Jump to content

Joe Biden 2022: Enter Dark Brandon

Longboard Horn

By Longboard Horn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45685

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

The "they" doesn't disturb anyone? Our president is saying "they".... I mean holy fuck. Who is "they"? Manchurian President. Look how is wife guides him off the stage. You think Putin sees that as strength? Be honest. He looks weak as our leader.

Who is they?

The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits-up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Foosters
Foosters
TexEx15
TexEx15

SLOW. CLAP.

HenryJames
HenryJames

Posted Images

wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

The "they" doesn't disturb anyone? Our president is saying "they".... I mean holy fuck. Who is "they"? Manchurian President. Look how is wife guides him off the stage. You think Putin sees that as strength? Be honest. He looks weak as our leader.

Why were you so bothered by this you had to post about it at 3 in the morning?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MirrOlure

MirrOlure 14774

Posted
Posted
So we killed an ISIS leader yesterday. Tucker and Co. are already pro Putin, my guess is they'll be pro ISIS by the end of the day.

We killed 13 civilians including 6 children too. But not as bad as when we “ooopsed” and killed an entire innocent family a few months ago.

So we’re doing better, and Joe got his “Presidential moment” press conference and ops room photo. So there’s that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19090

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

The "they" doesn't disturb anyone? Our president is saying "they".... I mean holy fuck. Who is "they"? Manchurian President. Look how is wife guides him off the stage. You think Putin sees that as strength? Be honest. He looks weak as our leader.

Didn't you vote for a guy who was sucking up to Kim El Chong of North Korea?  Wow, you are weird.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
bolverk

bolverk 29672

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, workswithseed said:

"There are weapons of mass destruction."

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1489369729131290629?s=20&t=zBhBHah1Ii0PwV7RmNe8hw

 

Kid, I was an adult with a four-year-old daughter when we used the pretext (re: lie) of WMD to invade Iraq. I marched across the Congress Avenue bridge in protest against the invasion, while Conservatives were thirsting for Muslim blood and wanting to turn the desert into glass, ranting against the French for not coming along (including pouring cheese-eater, surrender monkey French wine into the Potomac and comically changing the name of French fries to freedom fries in the capitol cafeteria), and calling those of us who were against the war all kinds of foul names (by the way, these attitudes were sill prevalent in the Cloak Room when I signed up on Shaggy in 2010).

It was the height of ugly arrogant American stupidity. It was in this environment that much of today's current Conservative movement was seeded, cultivated, and grown.

As I stated in the DT thread, it's entirely understandable why any and all of us would be skeptical in light of those events. All of it was designed to turn us into warmongers and to go on the offensive as an aggressive invader of another land with no real justifiable cause. You should also keep in mind who was calling for the most blood. You know, Conservatives. They slowly built it up over a period of a couple of years.

In this particular case, there has not been one call to invade Russia from the administration. There has not been one call to send a single American soldier into combat. There has not been one call to join into any sort of American or Nato fighting force to attack Russia or even defend Ukraine.

But, given the fact that Russia is clearly the aggressor, I have no problem with us providing certain forms of aid for them to retain their independence as a sovereign nation. It doesn't require lies and disinformation to do the very least to support a people. It does, however, require lies for soldiers/people to act on their worst impulses to invade another land without just cause 

And that, my friend, is what Putin and his comrades in the Kremlin have been trying to do since 2014 when the people of Ukraine rose up to declare their independence.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 18
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28775

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Kid, I was an adult with a four-year-old daughter when we used the pretext (re: lie) of WMD to invade Iraq. I marched across the Congress Avenue bridge in protest against the invasion, while Conservatives were thirsting for Muslim blood and wanting to turn the desert into glass, ranting against the French for not coming along (including pouring cheese-eater, surrender monkey French wine into the Potomac and comically changing the name of French fries to freedom fries in the capitol cafeteria), and calling those of us who were against the war all kinds of foul names (by the way, these attitudes were sill prevalent in the Cloak Room when I signed up on Shaggy in 2010).

It was the height of ugly arrogant American stupidity. It was in this environment that much of today's current conservative movement was seeded, cultivated, and grown.

As I stated in the DT thread, it's entirely understandable why any and all of us to be skeptical in light of those events. All of it was designed to turn us into warmongers and to go on the offensive as an aggressive invader of another land with no real justifiable cause. You should also keep in mind who was calling for the most blood. You know, Conservatives. They slowly built it up over a period of a couple of years.

In this particular case, there has not been one call to invade Russia from the administration. There has not been one call to send a single American soldier into combat. There has not been one call to join into any sort of American or Nato fighting force to attack Russia or even defend Ukraine.

But, given the fact that Russia is clearly the aggressor, I have no problem in us providing certain forms of aid for them to retain their independence as a sovereign nation. It doesn't require lies and disinformation to do the very least to support a people. It does, however, require lies for soldiers/people to act on their worst impulses to invade another land.

And that, my friend, is what Putin and his comrades at the Kremlin are have been trying doing since 2014.

It is hilarious that the "Freedom Fries" caucus is the crowd that has been trashing Colin Powell today. Mother fuckers were all in on "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" slogan twenty years ago.

The vast majority of today's Trump isolations were NeoCon Fuck Sticks back then. Hannity, Rush, Ingraham, Prager, et al... were all about Nation Building in those days.

No fucking ethos.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Kid, I was an adult with a four-year-old daughter when we used the pretext (re: lie) of WMD to invade Iraq. I marched across the Congress Avenue bridge in protest against the invasion, while Conservatives were thirsting for Muslim blood and wanting to turn the desert into glass, ranting against the French for not coming along (including pouring cheese-eater, surrender monkey French wine into the Potomac and comically changing the name of French fries to freedom fries in the capitol cafeteria), and calling those of us who were against the war all kinds of foul names (by the way, these attitudes were sill prevalent in the Cloak Room when I signed up on Shaggy in 2010).

It was the height of ugly arrogant American stupidity. It was in this environment that much of today's current conservative movement was seeded, cultivated, and grown.

As I stated in the DT thread, it's entirely understandable why any and all of us to be skeptical in light of those events. All of it was designed to turn us into warmongers and to go on the offensive as an aggressive invader of another land with no real justifiable cause. You should also keep in mind who was calling for the most blood. You know, Conservatives. They slowly built it up over a period of a couple of years.

In this particular case, there has not been one call to invade Russia from the administration. There has not been one call to send a single American soldier into combat. There has not been one call to join into any sort of American or Nato fighting force to attack Russia or even defend Ukraine.

But, given the fact that Russia is clearly the aggressor, I have no problem in us providing certain forms of aid for them to retain their independence as a sovereign nation. It doesn't require lies and disinformation to do the very least to support a people. It does, however, require lies for soldiers/people to act on their worst impulses to invade another land.

And that, my friend, is what Putin and his comrades at the Kremlin are have been trying doing since 2014.

This is a very good post. It was wasted on a terrible shitposter, but it's a good post.

Edited by gmr548
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2106

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Kid, I was an adult with a four-year-old daughter when we used the pretext (re: lie) of WMD to invade Iraq. I marched across the Congress Avenue bridge in protest against the invasion, while Conservatives were thirsting for Muslim blood and wanting to turn the desert into glass, ranting against the French for not coming along (including pouring cheese-eater, surrender monkey French wine into the Potomac and comically changing the name of French fries to freedom fries in the capitol cafeteria), and calling those of us who were against the war all kinds of foul names (by the way, these attitudes were sill prevalent in the Cloak Room when I signed up on Shaggy in 2010).

It was the height of ugly arrogant American stupidity. It was in this environment that much of today's current conservative movement was seeded, cultivated, and grown.

As I stated in the DT thread, it's entirely understandable why any and all of us to be skeptical in light of those events. All of it was designed to turn us into warmongers and to go on the offensive as an aggressive invader of another land with no real justifiable cause. You should also keep in mind who was calling for the most blood. You know, Conservatives. They slowly built it up over a period of a couple of years.

In this particular case, there has not been one call to invade Russia from the administration. There has not been one call to send a single American soldier into combat. There has not been one call to join into any sort of American or Nato fighting force to attack Russia or even defend Ukraine.

But, given the fact that Russia is clearly the aggressor, I have no problem in us providing certain forms of aid for them to retain their independence as a sovereign nation. It doesn't require lies and disinformation to do the very least to support a people. It does, however, require lies for soldiers/people to act on their worst impulses to invade another land.

And that, my friend, is what Putin and his comrades at the Kremlin are have been trying doing since 2014.

I definitely get what you're saying on the old shitty war hawks. I was too young to understand, much less care why we were going to war.  I also understand giving aid if someone who truly needs it, but this feels too cryptic, and the powers that be don't have much good will from the people. 

Hell, the reporter threw in more stuff, but the WMDs is probably the most destructive in every facet of my life time. 

Yep, and we signed a treaty to protect them. It doesn't mean I trust what our government says. They haven't said much in the last 20 years that I can trust. I've lost most of my faith in the institution. 

I do have to give credit to Biden for getting us out of Kubal. It could have been handled better, but we're not the world police.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted
On 1/31/2022 at 9:20 AM, Gourmand said:

And if race wasn't a factor, why did the Trump campaign target 3.5 million black Americans with facebook and other social media ads aimed at getting them to sit out the election?

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-trump-campaign-strategy-to-deter-millions-of-black-americans-from-voting-in-2016

Hey @Passive Aggressive Coach, since you popped back in this thread I was wondering if you care to answer this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
53 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I marched across the Congress Avenue bridge in protest against the invasion, while Conservatives were thirsting for Muslim blood and wanting to turn the desert into glass, ranting against the French for not coming along (including pouring cheese-eater, surrender monkey French wine into the Potomac and comically changing the name of French fries to freedom fries in the capitol cafeteria), and calling those of us who were against the war all kinds of foul names (by the way, these attitudes were sill prevalent in the Cloak Room when I signed up on Shaggy in 2010).

Shit, I was there too.

I'll never forget those times and how angry the Bush supporters made me and how many times I was insulted and slandered as a terrorist-enabling librul and Merka hater. I lost some friendships over the build up to the Iraq War and all the idiot jingoists who bought the WMD lies and the "with us or against us" sales pitch that accompanied the reporting from all the superdooperserious hacks like Judy Miller, Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Bill Kristol etc....There were so many I can't even remember them all, but those were some names that will always stick in my head. To this day I still wince at the idea of reading any article from The New Republic. I remember reading pg A1 propaganda in the NYTimes, picked up by the AA-S that was often directly contradicted by smaller profile stories buried on, say, pg 8-21. This was a consistent theme at that time where the articles with statements of near certainty about Iraqi WMD and non-compliance with UNSCOM would dominate the news. Meanwhile, credible reporters were also pushing back against these questionable reports with more nuanced reporting that challenged the "let's go get 'em and fuck 'em up" narrative dressed up in fake diplomacy (See: Knight Ridder, Jonathan Landay/Warren Strobel, Seymour Hersh, etc...) and were challenged on the basis of their patriotism and lack of journalistic objectivity. Every time I pushed back against the hawkish tough talk from friends and acquaintances who were certain that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had WMD, they would respond as if i was telling them the moon was made of cheese. My position was a practical, logical, patient one and not ideological. My stance was "we don't know" and I was adamant that the US let the UN do its job to complete the inspections process. 

It still angers me to think back to the period after the WMD lie was fully exposed for the fraud it was and see how the political and media establishment worked hand-in-hand to exonerate themselves with the follow-up lie about WMD that went something like this: "we all got it wrong because we were misled." 

WRONG. You all got it wrong because you wanted war and you refused to listen to the intelligence analysts, weapons inspectors, investigative journalists, and dissenting voices who warned you that the evidence was sketchy and unreliable at best.

  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted

Also, the US intelligence reports that say Russia is planning to release a fake and very graphic video as a pretext to invade Ukraine has a very 2003 US vs Iraq feel to it! 

Maybe Putin should just paint a Russian plane in the colors of the UN and fly it over Ukraine to see if they shoot at it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HornOnTheBayou

HornOnTheBayou 8922

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, bolverk said:

Kid, I was an adult with a four-year-old daughter when we used the pretext (re: lie) of WMD to invade Iraq. I marched across the Congress Avenue bridge in protest against the invasion, while Conservatives were thirsting for Muslim blood and wanting to turn the desert into glass, ranting against the French for not coming along (including pouring cheese-eater, surrender monkey French wine into the Potomac and comically changing the name of French fries to freedom fries in the capitol cafeteria), and calling those of us who were against the war all kinds of foul names (by the way, these attitudes were sill prevalent in the Cloak Room when I signed up on Shaggy in 2010).

It was the height of ugly arrogant American stupidity. It was in this environment that much of today's current Conservative movement was seeded, cultivated, and grown.

As I stated in the DT thread, it's entirely understandable why any and all of us would be skeptical in light of those events. All of it was designed to turn us into warmongers and to go on the offensive as an aggressive invader of another land with no real justifiable cause. You should also keep in mind who was calling for the most blood. You know, Conservatives. They slowly built it up over a period of a couple of years.

In this particular case, there has not been one call to invade Russia from the administration. There has not been one call to send a single American soldier into combat. There has not been one call to join into any sort of American or Nato fighting force to attack Russia or even defend Ukraine.

But, given the fact that Russia is clearly the aggressor, I have no problem with us providing certain forms of aid for them to retain their independence as a sovereign nation. It doesn't require lies and disinformation to do the very least to support a people. It does, however, require lies for soldiers/people to act on their worst impulses to invade another land without just cause 

And that, my friend, is what Putin and his comrades in the Kremlin have been trying to do since 2014 when the people of Ukraine rose up to declare their independence.

 

8 hours ago, Gourmand said:

Shit, I was there too.

I'll never forget those times and how angry the Bush supporters made me and how many times I was insulted and slandered as a terrorist-enabling librul and Merka hater. I lost some friendships over the build up to the Iraq War and all the idiot jingoists who bought the WMD lies and the "with us or against us" sales pitch that accompanied the reporting from all the superdooperserious hacks like Judy Miller, Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Bill Kristol etc....There were so many I can't even remember them all, but those were some names that will always stick in my head. To this day I still wince at the idea of reading any article from The New Republic. I remember reading pg A1 propaganda in the NYTimes, picked up by the AA-S that was often directly contradicted by smaller profile stories buried on, say, pg 8-21. This was a consistent theme at that time where the articles with statements of near certainty about Iraqi WMD and non-compliance with UNSCOM would dominate the news. Meanwhile, credible reporters were also pushing back against these questionable reports with more nuanced reporting that challenged the "let's go get 'em and fuck 'em up" narrative dressed up in fake diplomacy (See: Knight Ridder, Jonathan Landay/Warren Strobel, Seymour Hersh, etc...) and were challenged on the basis of their patriotism and lack of journalistic objectivity. Every time I pushed back against the hawkish tough talk from friends and acquaintances who were certain that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had WMD, they would respond as if i was telling them the moon was made of cheese. My position was a practical, logical, patient one and not ideological. My stance was "we don't know" and I was adamant that the US let the UN do its job to complete the inspections process. 

It still angers me to think back to the period after the WMD lie was fully exposed for the fraud it was and see how the political and media establishment worked hand-in-hand to exonerate themselves with the follow-up lie about WMD that went something like this: "we all got it wrong because we were misled." 

WRONG. You all got it wrong because you wanted war and you refused to listen to the intelligence analysts, weapons inspectors, investigative journalists, and dissenting voices who warned you that the evidence was sketchy and unreliable at best.

Two fantastic posts here. If you're looking for more reading about how 9/11 and Iraq led us down the path to Trump, check out Reign of Terror by Spencer Ackerman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38129

Posted
Posted

Strong jobs reports beats expectations

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/economy/january-jobs-report/index.html

 

Quote

America's jobs recovery got an unexpected boost in January despite the Omicron variant spreading rapidly throughout the country.

The economy added 467,000 jobs last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday, significantly better than most economists had expected.
Restaurants and bars added more than 100,000 jobs. Logistics and business services jobs also increased.
However, the unemployment rate inched up to 4%, the first increase in the jobless rate since June 2021.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted
Shit, I was there too.
I'll never forget those times and how angry the Bush supporters made me and how many times I was insulted and slandered as a terrorist-enabling librul and Merka hater. I lost some friendships over the build up to the Iraq War and all the idiot jingoists who bought the WMD lies and the "with us or against us" sales pitch that accompanied the reporting from all the superdooperserious hacks like Judy Miller, Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Bill Kristol etc....There were so many I can't even remember them all, but those were some names that will always stick in my head. To this day I still wince at the idea of reading any article from The New Republic. I remember reading pg A1 propaganda in the NYTimes, picked up by the AA-S that was often directly contradicted by smaller profile stories buried on, say, pg 8-21. This was a consistent theme at that time where the articles with statements of near certainty about Iraqi WMD and non-compliance with UNSCOM would dominate the news. Meanwhile, credible reporters were also pushing back against these questionable reports with more nuanced reporting that challenged the "let's go get 'em and fuck 'em up" narrative dressed up in fake diplomacy (See: Knight Ridder, Jonathan Landay/Warren Strobel, Seymour Hersh, etc...) and were challenged on the basis of their patriotism and lack of journalistic objectivity. Every time I pushed back against the hawkish tough talk from friends and acquaintances who were certain that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had WMD, they would respond as if i was telling them the moon was made of cheese. My position was a practical, logical, patient one and not ideological. My stance was "we don't know" and I was adamant that the US let the UN do its job to complete the inspections process. 
It still angers me to think back to the period after the WMD lie was fully exposed for the fraud it was and see how the political and media establishment worked hand-in-hand to exonerate themselves with the follow-up lie about WMD that went something like this: "we all got it wrong because we were misled." 
WRONG. You all got it wrong because you wanted war and you refused to listen to the intelligence analysts, weapons inspectors, investigative journalists, and dissenting voices who warned you that the evidence was sketchy and unreliable at best.

I was 10-11 years old during the build up to the Iraq invasion. I really just remember the flag waiving frenzy in the years after 9/11.

Knowing what I do about that in hindsight makes is one of the main things that makes me extremely skeptical of deploying American forces into armed conflict. It’s an incredibly high bar to clear for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beantown Express 2.0

Beantown Express 2.0 6559

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Strong jobs reports beats expectations

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/economy/january-jobs-report/index.html

 

 

Fake news.  Those numbers aren't real.... unless Trump is in office and then you can yell at the top of your lungs how great those numbers are.

Edited by Beantown Express 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45952

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I was 10-11 years old during the build up to the Iraq invasion. I really just remember the flag waiving frenzy in the years after 9/11.

The thing is, every American who was furious over 9/11 was justified.  We were attacked.

It's the disinformation and leverage thereof later on that should anger every American now.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2106

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gmr548 said:


I was 10-11 years old during the build up to the Iraq invasion. I really just remember the flag waiving frenzy in the years after 9/11.

Knowing what I do about that in hindsight makes is one of the main things that makes me extremely skeptical of deploying American forces into armed conflict. It’s an incredibly high bar to clear for me.

You're a troll, but the post you replied to was really good.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Storm the Field

Storm the Field 5294

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Fake news.  Those numbers aren't real.... unless Trump is in office and then you can yell at the top of your lungs how great those numbers are.

You laugh, but this is gospel truth on Texags. Every single thread ever started regarding a jobs report will have shit like this. They'll say shit like "I seem to remember Trump's numbers always came in better than expected"

Also, they "seem to remember" Democrats always come in below expectations (except when they don't, which means they're fake). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The thing is, every American who was furious over 9/11 was justified.  We were attacked.

It's the disinformation and leverage thereof later on that should anger every American now.

Additionally, it was not a secret that the Bush administration was dominated by the pro-invasion hawks who led the Project for the New American Century, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. We knew all of that in real time and we had them on record dating back to 1997/1998 arguing for muscular policies to take out Saddam and that it would likely require another Pearl Harbor event to get the American public on board with using our military might to force regime change in Iraq.  The pivot from the hunt for OBL to taking out Saddam was all so obvious to anyone paying attention to the whole picture and not getting their brains broken by anti-Muslim bloodlust. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Additionally, it was not a secret that the Bush administration was dominated by the pro-invasion hawks who led the Project for the New American Century, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. We knew all of that in real time and we had them on record dating back to 1997/1998 arguing for muscular policies to take out Saddam and that it would likely require another Pearl Harbor event to get the American public on board with using our military might to force regime change in Iraq.  The pivot from the hunt for OBL to taking out Saddam was all so obvious to anyone paying attention to the whole picture and not getting their brains broken by anti-Muslim bloodlust. 

 

In hindsight to me it was obvious. At the time I kind of sensed it but at the time trusted W way too much and got played the fool in believing it. Learning it was all a lie was the beginning of the end of me being a Republican culminating with the financial collapse in 2008. That sealed it. 
 

The turning of the drumbeats of war from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 was definitely there and the so called liberal media like CNN and NYT helped lead the charge. I actually first noticed the media shaping American public opinion at the behest of the government in the early Clinton years but didn’t recognize how destructive it had become. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

Additionally, it was not a secret that the Bush administration was dominated by the pro-invasion hawks who led the Project for the New American Century, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. We knew all of that in real time and we had them on record dating back to 1997/1998 arguing for muscular policies to take out Saddam and that it would likely require another Pearl Harbor event to get the American public on board with using our military might to force regime change in Iraq.  The pivot from the hunt for OBL to taking out Saddam was all so obvious to anyone paying attention to the whole picture and not getting their brains broken by anti-Muslim bloodlust. 

 

I was only 15 during the run up to Iraq and it was beyond obvious to me that the Bush administration was completely full of shit. You didn't need to be brilliant or someone who naturally distrusted everything government to see it. They were just really, obviously, totally full of shit. It didn't take being a Democrat to see it. It didn't take being naturally suspicious of government to see it. It just took eyes and ears and the tiniest bit of rational thought. 

Of course all the same people who were full of shit then use the fact that they were full of shit then to pretend they're not full of shit now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I was only 15 during the run up to Iraq and it was beyond obvious to me that the Bush administration was completely full of shit. You didn't need to be brilliant or someone who naturally distrusted everything government to see it. They were just really, obviously, totally full of shit. It didn't take being a Democrat to see it. It didn't take being naturally suspicious of government to see it. It just took eyes and ears and the tiniest bit of rational thought. 

Of course all the same people who were full of shit then use the fact that they were full of shit then to pretend they're not full of shit now. 

All the relevant Democrat politicians back then also said Iraq had WMDs.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
We’reTexas

We’reTexas 1473

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

All the relevant Democrat politicians back then also said Iraq had WMDs.

Yeah, no.  Many prominent ones did, as well as quite a few liberal pundits (looking at you, Ezra Klein). And their failure to hold themselves accountable has forever tarnished their reputations. But don’t even try to both sides this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

Another fucking lie from Sack. 

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing.  He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001    

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries.  I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.   We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."   "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated.  He must be disarmed.  We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.  He's a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps.  That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  ...  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."  
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration.  And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction.  What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis.  It cannot happen.  We have to prevent it from happening. 
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
We’reTexas

We’reTexas 1473

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your link is not about WMDs.

I’d argue that the AUMF votes were a pretty good proxy for the ultimate determination that members of Congress made on the Administration’s assessment on Iraq’s WMD development and the threat it posed to the US because that was what it was about, no? Certainly better than pulling a bunch of out of context quotes, like one (seemingly misquoted) line from Ted Kennedy in a speech where he literally argued that Iraq did appear to pose enough of a threat to justify the invasion. 
 

I was way too involved the opposition to the Iraq War 20 years ago to let this bullshit “everyone believed” revisionist history slide so Republicans can abscond themselves of the responsibility of one of the biggest disasters is US history - especially on the day when they decided to recast an insurrection as “legitimate political discourse”.

Edited by We’reTexas
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted

Hey dummy, the entire world knew Saddam Hussein had used WMD in the past but the question during the runup to the March 2003 invasion was whether Iraq currently possessed them and had abided by the UN's dictate that their weapons stockpile be destroyed. The UNSCOM inspections process was working but the Bush administration was never going to let them finish their work. There was significant opposition to the claims of Iraq WMD from people like Feingold, Boxer, Durbin etc. You are being extremely disingenuous here because yes, many politicians are on record as speaking strong words about Saddam's past weapons stockpiles and his aggression in the region, but there were many Democratic pols in Congress who did not believe Saddam possessed WMD prior to the invasion or that Iraq represented the grave existential threat the Bush administration presented to the American people. 

The important fact here is that the Dems, as always, were the adults in the room who had differences of opinion wrt the AUMF Resolution and the the majority of Dems opposed it whereas the GOP was absolutely unified in doing the wrong thing.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...