But alas my good friend, you were owned on the 9/11 conspiracy video thread. Remember, where you and SEBasic were trying in vain to defend them? It was a fun argument Those wmd are well documented. You'd be surprised at how many people these days simply don't care about the facts. Poor Edz almost had a nervous breakdown over them. Man, he was distraught that some were found.
It's an allegation (loosely filled story), not a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies an action taken among a group, not just talk. Not everything the 'media' says is right, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy.
I'm fairly neutral on the position of WMD's. I think there's very little solid evidence to confirm new program activity, but it's evident that Saddam didn't destroy all his chemical weapons (no matter how useful or useless). I'm ten times more open to the idea of WMD's still being around, than a massive coverup by the government on 9/11--which is what would be required. Not to say I give either anymore than what's given in their assertions. Both deserve a decent amount of attention, because of their obvious implications....but you have to work with reasonable standards.
I'm no Bush supporter, but 9/11 conspiracy theorist are far more delusional....atleast about that subject.
Why? Because it is inconcievable for you to imagine it could happen? In all seriousness, I suggest you watch the whole documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4996997778036416510&q="Everybody's+Gotta+Learn+Sometime" How does the saying go ... "There's no such thing as coincidence" ?
I researched this throughly a long-time ago, and a conspiracy video is not reputable evidence. As a person deeply involved in aviation, I find it laughable. Personally, I think people get too invested in a conspiracy site (or video in this case), and don't seek the others views. The fullest picture is through multiple perspectives....but I won't argue the details, as I feel it's wasted energy...and that the research is out there if you really wish to look into it. ----------------------------------------------- I'm watching a bit of this waste-of-time video. It's a yawner. *fast forward past the progaganda*
lol! Yes, it is a bit drawn out and tedious but it does raise some valid and interesting points. I personally don't have any interest in 'Democrat v's Republican' and frankly wouldn't know a republican or democrat 'face' if it was in front of me. If you can wade through the political finger-pointing and the monotone of the narrator and still remain awake, the documentary does ask some pertinent questions.
Gtech: Your thread that ended by alleging that democrats were "kerryesque" is your way of calling democrats traitorous. That is miserable BS. Immediately after the election Bush stopped doing this. Immediately. All that name calling does is add to the negative impact of moving forward and finding workable better solutions. On the Gates nomination for Secretary of Defense he was voted in by the Senate 95-2. The two dissenting Senators were both Republicans, Santorum of Pennsylvania and Bunning of Kentucky. Their reasonining was similar. Both disagreed with Gate's willingness to speak and interact with Syria and Iran. Neither said a word about being a traitor, neither denounced or degraded the senators that disagreed with them. They voted; they gave their reasoning. Neither of them were smart enough to realize it is a time to move forward and tackle the issues not degrade people (Americans) who disagree with them.
EarlPearl, my comment was: Kerry was treasonous. I also noted this was alleged. Unlike you and others here, I gave the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions. How soon we forget the Foley allegations and any number of others relating to republicans. You seem to have clear and precise double standards. Attack republicans without giving the benefit of the doubt (which I've done here), but when something concerns democrats, shout from the highest mountains about "moving forward" and "tackling issues," etc. Hold yourself accountable to the same standards you demand of others. The thread has nothing to do with Gates or any of the other red herrings. It was about an allegation that democrats secretely met with a terrorist group. This same group of thugs also made allegations about Bush a few years ago, which were untrue (not that it stopped your ilk from parroting it as truth). As such, I gave the benefit of the doubt by noting it was alleged, a charge and nothing more. Kerry was treasonous. There is no denying it. As to whether democrats actually met secretly with terrorist enemies of our country is yet to be seen. I believe I've given far mor care in noting the "alleging" of charges here, than you ever have concerning republicans. Hold yourself to my standard, or at best, hold yourself accountable to the standard you want republicans to hold. That's fair, no?
Still not wanting to answer the simple question i put forward: Why is it that it would be clear to you i have not read your post GTech? A grown man discussion would be to auctually listen and answer questions that would be put forward. Can you do that GTech? Can you? And yes maybe i will put up some more pictures to bash on your ignorance you displayed so well lately
Edz, It's not a simple question, it's the typical stupid question and games you play. If you want to have a discussion, a "real man" discussion, then put something foward and we can discuss it. Otherwise, go back to what you do best...posting your little cartoons. Fair enough?
Kerry is not a traitor in the law and IMHO. Neither are Murtha or the NY Times. The Times in fact, recently revealed a flaw in a government action that provided potentially dangerous information about nuclearn bomb development. The action was a website put up by the government that revealed thousands of found documents by the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein. Reportedly the Bush administration was against publishing the document. They were pressured by various Republican members of Congress including Hoekstra (and I don't remember if there were others). The administration responded to this and either put the site back up or maintained it despite their initial perspective. I suspect that the sheer volume of documents prevented the administration from getting every document quickly analyzed. The argument to keep the documents on the web was one made to try and speed up the process. Unfortunately, none of us want dangerous documents on the web. The NY Times caught this, had nuclear experts and other experts review them made this public, made the administration aware of this and the website was taken down. A very patriotic action and one where the NYTimes and the Bush administration were on the same wave length and agreed and where one or more Republican members of Congress had spurred action which proved to be dangerous. Does that make Hoekstra treasonous? Not in my view. Poor judgement is the worst that I would say and the claim of poor judgement can only be made after the flaw and danger were found. His intentions were terrific, in the context of trying to more quickly uncover information that could be helpful in the context of trying to help the US. I simply have a problem with the continued labeling. Do I do it? Possibly. I try and keep it to a minimum. If I'm caught there I may have to (grudgingly ) admit to it.
No it was a simple question GTech, my post was a perfect response to your opening post jumping up and down screaming treason regarding this alleged meeting you referred to. Below is a quote that gave me and Earlpearl the indication that you referring to treason IF such a meeting should have happend. You don't even know what would have been discussed if there would have been an actual meeting but your are referring to treason. Secondly we all know and you made it very clear just now you regard Kerry as a traitor. If it was not your intention to depict the Democrats as traitors for holding a meeting then you made miserable failure in your writing of your opening post and follow ups.
I've covered these before, in great depth with I believe they are. Being a partisan democrat, I can understand why you would believe they are not. The burning hatred of Bush often overwhelms reasonable and logical thought. As for the Times, their reason was self-serving and it backfired on them. Their reasoning was to make Bush look bad by disclosing such, but along the way, they actually verified that saddam's nuclear program was alive and well and much more elaborate than originally thought. In essence, it verified a primary reason we invaded Iraq. That's the problem with the Times treason...often times while selfishly serving their own Bush hatred, they actually validate his very positions. In the other case of the Times treason, the editor that committed treason by disclosing a secret legal program recently published a column saying he was wrong for doing so. His hatred for Bush outweighed his responsibilities. Would be interesting to see a source to verify this. There are hundreds of thousands of documents out there, released earlier this year and many have taken interest in going through them. Some have led to discoveries that directly prove the intelligence on Iraq was accurate. ABC actually published some of those. Their purpose was to make Bush look bad, but in fact, they actually verified the nuclear threat was much worse than many have tried to hide. It's sort of a catch-22. In order to make Bush look bad, you have to accept that saddam did in fact have advanced nuclear plans and capabilities, meaning that taking him out was a good thing. One has to weigh their hatred of Bush with what the documents disclose in order to be honest with themselves. One could look at it this way, but to do so is to recognize that saddam's nuclear abilities were a threat and taking him out was the right thing to do. It comes with baggage; baggage some may not be willing to accept. It does not excuse the treason they committed by disclosing a secret legal program that threatened our national security. Even the Time's editor now admits it was wrong to do. I'm not convinced you would find anything any democrat ever did, to be treasonous, but there are examples where what they have done are. One must be willing to set their partisan views aside for what's in the best interest of our country. We all do it, including myself. But I took great caution here to use the right wording and note the charges are "alleged" and "charged" to set that tone. Too often, when anything negative comes out about Republicans, the usual bandwagon jumps all over it and tries/convicts them without even details. Apparently this story has no traction, at least at the moment. I had no illusion that MSM outlets like the NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, LAT would cover this story. It would not be in their best interests to do so. Without the coverage and media asking questions, the story will fade away. That's good news for democrats, whether there is truth behind it or not.
Edz, note the current discussion. If you'd like to participate, please do. If "little games" are all you have, please go back to your cartoons. I believe I've demonstrated I'm willing, with the current discussion with EP. People like you are a dime a dozen here. Step up to the real game, if you can. I'm personally not interested in explaining to you why your posts are stupid. I don't have to, they do it on their own.
Your initial post is what is actually stupid.... and careless, even lying here now that you take care in your wordings. You called the Democrats traitors just because of an alleged meeting which IF happend you don't even know what has been discussed. Jumping to conclusions so you can continue on your crusade based on hatred towards the Democrat party. Also saying that: Are you unaware that under Clinton the CIA aided the PLO a recognized terrorist organization at the time in funds and training? Or are you dismissing that because it's not in line with above quote? Would this not be treason to your reasoning Gtech? He actually aided a terrorist organization, not talking, helping them wich actually lead to this training and funds being used against the Israelis. So take of the halo and stop screaming treason just because it fits your agenda to bash on any party that is not the Republican.