiar face on national television networks of the 50s and 60s. My work is on the public record.

As for security, I was referring to access to the White House, Pentagon and State, not campaigns where candidates beg for publicity. Attributing sloppy journalism to Harry Bruce is a disservice to all members.

After graduation, I went off to become an Army Officer. I had worked as a Freelance photojournalist in college, but I had been trained by my father, who had also been one in the past. We had our own darkroom, I was a fairly competent photographer by the time I began High School. I found the journalism classes in college to be totally corrupted by leftist ideology, as we were in the post-Watergate era. Since I had an extensive background in history, it was easy to identify the ideology of their attempted indoctrination. What the classes provided me was the understanding of how journalism is used to indoctrinate, using the typical pattern of Denial, Dismissal, and Demonization. A pattern which continues to this day. Philosophical context is everything, an analysis omitted during statist religious indoctrination.

I totally understand where you're coming from, as you are an old-school Red, with your responses being totally doctrinal, according to the Sociopathic Religious Statism of the old Soviet Union. I assume that this is a Family Tradition.

The person your posts really remind me of is Georgi Arbatov, the old Kremlin Spokesman. I had a chance to listen to and meet him in the early 1980s. He was very good, and you've been taught the same methodology. A more current example of the technique is CAIR, which uses the same techniques of denial, dismissal, and demonization whenever points about Islamic terrorism are brought up.

I don't fault you for your ideology, only the sociopathically unconstitutional willingness to inflict it on others against their will.

Ask yourself this question:

If Bush had been a Democrat, would this have been a relevant issue? Of course not. If anything, he would have been celebrated. Especially since it was during Vietnam. What this issue was really used for was statist religious demonization, designed to suppress the Republican vote.

There's no question newsrooms are filled with "afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted." It's less to do with owners than persons attracted to the trade. It came to me naturally, seeing callousness all around me, coastal fishermen neighbours of subsistence living, woodlot owners either giving their wood or labour away to the foreign international corporations.

In my last year of high school in the capital of Halifax, when events were leading toward full-blown McCarthyism in the US, I came second in a city-wide essay competition with a defence of communism, not what it was but anticipated by starry-eyed idealists.The winner was the son of a spices manufacturer and president of the Lions Club which sponsored the competition.

My social studies teacher said later my 92 was only one less than the winner, "pretty good considering jingoism usually wins." Another lesson learned. There is a religious aspect to my affliction on publics, I won't deny. I felt its weight to ease burdens, all the while feeling and seeing conservative as an euphemism for selfishness. Generally. Lot of great conservatives.

Another good read from Sharyl Attkisson a real journalist,she call that the “Substitution Game”

http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/former-cbs-reporter-explains-how-the-liberal-media-protects-obama/

Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.

When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”



Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’ ” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”

Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.

A piece she did about how subsidies ended up at a Korean green-energy firm — your tax dollars sent to Korea! — at first had her bosses excited but then was kept off the air and buried on the CBS News Web site. Producer Laura Strickler told her Shevlin “hated the whole thing.”
‘Let’s not pile on’

Attkisson mischievously cites what she calls the “Substitution Game”: She likes to imagine how a story about today’s administration would have been handled if it made Republicans look bad.

In green energy, for instance: “Imagine a parallel scenario in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney personally appeared at groundbreakings for, and used billions of tax dollars to support, multiple giant corporate ventures whose investors were sometimes major campaign bundlers, only to have one (or two, or three) go bankrupt . . . when they knew in advance the companies’ credit ratings were junk.”

Attkisson continued her dogged reporting through the launch of ObamaCare: She’s the reporter who brought the public’s attention to the absurdly small number — six — who managed to sign up for it on day one.

I don't nor does anyone know how the electorate would have responded if a presidential candidate was a military wash-out from drug abuse.

It wouldn't matter if Bush was Republican or Democrat. The privileged protect would should be in the public domain. We can't.

Funny. How would the 'writers check sources, backed by editors and fact-checked'. Does it really matter what the electorate would do in the voting booth, or did we dodge the question of how influential media spin would be.

How many lib political careers have been resurrected after scandalous drug abuse by the pc media. How many US presidents have been elected after admitting in writing to illegal drug use prior to an election. Even the original first black president had to use the bully pulpit to explain about not inhaling.

Is the communist party, the party for partiers. I guess they have other redeeming qualities?

King, of course conveniently forgets (aka “The first casualty of ideology is the truth.”)
Dan Rathers attempts,with LIES and FORGED documents at smearing Bush and the scandal that followed :

http://archive.mrc.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp

Since then, his on-air liberal bias has become the stuff of legend. For Rather’s 20th anniversary in 2001, the MRC compiled some of Rather’s most quotable bias, along with illustrations of his nearly-nonsensical “Ratherisms”

March 2005: After the embarrassing scandal involving Dan Rather’s use of forged documents in a one-sided 60 Minutes hit piece aimed at President Bush just before the 2004 presidential election, CBS announced Rather would leave the CBS Evening News on March 9, 2005, a year earlier than planned. To mark the end of Rather’s liberal reign, the Media Research Center compiled The Dan Rather Files, an exhaustive text and video library.

I expect if George Bush was a vindictive individual he could had sued Dan Rather and CBS for slander and won!
I think this Rather "episode" was probably the last straw for most of us with the socialist controlled "mainstream news media" and Libtards in general. I don't believe anything that comes out a a Libtards mouth anymore.
To paraphrase the statement of a noted detective during a murder trial:
"You know the 1st half dozen things that come out of their mouths when you're questioning them is going to be bullshit."
Jim

Dan Rather is the Poster Boy for dishonest journalism, but hardly the only guilty one. The Burger King knows this. He also knows that inaccurate reporting is commonplace, fact checking be damned.

I never said or even implied that Harry Bruce was either intentionally dishonest or inaccurate in his story about King. I am of the opinion that anything King told him about himself is either fiction or highly inflated. I base my opinion on King's words and actions here, and the fact that the vast majority of it is unverifiable despite extensive searches on multiple Search Engines. The fact that King's face may have been fairly commonplace on Canadian TV during his abbreviated career as a field reporter means nothing. My local weatherman's mug is on TV every day. But then, he hasn't imagined that he's practically one of the Kennedy brothers or a leading pioneer of Canadian Civil Rights. King the bloviator has repeatedly attempted to place himself on the same level as CBC luminaries such as Motley Safer or Peter Jennings. Those of you who have taken a bit of time to do comparison searches all know that King's sense of self importance is totally out of synch with reality.

I still don't believe his re-adjusted story about him having higher security clearance to the White House, Pentagon, or State Dept. than his American colleagues just because he says so. I'd like to see the proof he so frequently demands of us... and then totally ignores. The evolution of his tight special relationship with JFK to his recent tale of one with RFK and Teddy as well is amusing. I can almost believe a kinship with Ted since they both share anti-Second Amendment views. And lunches with Jackie.... that's hilarious.

King's bullshit and support of anti-gun Liberal Democrat anti-gun politicians is a disservice to all members.

I can also add that I'm a regular on a TV program as I pointed out above. I didn't think it was important enough to even mention until now even though it's firearms related.
I also had Secret Security Clearance at one time. Big Deal!
But then again; I don't have an inflated opinion of myself or need an ego boost to justify my opinions.
Jim

This begs the next question:

How do you think the electorate would have responded if they knew that Obama was a radical leftist/communist/socialist/statist that did not believe in the concept of individual freedom and equality? What if people had understood that he had every intention of converting our economy into a State-controlled one? What if he had actually "Run" on the nationalization of American health care? Remember, health care was not an election issue. What if he had "Run" on an open-border, unrestricted immigration policy that legalized aliens already in America? What if he had "Run" on the destruction of the coal industry through EPA regulation? What if he had said he intended to use the IRS against his political enemies? He ran on NONE of these things. He merely told whatever group he was in front of exactly what he thought they wanted to hear, meaning he lied to around 50% of Americans. Since he is obviously a statist religious sociopath of the Soviet school, all the lies are considered righteous and good, and are a form of statist "Taqiyya", or "Lying for the Faith"....

None of these things have anything to do with Obama's personal history. There are plenty of rumors about that, including his sexual history. They all deal with POLICY. I could care less what someone did in their youth, its how they represent the electorate when once in office that is important.

Military and Federal employee drug testing began after a 1981 plane crash upon the Nimitz. Reagan signed the Executive Order. We constantly did random testing while I was in the service, and we would occasionally catch someone. If they were lower enlisted, they'd get counseling and a second chance. If they were officers or NCOs, they'd get the boot. Just like Hunter Biden, (VP Biden's son) who just got booted from the Navy for cocaine use. He had received waivers for both his age as well as for prior drug use. He tested positive for Coke after only around a month after receiving his commission, which was awarded to him as a "Direct Commission" such as doctors and lawyers receive. We'll have to see how THAT plays out for ol'Hunter's political aspirations...

Hard to believe you ever came in second at anything King. Are you sure that wasn't nepotism rather than jingoism that allegedly gave the son of the contest's sponsor the first place award? Are you saying it still hurts after all these years? Imagine then, fighting a campaign and losing simply because some Democrats conspired to commit elections fraud... something you refuse to even acknowledge even when we provide the proof you demand, but almost never provide yourself.

And seeing conservatism as an euphemism for selfishness... strange that you can't see the injustice of confiscating the wealth of hard working people and redistributing it to those who are just too lazy or unmotivated to take advantage of the many taxpayer funded opportunities to become educated and gainfully employed to make it on their own, without the handouts that make Socialists like you feel good about themselves.

WE INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR A LIAR ALERT>>>>>>>>>>LIAR ALERT>>>>>>>>>>>>LIAR ALERT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



I wonder how the Democrats came up with the October surprise of Dubya's skipping out on some Reserves military training if his records were truly sealed and cannot be released without his consent? A great deal of his supposedly secret military training record is available on King's favorite source, Wikipedia.

Yet another of King Brown's many lies rears its' ugly head.

GLS, make King stop already. He's making you look like an ass for defending him.

At a guess, from our jousting, I'd say we are more in agreement than most members that spin and lying knows no limits in politics. It's pervasive as rain with Democrats and Republicans as it is with all our parties in Canada. But, no, human nature what it is, I don't think the electorate would respond differently to the examples we've cited, depending on national moods at the time.

I used Bush as another example of your post that it's easy to speculate on what would be found if the Obama files were opened to the public: What would be the response to a presidential nominee if files revealed he appeared to seek refugee in the Guard and washed out for moral weakness with his country at war?

I'd also offer that responses differ with generations. Modernity makes surprises. With apologies for using the time-worn politician's tactic of not replying to hypothetical questions, but not following it, it's my guess the Vietnam generation would have judged more harshly than the current one with issues prominent among chattering classes but of less concern in the polls.

Ken, when I hunt and fish, the catch is a dividend, the experience comes first, as I imagine it does with you. Preferring waxed cotton, split cane and leather doesn't confer that you have or need them. If you have them you don't need them for the experience. Same with spinning and lying in politics. I know there are bugs under a rock in the back forties, have no interest in looking for or at them.

I coined in Misfires "the punk's game." It's not original. I got it from Dad. I was able to confirm it from working on six-month contract as a consultant in communications to the federal government after years of observing it in party back rooms. What a lousy business.

I again make this offer as I don't like to see everyone in politics painted with the same brush.
My Congressman is David Schweikert (R 6th District Arizona).
I challenge ANYONE on this forum to post any instance of his lying since he has taken office. IMO: He has been a breath of fresh air.
As an aside: He's up for re-election next week and I'll be surprised if he gets anything less than 60% of the vote.
Jim

I think most politicians start off like yours. Most are good guys. I take you at your word that yours has been authentic in representing his constituents. They are expected over time to toe the line. Not for nothing do candidates and parties spend unconscionable amounts of money to frame the message, never in the minds of the Founding Fathers. I hope your man does win; we need more of them.

I called his predecessor Harry Mitchell (D) a liar on numerous occasions. He was unfortunately elected in an upset due to Obama mania in 2008. He only served one term and then apparently slid back into the muck from which he emerged. I told him one of my goals in life was to make sure he wasn't re-elected and apparently a lot of my fellow constituents felt the same way.
He was lying Libtard scum in the same way as Harry Reid.
Jim

Kumbaya is a predictable tactic, are you sure we should all just be holding hands walking off into the sunset.

I'm so curious why we would need 'more of them' when they would be polar opposites of you upper third bestest pres ever. How do know they tend to start off half way decent. You can ignore this prez' own biography explaining he was damaged goods at least from back in high school. When was point that he was a 'good guy', maybe he's not now? Did his transformation into a bad guy elevate him to the top third.

Awe, don't worry about it, more conjecture.

Leave it to King to excuse the lies of Liberal Democrat Obama, and his own frequent lies, by painting everyone with the same broad brush. Thanks Jim, for putting up David Schweikert R-Ariz as an example of a truthful politician, in stark contrast to former junior Senator Barack Hussein Obama D- ILL, who started his shady political career as a committed Socialist and who lied about the patriotism of Bush concerning deficit spending... and many other things... including gun rights.

That's the kind of guy King defends and makes excuses for and provides cover for... a 100% committed anti-gunner.

There are people who are truthful, and then there are whirling dervishes like King who must constantly spin, dodge, and weave to stay one small step ahead of their last lie.

It's getting harder isn't it King?... as more and more of us here become less willing to let it go, finally seeing that it is habitual and intentional... and meant to advance the Liberal Left agenda that is so dangerous to our gun rights and the rest of our freedoms.

King,

Would you like to borrow my copy of "America's Retreat From Victory"?

Or, would you prefer: "A People's Tragedy, The Russian Revolution 1891-1924" by Orlando Figes?

Or, my copy of "The Gulag Archipelago"?...

My library's Russia section compares favourably with anyone's, Ken. From the first English translations of the first Five Year Plans to reporting from there during the Cold War, Russians as neighbours and correspondents for years.

Learned first hand how our operatives were conducting wet operations against German spies in NYC before US opened its eyes, and their operations for the security of Canada after the war.

I was introduced to my first undercover agent at age nine, (asked him if I could help him catch spies!) and later the agent who covered Dad before I was born became a close friend.

The name Lenin gave me a reporting edge in more than a few countries and was no impediment during forays into the US during McCarthyism. Your CIA knew who I was from favours provided when Canadians had greater access to authorities---and prisons---in the Caribbean.

Thank you for the offers.

Too bad King's middle name wasn't Lennon. Then he could have told us he was one of the Beatles.

And my how precocious to have firsthand knowledge of Canadian operatives killing German spies in New York while still a prepubescent boy! You suppose he got the top secret information on his Cracker Jack decoder ring? Why I'll bet our mild mannered reporter was really born on the Planet Krypton. Watch out! The evil keith Luthor has no-tox shotgun shells loaded with 1 1/4 oz. of #4 Green Kryptonite! Yikes! This is a job for...SuperKing...To be continued...

But it all makes perfect sense now. Obviously a Canadian reporter with Communist leanings... who was known to the CIA... would have a higher security clearance and greater access to the White House, Pentagon, and State Department... especially during the Cold War. Who would expect anything else? How could I have doubted him? Misfires would be a boring place without our own Agent 007... or should I say Agent 00 Seagrams 7?

Ken61, if you'd like to learn more about King's vast experiences, I can loan you a copy of "Grimm's Fairy Tales".

Gil, you want us to believe this shit??? What a dumbass.

Is that what he said? BTW, I can have a woman needlepoint or cross stitch any of your limericks suitable for framing. Just post your name and address and send $10 to Dave and I'll get with you on the pricing.
Dumbass? Thanks, that rhymes with a lot.

With a battleship mouth and a rowboat ass
He calls folks liars with his lack of class
Hidden in the bushes he barks out “lies”
While as a kid he pulled wings off flies
He thinks he’s clever but he’s just a ________

I'm stumped. Can’t say “horse’s ass” because of the first line, “pompous, long-winded jerk” doesn’t rhyme, but thanks to your suggestion, I’ll use “dumbass”. Dumbass is kinda juvenile, but it was your suggestion. We make a great team. You give me so much to work with.

Not precisely... here it is, since you are too stupid to figure it out:



Your prevaricating friend is 84, if we can believe him. Do the math. Oops, sorry. Obviously you're too mentally challenged for that. Or is it perhaps the "wet operations" thing that threw you? Did you think that wet operations meant the Canadian operatives were engaged in heavy drinking and pissing themselves?

Oh, I apologize... this is all way too complicated for a dumbass. I'll try to dumb it down to nca225 level for you next time.

More proof that we should require I.Q. testing for voter registration.

still need your name and address for needle points. Remember Dave gets $10.

Gil, and note how the little fellow is hoist on his own petard:

"Originally Posted By: King Brown
Learned first hand how our operatives were conducting wet operations against German spies in NYC before US opened its eyes, and their operations for the security of Canada after the war."

I didn't say I knew of operations as they occurred, as the little fellow assumed. I knew personally one involved in those operations as a family friend who was still undercover with senior responsibilities in the aircraft industry.

I wonder how many Canadian intelligence operations were conducted against the Communists? I'm talking about the period between the invasion of Poland up until the invasion of Russia. During that time, Stalin was directing his minions over here to preach non-intervention, a decidedly Pro-German position. Amazingly, the Reds here changed overnight, once Germany invaded Russia...

King, if the roles were reversed and you made that mistake, he would spin it into a bald-faced lie and repeat it as nauseum for the next two years and demand proof. But he would take two screens to say it each time.

He said he dined with Jackie O. did King Brown
I’ve mined the internet, no photo to be found
My internet search confirmed through spying
That with no 50 year-old photo, he’s got to be lying
Hissed keith our doublegun kowardly klown.

keith, These needlepointers are getting anxious and there is a deadline on printing “Leaves of Cowardly Ass”, the gilded book compilation of these limericks. Need to know what you want.
Name and address, please. $10 to Dave.

We have strayed far away from the original premise of this thread. It has definitively been demonstrated the Iraqi's had and used chemical WMDs right up until the time we invaded.
This is something the Libtards can't and won't admit because to do so now will show just how much they're lied about this and other things over the years.
I sincerely hope they get a well deserved clock cleaning next Tuseday.
Even if this happens we will be plagued with the Liberal Bimbos Obama appointed to the Supreme Court for the foreseable future.
Jim

In the context of your post, words mean something, or at least they should. In the above sentence, "before the US opened its eyes" and "after the war" would both imply the time frame for your firsthand learning... at least to someone who (1) knew how to write, and (2) didn't think that "the craft of journalism" was weasel words, twisting, spinning, lies, and obfuscation.

Same goes for the Security Clearance issue where you were clearly talking about your supposed special and preferential access to the Kennedy's during their campaigns, and you later claimed you were talking about Security Clearance for access to the White House, Pentagon, and State... places that never entered into your bloviating, bragging, bullshit earlier post about your special relationship with the Camelot Boys.

I notice you didn't address the "Communist leaning" thing from your buddy GLS' Wizard of Ooze thread. Still haven't figured a way to dishonestly weasel your way out of that one, eh King? Hoist up by your own Petard again, eh? Keep working on it my little Nova Scotian guy. I have complete faith that you can come up with a totally dishonest way to weasel out of that one too.

In the words of Slick Willie Clinton, "it depends upon what the definition of is is." When I call you a liar, how do you know I'm really talking about you? Are you again putting words in my mouth? Two can play your dishonest games King.

You're not fooling anyone except for the mentally deficient here. I thought you take pity on the weak and disadvantaged.

Hey GLS. Do you know who I'm thinking of when I refer to the mentally deficient, weak, and disadvantaged here?

Why do you wish to change the subject and move on to many of the wild-assed things that King says here which are unverifiable?
How many times has your boy doubted something and demanded "Proof please"? ... the same proof that he virtually never gives... save the odd Wikipedia reference? You are free to characterize my actions as stalking or mugging. You would be wrong. You don't have any clue what walk I've walked, because I have not squawked about it as King has. If King told you he walked on the moon and had a Congressional Medal of Honor, would you believe it just because he said so? Would you expect me to believe it as well? If I checked out the claims and found nothing, would I be justified in questioning them? Had I found anything of substance initially, my curiosity would have quickly been satisfied. What I do know is that when I did searches of some of King's contemporaries who were of much lesser journalistic stature... at least according to him... there were many more search results. If that doesn't suggest something to you, you may be even dumber than I think.

Here's a little story I once told here that you may have missed. I'll try to keep it short. I used to work with an older guy who frequently went on and on about his WWII service record. He claimed to have been Gen. Douglas McArthurs personal radioman. He claimed he was just outside the frame of the photo of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima. He spoke of hand to hand combat with the Japs. He claimed he knew the Japs surrendered even before McArthur did, because he took the radio message. He claimed to have opened the first whorehouse in Tokyo after the war. Some of the other guys used to question him and mock him. They asked him if he ran the first customers of his whorehouse off by hand since he didn't have any girls. They questioned his wild claims and he got pissed and even more adamant about his heroic record. I myself never commented. He was older and I respected that.

Some years later, I asked my Dad how much older this guy was than him, since I knew they grew up a literal stone's throw apart. My Dad told me they were only a couple months apart and would have graduated together if my old co-worker had not flunked fourth grade. I said, "Then he couldn't have possibly fought in WWII?" and Dad said, "Hell no, we were about 13 years old when WWII ended. He did join the Army when I went into the Air Force, but I'm pretty sure he never left the States. He was a radio repairman, not a radioman. Why? What'd he tell you?"

I told my Dad about some of the daring heroics he'd related. To tell him all of what he had claimed would have taken literally days. I guess it was all the more heroic considering he was fighting Japs at age 12 or 13. Dad rolled his eyes and told me he always was different while they were growing up. He said that when all of the other kids were hunting, fishing, playing football, or baseball, etc., my ex co-worker would usually be off by himself dreaming up wild assed stories.

Then there was an ex-boss of mine who swore he got picked up by a gust of wind while carrying a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood on the roof of a seven story apartment building in Pittsburgh. He told us he carefully steered it to a perfect landing between a city bus and a police car on Liberty Ave. in rush hour traffic. Amazing!

Then there's a guy where I currently work who claims to have sat atop a 220 cu. ft. oxygen tank and snapped the neck off with a sledge hammer and rode the tank across the Ohio River to Kentucky. Same guy claims that he saved his town from certain destruction by driving his Chevy truck into the path of an approaching tornado and breaking up the funnel cloud. Wow!

The last two guys, I confronted. I threw the Bullshit Flag. They both got very pissed at me. Tough shit.

I'm telling you the same thing. Tough Shit. You can believe all the bullshit you want to swallow. I won't.

EDIT: I see you deleted your previous post while I was typing this. Since I worked so hard on it, I'll just leave it.

I had some Libtard Bimbo in my neighborhood tell me yesterday while out walking how wonderful things are now that the unemployment rate is only 5%. I threw up the B.S. flag much to my wife's chagrin.
When I got home I emailed her a recent Forbe's article,hardly a bastion of conservatism, that shows the REAL current unemployment rate is 12.9%.
We are currently 17.5 Trillion Dollars in debt with Obamacare projected to add another 3 Trillion over the next few years. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop as surely it will
Jim

A true American hero you are. And you have a screen full of words to prove it. Our own little Demosthenes with his lamp of truth. Bet you can't wait until Xmas to tell those little bed wetters the "truth" about Santa. Will you do it with a bullhorn in front of Macy's? I forgot. Battleship mouth.

And the Libtards on this forum will never admit the truth. To do so would destroy their whole house of cards. One of their key points in the character assassination of G Bush was "THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" even though all the principal Commiecrats claimed there were before there invasion!
Of course this doesn't even come close to topping the current commiecrat candidate bizarre claims that Conservatives are all gun toting, racists and woman haters.
Hopefully they'll get exactly what they deserve come next Tuesday.
Jim
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...phantom-wmd.htm