Jeeezus 'effin Christ! Look at this shit: :mad: :mad:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/18/fromgq.jpg)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's been almost four months since former President Bush left office, and many would like to leave his administration in the past. But that may not be possible since there's a constant dripping of information about what really went on during those eight years.
The latest comes by way of GQ Magazine, which has released a series of cover sheets for intelligence reports written for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon brass during the early days of the Iraq war.
They featured "triumphant, color images" like soldiers praying or in action or a tank at sunset along with Biblical passages. For example: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Besides the obvious question of appropriateness, what if these covers had leaked out at the time? The Muslim world could have interpreted the war as a religiously-driven battle against Islam. You think they were upset about Abu Ghraib?
But the general who thought up the covers told anyone that complained about them that his seniors, including Rumsfeld and President Bush, appreciated them. In fact, GQ says Rumsfeld hand-delivered many of these reports to President Bush.
The magazine suggests the mixing of Crusades-like messages with war imagery might not have been Rumsfeld's style — but he likely saw it as a way to connect with the deeply religious President Bush.
This is just another in a growing list of questions, and just like torture and the reasons for invading Iraq, they don't seem to be going away.
Link to article (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/18/complete-investigation-of-bush-admin-and-iraq-war-inevitable/)
If any of you Republicans still support was is becoming increasingly obvious as one of the most disastrous presidencies in our nation's history, you must be as off your rocker as Bush apparently was.
Here's a link to GQ's information on their site.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
Look at this lil' gem. :mad:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/rigfo2.png)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2q8zhbk.png)
This just keeps gettin' better and better. Remember people, these were on the covers of national intelligence reports. :mad:
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2zpiljb.png)
My question is how you are able to access these. You did say National Security Reports???
He told you how he accessed them. Read the article. No he did not say National Security Reports. He said (actually Jack Cafferty said) "intelligence reports written for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon brass during the early days of the Iraq war.
I want to know who authorized 4-color CMYK printing blankets for a print run of 16.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 18, 2009, 11:30:36 PM
My question is how you are able to access these. You did say National Security Reports???
They are all over the media. And your response is simply how he got them?
Not, "Why was someone making the war into a holy flippin' crusade?"
Wow. No wonder we have such a mess.
Quote from: followsthewolf on May 19, 2009, 05:53:03 AM
"Why was someone making the war into a holy flippin' crusade?"
Wow. No wonder we have such a mess.
Particularly when we remember how well the last Crusades turned out.
Quote from: LOsborne on May 19, 2009, 07:48:56 AM
Particularly when we remember how well the last Crusades turned out.
Do you really think she knows anything about the Crusades?
OK, how did GQ get their little hands on these covers?????
And you care because....?
With the way the members of the bush administration are selling each other out, it could have been anyone who turned them over.
And why aren't you concerned about the potential consequences if they had been revealed at the time?
...or the consequences of them being revealed now.
Quote from: followsthewolf on May 19, 2009, 05:34:26 PM
And you care because....?
With the way the members of the bush administration are selling each other out, it could have been anyone who turned them over.
And why aren't you concerned about the potential consequences if they had been revealed at the time?
I care because this is sensitive material and should not be in others hands.
I doubt that it was anyone from the Bush admin. I imagine this came from the someone else.
I don't concern myself with what could of but did not happen. That is past. I live more in the present and future.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 19, 2009, 05:57:59 PM
I doubt that it was anyone from the Bush admin. I imagine this came from the someone else.
Ummm, Mac? There were only 16 copies printed of each of the reports with the covers we have seen. They were distributed to "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon brass during the early days of the Iraq war." Ergo, one of those 16 people gave them to GQ. Either Rumsfeld or other top Pentagon brass during 2003. Nobody else got a copy.
Wonder what he got in return. Wingtips, ya think?
Quote from: mcgonser on May 19, 2009, 05:57:59 PM
I don't concern myself with what could of but did not happen. That is past. I live more in the present and future.
Well the present mess we're in is directly attributable to that bunch that held office for eight hellish years.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 19, 2009, 05:57:59 PM
I care because this is sensitive material and should not be in others hands.
There is nothing sensitive about a cover sheet.
maybe the printer passed it on
maybe there were 17 copies
and so what if they gave him pictures?
he would have made the same mess of things, just no pretty colors to look at
isnt that kind of like giving the kids coloring pages and crayons at a restaurant?
keep em busy while the grownups talk?
And you are sure these are real because?........
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 11:37:28 AM
And you are sure these are real because?........
Assuming they are, what are your thoughts? Appropriate?
Nit picking as usual.
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 12:11:55 PM
Nit picking as usual.
Actually, it is
you who is nitpicking. Whether or not they're real is less important than whether or not something like this is appropriate if they are. I didn't expect you to have been able to answer any question of substance.
Can anyone say diversionary tactic? Keep the people focused on something insignificant to sway them from what's going on. Whether I think they are appropriate or not is neither here nor there the fact is it's history it's over quit dwelling on those things and pay attention on what's going on now.
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 12:41:04 PM
Can anyone say diversionary tactic? Keep the people focused on something insignificant to sway them from what's going on.
Yep, that'd be what you're doing.
QuoteWhether I think they are appropriate or not is neither here nor there the fact is it's history it's over quit dwelling on those things and pay attention on what's going on now.
That's not what this thread is about (like you have a clue what's going on).
If they are not real, which they just might not be, I don't feel there is any need to be bothering with it one way or the other because it is a moot point. If they are real what the hell does it have to do with anything that is going on now and what difference does it make in the scheme of things how I or anyone else feels about it...in other words it's still a moot point.
IMO there are more important things to be reported on than something that might or might not have occurred which played no part in anything that happened years ago. They were classified documents which were seen by no one outside of those with security clearances so it had no effect on anything.
Here's a clue: you, of all people, don't get to decide for everyone else what is or is not important. If you have no opinion to offer, please feel free to STFU.
The topic is "Cover sheets for Bush's intelligence briefings." It is not what is your opinion of the Cover sheets for Bush's intelligence briefings. My question is "do you know for sure they are real and, if so, how do you know, what proof do you have. Seems like a perfectly legit question to me before everyone gets bent out of shape and is discussing something that don't matter like it's a life or death thing. Shove it under the rug with Obama's birth certificate which, btw, O'Reilley says is the real thing, and forget it.
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 01:44:03 PM
Obama's birth certificate which, btw, O'Reilley says is the real thing, and forget it.
Oh ... so now that O'Reilley says it, you finally believe it? Pray tell, how did he prove it to you?
Quote from: Bo D on May 21, 2009, 01:47:15 PM
Oh ... so now that O'Reilley says it, you finally believe it? Pray tell, how did he prove it to you?
It has been my experience that he don't say it if he can't prove it and he has retracted some things. He has a copy of the actual document and showed it on the air. Ya'll listen far too much to the O'Reilley haters to actually give him a chance.
well we can all just wait for O Reilly, well known and respected document authenticator, to put his mark of approval on these cover sheets so the matter can be put to rest.
ROFLMAO!
Hum, I don't recall saying that but then you guy's seem to be real good at putting words into peoples mouths. Bo asked a question and I answered it nothing more nothing less.
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
Hum, I don't recall saying that but then you guy's seem to be real good at putting words into peoples mouths. Bo asked a question and I answered it nothing more nothing less.
putting words into your mouth? Do my eyes deceive, or did you not say, just a few lines up that you didn't believe Obama's birth certificate was real until told so by Mr. O'Reilly?
Quote from: me on May 21, 2009, 01:44:03 PM
The topic is "Cover sheets for Bush's intelligence briefings." It is not what is your opinion of the Cover sheets for Bush's intelligence briefings. My question is "do you know for sure they are real and, if so, how do you know, what proof do you have. Seems like a perfectly legit question to me before everyone gets bent out of shape and is discussing something that don't matter like it's a life or death thing. Shove it under the rug with Obama's birth certificate which, btw, O'Reilley says is the real thing, and forget it.
No, I did not say that. If you read that into what I said you'd be wrong. :razz:
Quote from: Gryphon on May 21, 2009, 02:21:15 PM
putting words into your mouth? Do my eyes deceive, or did you not say, just a few lines up that you didn't believe Obama's birth certificate was real until told so by Mr. O'Reilly?
Bo asked: Oh ... so now that O'Reilley says it, you finally believe it? Pray tell, how did he prove it to you?
And you answered:It has been my experience that he don't say it if he can't prove it and he has retracted some things. He has a copy of the actual document and showed it on the air. Ya'll listen far too much to the O'Reilley haters to actually give him a chance.
Now, forgive me, but what can a person take from that exchange other than O Reilly proved to you the authenticity of the birth certificate?
Your choice of words may not have expressed what you meant, but as none of us are mind readers, they are all we have to go by. I fail to see how anyone put words in your mouth...
Quote from: Exterminator on May 21, 2009, 01:34:10 PM
Here's a clue: you, of all people, don't get to decide for everyone else what is or is not important. If you have no opinion to offer, please feel free to STFU.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/MaxineAttitude.jpg)
We could say the same to you Ex:
Quote from: Gryphon on May 21, 2009, 04:25:15 PM
Bo asked: Oh ... so now that O'Reilley says it, you finally believe it? Pray tell, how did he prove it to you?
And you answered:It has been my experience that he don't say it if he can't prove it and he has retracted some things. He has a copy of the actual document and showed it on the air. Ya'll listen far too much to the O'Reilley haters to actually give him a chance.
Now, forgive me, but what can a person take from that exchange other than O Reilly proved to you the authenticity of the birth certificate?
Your choice of words may not have expressed what you meant, but as none of us are mind readers, they are all we have to go by. I fail to see how anyone put words in your mouth...
Where did I say the words "I didn't think it was real?". I made a statement I did not give an opinion one way or the other on that statement. You are putting words in my mouth.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/DastardlyandMuttley.jpg)
This is the cover they need for this reports! lol
Is English your second language, me?
Of course those weren't your exact words. But let me add to your vocabulary with todays word:
Main Entry: in·fer·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈin-f(ə-)rən(t)s, -fərn(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1594
1: the act or process of inferring: as a: the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b: the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
2: something that is inferred ; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference
3: the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring
When someone asks how OReilly proved something to you, and you go on to explain how he did so, you reasoning for trusting his word on the matter, and state "he has a copy of the actual document and showed it on the air", what can any reasonable person infer anything from that conversation OTHER THAN OReilly proved it to you? (and if you didnt believe it was fake, he had nothing to prove, did he?)
Quote from: Gryphon on May 21, 2009, 06:41:01 PM
Is English your second language, me?
Of course those weren't your exact words. But let me add to your vocabulary with todays word:
Main Entry: in·fer·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈin-f(ə-)rən(t)s, -fərn(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1594
1: the act or process of inferring: as a: the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b: the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
2: something that is inferred ; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference
3: the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring
When someone asks how OReilly proved something to you, and you go on to explain how he did so, you reasoning for trusting his word on the matter, and state "he has a copy of the actual document and showed it on the air", what can any reasonable person infer anything from that conversation OTHER THAN OReilly proved it to you? (and if you didnt believe it was fake, he had nothing to prove, did he?)
Then there is interpretation and I didn't interpret it to mean me and only me I took it to mean the collective you as in his audience therefor I was answering how he proved it only not meaning he proved it to me personally. You're diverting away from the subject at hand again ya know... :razz:
Quote from: mcgonser on May 19, 2009, 05:57:59 PM
I care because this is sensitive material and should not be in others hands.
I doubt that it was anyone from the Bush admin. I imagine this came from the someone else.
I don't concern myself with what could of but did not happen. That is past. I live more in the present and future.
OK, let's try this a little slow this time; they are COVER sheets. They contain no intel information because they are made to COVER the data, not present the data.
Quote from: mcgonser on May 21, 2009, 06:33:50 PM
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/DastardlyandMuttley.jpg)
This is the cover they need for this reports! lol
Like all reports to bush admin folks, they needed really big crayons to produce them and the cover sheets were all too important to bush, himself, as he couldn't read and the pictures were the only thing he could understand.
And I ask again......Were they really the cover sheets or something someone made up?
Quote from: me on May 31, 2009, 03:53:08 PM
And I ask again......Were they really the cover sheets or something someone made up?
I can't authenticate them, at the moment, but I don't doubt they are real as I even heard other gov't officials talk about doing "god's work" in Iraq. Just freaking bizzare.
Well, I'm not taking your word for it any more than you would take mine without evidence. :razz:
Quote from: me on May 31, 2009, 09:21:18 PM
Well, I'm not taking your word for it any more than you would take mine without evidence. :razz:
You don't have to take my word for anything.
Quote from: dan foster on June 02, 2009, 10:54:10 PM
You don't have to take my word for anything.
That's good 'cause I don't. :razz:
(http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/office-space-06_full.jpg)
Don't touch my stapler!
That being said. . .
The point surrounding what would have transpired (and still may now that the cat is out of the bag) had the Muslim world known of this is a good one. More religious killing. . . :rolleyes:
No blankets were utilized in the production of these cover sheets; just a digital printer and electronic files. Far more efficient and cost effective for such a small run.
Just the fact that they are utilizing religious text as a means to instill emotional response or mindset from the POTUS and JCS is an outrage. That they did so as a "tweak" at the Muslim world is unforgivable!
These morons should know better than anyone else what a serious "business" war is. Shouldn't they conduct themselves accordingly?
I still haven't seen any proof that these are the actual cover sheets. Any of us could print up something like that and say they were real.
Quote from: me on June 03, 2009, 08:42:54 AM
I still haven't seen any proof that these are the actual cover sheets. Any of us could print up something like that and say they were real.
Just as anyone could have (and did) said that Iraq had everything to do with 911, and that they had WMD, blah, blah, blah; and then say the opposite after they leave (or were kicked out of) office.
It doesn't have to be confirmed to be effective from a terrorist perspective. Once the propagandists for the radical Muslim world get hold of it they will confirm it for us. . .
Personally, I find it amusing that someone was finally able to use "Bush" and "intelligence" in the same sentence. :biggrin:
Sorry O.T ;D
Quote from: Palehorse on June 03, 2009, 08:49:13 AM
It doesn't have to be confirmed to be effective from a terrorist perspective. Once the propagandists for the radical Muslim world get hold of it they will confirm it for us. . .
And that is the problem with all the fabricated stuff floating around. Both the far left and the far right needs to STFU before they cause more problems than they already have.
Quote from: me on June 03, 2009, 10:00:41 AM
And that is the problem with all the fabricated stuff floating around. Both the far left and the far right needs to STFU before they cause more problems than they already have.
YES!!!!!! And that includes spreading fabricated stories about not growing grapes in England!
:biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on June 03, 2009, 10:04:34 AM
YES!!!!!! And that includes spreading fabricated stories about not growing grapes in England!
:biggrin:
:razz:
Quote from: me on June 03, 2009, 10:00:41 AM
And that is the problem with all the fabricated stuff floating around. Both the far left and the far right needs to STFU before they cause more problems than they already have.
The Bush WH was as leaky as a ghetto faucet, is my point. And post administration we've seen more spinning than a break dancing contest by these jokers. They've come right out and admitted they lied, just not in those words, and expect everyone to suck it up and extend them diplomatic immunity. . . BS!
Moreover, we've all seen how many, many points the Bush oposition put out there during his administration have come to be confirmed, so it would not be surprising to find the Muslim radicals or terrorist organizations able to confirm the subject under discussion here in some way. . .
On the other hand how much classified information that still can't be released could disprove all or most of the allegations but it is better to leave it classified and take the heat rather than declassify it and give away even more of our countries secrets to the enemy? Did you not notice Obama has changed his mind about some things to do with the war lately? Have none of you noticed that every time something goes wrong for the Dems that they come up with something to divert attention away from it? Maybe when you wake up one day and find we have lost all of our freedoms and no longer have a right to the pursuit of happiness you'll understand. Look how quickly the government took over the auto industry. Could others be far behind? He's already working on the tobacco companies.
Quote from: me on June 03, 2009, 10:33:36 AM
. . . Maybe when you wake up one day and find we have lost all of our freedoms and no longer have a right to the pursuit of happiness you'll understand. Look how quickly the government took over the auto industry. Could others be far behind? He's already working on the tobacco companies.
And where was this disillusionment when the Chimp was raiding our liberties???? (Warrant-less wiretaps, Patriot Act. . .) Oh, that's right. . . he was from the other party!
Quote from: Palehorse on June 03, 2009, 10:49:48 AM
And where was this disillusionment when the Chimp was raiding our liberties???? (Warrant-less wiretaps, Patriot Act. . .) Oh, that's right. . . he was from the other party!
That did not come about until after the attack on 911 and was done to protect us not to take away private enterprise.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 03, 2009, 10:49:48 AM
And where was this disillusionment when the Chimp was raiding our liberties???? (Warrant-less wiretaps, Patriot Act. . .) Oh, that's right. . . he was from the other party!
I think there is NO comparison between the two.......Bush, wanted the ability to wiretap suspected terrorist and the ability to track and trace these individuals....Obama has TAKEN over General Motors, and has a death grip on key Banks.....THIS is a real reason to perk up your ears and pay attention.....why is there no outrage of this, but when Bush did things, for obvious reasons, it was atrocious...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 03, 2009, 11:57:35 AM
I think there is NO comparison between the two.......Bush, wanted the ability to wiretap suspected terrorist and the ability to track and trace these individuals....Obama has TAKEN over General Motors, and has a death grip on key Banks.....THIS is a real reason to perk up your ears and pay attention.....why is there no outrage of this, but when Bush did things, for obvious reasons, it was atrocious...
So preventing the collapse of the U.S. economy is a bad thing but abandoning the principles and Constitution that separate the U.S. from the rest of the world so that cowards are afforded the illusion of security is ok?
Quote from: Exterminator on June 03, 2009, 12:12:36 PM
So preventing the collapse of the U.S. economy is a bad thing but abandoning the principles and Constitution that separate the U.S. from the rest of the world so that cowards are afforded the illusion of security is ok?
Our economy just sank Billions of dollars into two companies that went BANKRUPT!!! I don't exactly have the warm and fuzzy feeling that we are FREE of collapse at this point in time....but our Constitution is STILL intact AFTER the Bush presidency...we have been kept safe from further attacks....
It's 'intact' and no, it isn't but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. :rolleyes:
The Chimp's "intentions" may or may not have been good, but you and I both know that good intentions are meaningless and do not come into play when it comes to law enforcement.
That is the level wherein the abuses have the best opportunity to come to the forefront. One needs only to look at our local law enforcement to see a prime example of what I am talking about here; abuse of power and position. (Officer Brooks)
It would be fine if it were only to be exercised on a "known terrorist", but define that term would you? The fact is all they have to do is connect you with the term terrorist and bingo, they can listen to every single word you say, all day, all night. Won't matter if the connection is made over the squabble you enter into with a neighbor over his penchant for sitting in his boxers on the front porch and drinking beer in front of your daughters every evening. All that has to happen is for someone to utter the word terrorist, and the abusers will abuse.
This kind of legislation is what is wrong with our country and its leadership, and the fact that they have herds of sheeple falling into line is quite disturbing. Only when it is far too late will those sheeple realize they have let the wolves in amongst them.
Palehorse, If YOU, was President, would you or would you NOT, do EVERYTHING possible to prevent another attack. You have access to all sorts of classified information and you know things that we Americans will never know. Would you allow your advisaries (the other party) to stall you and fight you on every move you made, or would you do what you had to do, to allow those who are defending our country do their job.....THAT is what I think George W. Bush did.......he was attacked and had EVERY thing he did, spun into a BAD THING....it was the democrats mission, to get back into power, and they did WHATEVER they had to, to be successful....I believe this with all my heart....(Im not saying that the repubs are above this either....both parties SUCK, and it is ALL about power....)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 03, 2009, 12:56:29 PM
Palehorse, If YOU, was President, would you or would you NOT, do EVERYTHING possible to prevent another attack. You have access to all sorts of classified information and you know things that we Americans will never know. Would you allow your advisaries (the other party) to stall you and fight you on every move you made, or would you do what you had to do, to allow those who are defending our country do their job.....THAT is what I think George W. Bush did.......he was attacked and had EVERY thing he did, spun into a BAD THING....it was the democrats mission, to get back into power, and they did WHATEVER they had to, to be successful....I believe this with all my heart....(Im not saying that the repubs are above this either....both parties SUCK, and it is ALL about power....)
IF I were POTUS it would be incumbent upon me to do everything within my power to protect and serve the people of the United States of America and its interests; but
not at the expense of their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It would also be incumbent upon me to do everything within my power to guarantee the safety and well being of any captured enemy of the State, and to treat said prisoners as outlined under the Geneva Convention; for unless I do this how can I expect it of our enemies?
America and Americans
must take the high ground, whether it is during an active engagement upon our own soil or that of a foreign land. We can not and should not falter from this path ever, for doing so lowers our credibility and places us squarely into the position of those who would oppose us.
Yes, in some cases it is necessary to act, and act swiftly and boldly in order to seize the upper hand; but never is it justified to abuse the liberties of a single citizen nor the basic human rights of an enemy.
The previous administration failed on
all counts to uphold these absolutes and did so miserably. Removing just one of those rights guaranteed each one of us by the USC, for even one person, is unacceptable to me and should be to every U.S. citizen.
To be quite honest about this, IMHO the Chimp should have put a stop to this kind of cover sheet being generated by any governmental agency. It smacks of endorsement of religion in direct opposition to the intention of our founding documentation.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 03, 2009, 01:13:36 PM
IF I were POTUS it would be incumbent upon me to do everything within my power to protect and serve the people of the United States of America and its interests; but not at the expense of their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It would also be incumbent upon me to do everything within my power to guarantee the safety and well being of any captured enemy of the State, and to treat said prisoners as outlined under the Geneva Convention; for unless I do this how can I expect it of our enemies?
America and Americans must take the high ground, whether it is during an active engagement upon our own soil or that of a foreign land. We can not and should not falter from this path ever, for doing so lowers our credibility and places us squarely into the position of those who would oppose us.
Yes, in some cases it is necessary to act, and act swiftly and boldly in order to seize the upper hand; but never is it justified to abuse the liberties of a single citizen nor the basic human rights of an enemy.
The previous administration failed on all counts to uphold these absolutes and did so miserably. Removing just one of those rights guaranteed each one of us by the USC, for even one person, is unacceptable to me and should be to every U.S. citizen.
To be quite honest about this, IMHO the Chimp should have put a stop to this kind of cover sheet being generated by any governmental agency. It smacks of endorsement of religion in direct opposition to the intention of our founding documentation.
But was it really generated by one of our government agency's?
Quote from: me on June 03, 2009, 01:16:28 PM
But was it really generated by one of our government agency's?
Given that administrations public record now, it is a lot easier to believe it is than it isn't. Their own fault too for lying to us, using us, and abusing our liberties and the human rights of our enemies.
How much worse is our enemy's actions in beheading prisoners, when compared to our torturing of our own prisoners? Shame on us for validating their actions! :icon_evil:
Quote from: me on June 03, 2009, 01:16:28 PM
But was it really generated by one of our government agency's?
Possibilities and probabilities again. ; )
While possible these aren't generated by the accused, probability says that, since none of the usual RW suspects (media
or political) have latched on to this like the proverbial dog on a shank bone as there would be piles of poo-litical ( :biggrin: ) capital to be made by debunking this, they should be genuine by the standard of proof (the preponderance of evidence, i.e.: more likely than not - 51% - to the reasonable person) used in civil cases.
Quote from: Y on June 03, 2009, 11:21:57 PM
Possibilities and probabilities again. ; )
While possible these aren't generated by the accused, probability says that, since none of the usual RW suspects (media or political) have latched on to this like the proverbial dog on a shank bone as there would be piles of poo-litical ( :biggrin: ) capital to be made by debunking this, they should be genuine by the standard of proof (the preponderance of evidence, i.e.: more likely than not - 51% - to the reasonable person) used in civil cases.
Or, it hasn't been jumped on because it just don't matter in the scheme of things.
Quote from: me on June 04, 2009, 12:39:20 AM
Or, it hasn't been jumped on because it just don't matter in the scheme of things.
And you
know what the probability of that is, don't you? :biggrin:
Quote from: Y on June 04, 2009, 12:51:41 AM
And you know what the probability of that is, don't you? :biggrin:
On the other hand you could say the reason they aren't all over the main stream media is because it can't be substantiated the other way. :razz: There are waaaaaay more important things going on that need to be addressed than some cover sheets from years ago. That unanimous source thing is always questionable.
Quote from: me on June 04, 2009, 01:17:01 AM
On the other hand you could say the reason they aren't all over the main stream media is because it can't be substantiated the other way.
You'd better take a look at the OP. ; )
QuoteThat unanimous source thing is always questionable.
Anonymous :biggrin:
Quote from: me on June 04, 2009, 01:17:01 AM
On the other hand you could say the reason they aren't all over the main stream media is because it can't be substantiated the other way.
Huh? I just did a quick search and found the story on CNN, Reuters, ABC, NPR, the NY Times, AOL news and Newsday before I got off the first page of results. How much more main stream does it have to get before you agree the story was widely disseminated?
No one is making a big deal out of it though.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 04, 2009, 08:25:08 AM
Huh? I just did a quick search and found the story on CNN, Reuters, ABC, NPR, the NY Times, AOL news and Newsday before I got off the first page of results. How much more main stream does it have to get before you agree the story was widely disseminated?
Quote from: Y on June 04, 2009, 02:30:27 AM
Anonymous :biggrin:
Ya, that too....Guess that's what I get for posting when I'm half asleep.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 03, 2009, 12:26:09 PM
Our economy just sank Billions of dollars into two companies that went BANKRUPT!!! I don't exactly have the warm and fuzzy feeling that we are FREE of collapse at this point in time....but our Constitution is STILL intact AFTER the Bush presidency...we have been kept safe from further attacks....
It is only by luck that our Constitution survived the bush presidency. Cheney, and his pet chimp bush, did just about everything a pair of traitors could do in order to destroy the Constitution, but yes, it did survive them.
Quote from: dan foster on June 11, 2009, 12:25:09 PM
It is only by luck that our Constitution survived the bush presidency. Cheney, and his pet chimp bush, did just about everything a pair of traitors could do in order to destroy the Constitution, but yes, it did survive them.
Dude! What about Nixon? Bush and Cheney are pikers compared to him. The really scary thing is that relatively few people realize how dangerously close Nixon came to destroying our government.
Quote from: Bo D on June 11, 2009, 12:41:48 PM
Dude! What about Nixon? Bush and Cheney are pikers compared to him. The really scary thing is that relatively few people realize how dangerously close Nixon came to destroying our government.
I'm afraid you ain't seen nothin' yet...It's only just begun...
:yes:
Yes I wonder what tune you will be singing at the end of Obama's reign.
Quote from: me on June 11, 2009, 12:49:50 PM
I'm afraid you ain't seen nothin' yet...It's only just begun...
It's refreshing to see you republicans acknowledge your plan.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2009, 12:58:36 PM
It's refreshing to see you republicans acknowledge your plan.
Uh, just in case you hadn't noticed it's the Dem's in office now and that is what I was referring to. :razz:
Quote from: me on June 11, 2009, 02:01:16 PM
Uh, just in case you hadn't noticed it's the Dem's in office now and that is what I was referring to. :razz:
If you'd been following the thread, the damage Bush did to the Constitution was mentioned first followed by Nixon...both Republicans.
These religious cover sheets have been all over the news for a while, and I seem to recall that Rummy had put little religious sayings on them for Bush, too.
Let's face it... the Bush/Dick/Rummy were madhatters, and we're lucky to have survived them thus far.
At the same time, I haven't seen Obama reverse anything regarding the trashing of our bill of rights. He's let it all stand, even after he'd promised he would reverse certain constitutional violations. He changed his mind on the torture photos. He changed his mind on prosecutions. Obama is just Bush III.
He hasn't ended any wars either, and he won't... because the economy is so bad right now, if we had a large influx of soldiers coming home, where would they get a job?
So, if this cover stuff bothers you, which it should... then gird your loins for what Obama's got in store for us.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 11, 2009, 02:10:47 PM
If you'd been following the thread, the damage Bush did to the Constitution was mentioned first followed by Nixon...both Republicans.
Mentioned by dems who are sure not biased in any way. Suuuuure! Not looking for anyones else like Bubba Climton and his harem of young girls
Quote from: mcgonser on June 11, 2009, 03:24:39 PM
Mentioned by dems who are sure not biased in any way. Suuuuure! Not looking for anyones else like Bubba Climton and his harem of young girls
Did those young girls cause a constitutional crisis?
who will ever know for sure. Bubba might of had his mind on other things instead of running the country. He He He!
The thing I admired most about Bubba was that he COULD do business, chow down on pizza, and get himself pleasured all at the same time. Now that takes talent. LOL.
It's funny how when the Republicans have girlfriends, hardly a mention before the media completely clams up... but let a Democrat (who ARE liberals, btw) have a girlfriend, and everyone goes apeshit over it.
Clinton is, and remains, one of the most brilliant politicians on the planet. He was extremely schooled in all aspects of government and world affairs long before he entered politics -- something we cannot say about Obama. The Dems had their chance and they blew it on The Messiah, who is only as effective as his teleprompter allows.
Quote from: Freethinker on June 11, 2009, 04:36:52 PM
The thing I admired most about Bubba was that he COULD do business, chow down on pizza, and get himself pleasured all at the same time. Now that takes talent. LOL.
It's funny how when the Republicans have girlfriends, hardly a mention before the media completely clams up... but let a Democrat (who ARE liberals, btw) have a girlfriend, and everyone goes apeshit over it.
Clinton is, and remains, one of the most brilliant politicians on the planet. He was extremely schooled in all aspects of government and world affairs long before he entered politics -- something we cannot say about Obama. The Dems had their chance and they blew it on The Messiah, who is only as effective as his teleprompter allows.
I am willing to give Obama a little more time to change things. It's only been six months, but I too won't wait very much longer for him to start undoing the bush legacy.
Quote from: Locutus on May 18, 2009, 05:02:00 PM
Jeeezus 'effin Christ! Look at this shit: :mad: :mad:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/18/fromgq.jpg)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's been almost four months since former President Bush left office, and many would like to leave his administration in the past. But that may not be possible since there's a constant dripping of information about what really went on during those eight years.
The latest comes by way of GQ Magazine, which has released a series of cover sheets for intelligence reports written for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon brass during the early days of the Iraq war.
They featured "triumphant, color images" like soldiers praying or in action or a tank at sunset along with Biblical passages. For example: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Besides the obvious question of appropriateness, what if these covers had leaked out at the time? The Muslim world could have interpreted the war as a religiously-driven battle against Islam. You think they were upset about Abu Ghraib?
But the general who thought up the covers told anyone that complained about them that his seniors, including Rumsfeld and President Bush, appreciated them. In fact, GQ says Rumsfeld hand-delivered many of these reports to President Bush.
The magazine suggests the mixing of Crusades-like messages with war imagery might not have been Rumsfeld's style — but he likely saw it as a way to connect with the deeply religious President Bush.
This is just another in a growing list of questions, and just like torture and the reasons for invading Iraq, they don't seem to be going away.
Link to article (http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/18/complete-investigation-of-bush-admin-and-iraq-war-inevitable/)
The one thing that really bothers me about this story is that "bush" and "intelligence" show up in the same sentence. The fukker couldn't even read, let alone something of an intelligence nature.
That's what I said! But not quite as colorfully ;D
I think most anyone would be hard pressed to find one honest and positive thing that Bush did for this country.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 12, 2009, 12:44:03 AM
That's what I said! But not quite as colorfully ;D
I think most anyone would be hard pressed to find one honest and positive thing that Bush did for this country.
zero. The only thing that could be good about the bush admin is if cheney goes to jail. I doubt that will happen, but one can only hope.
:no: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2009, 08:15:01 AM
:no: :rolleyes:
:razz:
Suggested update to your tagline:
"Let us rejoice in the fact that as a secular nation, we are far more civilized, now, than we ever were when people thought we were a christian nation. Religion made us really bad slave owners."
Quote from: dan foster on June 15, 2009, 10:41:19 PM
:razz:
Suggested update to your tagline:
"Let us rejoice in the fact that as a secular nation, we are far more civilized, now, than we ever were when people thought we were a christian nation. Religion made us really bad slave owners."
You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prove it big guy.
Quote from: mcgonser on June 15, 2009, 11:16:50 PM
You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prove it big guy.
Then your position is that religion made us
good slave owners?
Quote from: dan foster on June 15, 2009, 10:41:19 PM
:razz:
Suggested update to your tagline:
"Let us rejoice in the fact that as a secular nation, we are far more civilized, now, than we ever were when people thought we were a christian nation. Religion made us really bad slave owners."
First of all, I agree to an extent, that religion can be and has been, the worst enemy of true followers of Christ.....but it was the Christian Reformers that spearheaded the anti-slavery movement...
I will concede, like I have many times in the past, .... religion in general, can be bad for society....but, I will stand strong and never back down from the teachings and following of Jesus Christ and the word of God, as He taught ...via...the Holy Bible....We ARE the Nation that we
was were (i said
WAS WERE) because of those who placed THAT Holy Word, as revered and instilled it's teachings as the cornerstones of way of life............and it was THAT reason alone, why we became the Greatest Nation the world has ever known.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2009, 08:58:54 AM
First of all, I agree to an extent, that religion can be and has been, the worst enemy of true followers of logic.
FTFY!
Quote(i said WAS)
And it was wrong both times! :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 16, 2009, 09:05:36 AM
FTFY!
And it was wrong both times! :razz:
Nope, I was RIGHT both times... :yes: without ANY trace of doubt..... :yes:
let me see how I can say this......................
I am right and you are wrong..............yeah, that's it........................ :yes:
But, that's okay, I like you despite your downfalls and your erroneous opinions...............you are kind of my left-winged, atheist, but very well spoken, hero!!!... :razz:
No, the correct conjugation of the verb is 'were' as in 'we were' not 'we was'. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mcgonser on June 15, 2009, 11:16:50 PM
You are so wrong it is not even funny. Prove it big guy.
Prove what?