Jump to content

Photo

Afghanistan... No Liberal Press?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 arena2003

arena2003

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 09:17 PM

http://www.timesonli...icle6032342.ece

"He said (Obama) that failing to support the US surge would leave Europe open to a fresh terrorist offensive. “It is probably more likely that al-Qaeda would be able to launch a serious terrorist attack on Europe than on the United States because of proximity,” he said."

Funny, as this is what the lefty press and hippy Ivy League tenured profs killed the Repubs on: "would leave Europe open to a fresh terrorist offensive".

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, "Republican" SCARE TACTICS :whistling: now being pontificated by the far left? Our lefty Obama President scaring people :blink: !

:rofl:
  • 0

#2 Deke

Deke

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,390 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 09:27 PM

You sure do resent people with high educations.

I wonder why.
  • 0
Go Carp, go!
Salmonbellies rule!
Hit 'em harder cops!
But a hockey team called the Mighty Ducks?
Aw, man.

#3 oofrostonoo

oofrostonoo

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 09:40 PM

I believe it was Rumsfeld among others who stated that it was "Certain" terrorists would attack the US again in the coming months (a few years back).

Now winning support from a group by saying that it is a certainty they will be attacked is slightly different.

Edited by oofrostonoo, 03 April 2009 - 09:40 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#4 Devilish34

Devilish34

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,324 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:47 PM

I believe it was Rumsfeld among others who stated that it was "Certain" terrorists would attack the US again in the coming months (a few years back).

Now winning support from a group by saying that it is a certainty they will be attacked is slightly different.


Not different at all..It just shows the bias among the media and people in general.
  • 0

86 the Kool Ade -- we need some fvcking icewater for these pussies

Posted ImageRIP Bill 1931-2007
RIP Major/Dr. John Paul Pryor killed in Iraq on 12/25/08. You will be greatly missed and can never be replaced.
What Happened To Dr Pryor?

You might be a Redneck if you brag about running a 11.57@118.14Posted Image

#5 Neutral Zone Trap

Neutral Zone Trap

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,772 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 12:35 AM

You sure do resent people with high educations.

I wonder why.


Being educated is one thing sir, being intelligent is quite another. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink..............
  • 0

#6 RunninWithTheDevil

RunninWithTheDevil

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,267 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 01:23 PM

how is this fear mongering? He only said that Europe is more likely to be hit. He's not like "THEY'RE PLANNING AN ATTACK ON EUROPE!"

and if you read the actual article you would see that he DID NOT say "fresh terrorist offensive" so this thread is pointless. The times said that.

He said that failing to support the US surge would leave Europe open to a fresh terrorist offensive. “It is probably more likely that al-Qaeda would be able to launch a serious terrorist attack on Europe than on the United States because of proximity,” he said.


I guess Lou can't understand you if you don't type in all capitals or bold letters so I don't even know why i try.
  • 0

"THREW ONE IN FRONT IT’S BLOCKED THERE, SCRAMBLE FOR IT THERE THEY POKE AWAY AT IT, STILL ITS LOOSE, POKED AT BY KOVALCHUK-
THEY SCOOOOOOOOOREEEEEEE!!!!! HENRIQUE!! ITS OVER!!”

Winner of the 2010 UDX Signature Award


#7 arena2003

arena2003

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:12 PM

how is this fear mongering? He only said that Europe is more likely to be hit. He's not like "THEY'RE PLANNING AN ATTACK ON EUROPE!"

and if you read the actual article you would see that he DID NOT say "fresh terrorist offensive" so this thread is pointless. The times said that.



I guess Lou can't understand you if you don't type in all capitals or bold letters so I don't even know why i try.


What's the "times"? :whistling:
  • 0

#8 RunninWithTheDevil

RunninWithTheDevil

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,267 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 11:39 PM

What's the "times"? :whistling:


the name of the website?

http://www.timesonli...icle6032342.ece
  • 0

"THREW ONE IN FRONT IT’S BLOCKED THERE, SCRAMBLE FOR IT THERE THEY POKE AWAY AT IT, STILL ITS LOOSE, POKED AT BY KOVALCHUK-
THEY SCOOOOOOOOOREEEEEEE!!!!! HENRIQUE!! ITS OVER!!”

Winner of the 2010 UDX Signature Award


#9 arena2003

arena2003

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 02:56 AM

"...Would leave Europe open to a fresh terrorist offensive".
  • 0

#10 RunninWithTheDevil

RunninWithTheDevil

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,267 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:00 AM

"...Would leave Europe open to a fresh terrorist offensive".


once again, that was said by a liberal news website. What the fvck does this have to do with anything Obama said.
  • 0

"THREW ONE IN FRONT IT’S BLOCKED THERE, SCRAMBLE FOR IT THERE THEY POKE AWAY AT IT, STILL ITS LOOSE, POKED AT BY KOVALCHUK-
THEY SCOOOOOOOOOREEEEEEE!!!!! HENRIQUE!! ITS OVER!!”

Winner of the 2010 UDX Signature Award


#11 arena2003

arena2003

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:44 AM

once again, that was said by a liberal news website. What the fvck does this have to do with anything Obama said.


He was elected by the liberal press and strolled right into the White House because he recognized early on, as sh^t Senator from Illinois, that he could lie and distort the truth via the liberal press.

So it's funny that you, rwd, like the liberal press when it is fits your agenda, but it's nonsense after you and Acorn get a spender for socialist ideals into office with puppet strings attached to Pelosi.

So.. Obama was quoted: "what the f^ck does this have to do with anything"? Probably correct if he was not looking at his telepromter and hangin with Leno and his Follywood crowd.

What a pathetic, fear mongering President that would be crucified by the lib press if it was a mainstream Republican.
  • 0

#12 RunninWithTheDevil

RunninWithTheDevil

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,267 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:36 PM

He was elected by the liberal press and strolled right into the White House because he recognized early on, as sh^t Senator from Illinois, that he could lie and distort the truth via the liberal press.

So it's funny that you, rwd, like the liberal press when it is fits your agenda, but it's nonsense after you and Acorn get a spender for socialist ideals into office with puppet strings attached to Pelosi.

So.. Obama was quoted: "what the f^ck does this have to do with anything"? Probably correct if he was not looking at his telepromter and hangin with Leno and his Follywood crowd.

What a pathetic, fear mongering President that would be crucified by the lib press if it was a mainstream Republican.


how is he fear mongering? and please, lets not talk about fear mongering.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002


"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002


So.. Obama was quoted: "what the f^ck does this have to do with anything"? Probably correct if he was not looking at his telepromter and hangin with Leno and his Follywood crowd.


im not even sure what this means.
  • 0

"THREW ONE IN FRONT IT’S BLOCKED THERE, SCRAMBLE FOR IT THERE THEY POKE AWAY AT IT, STILL ITS LOOSE, POKED AT BY KOVALCHUK-
THEY SCOOOOOOOOOREEEEEEE!!!!! HENRIQUE!! ITS OVER!!”

Winner of the 2010 UDX Signature Award


#13 matcat1116

matcat1116

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 09:42 PM

and please, lets not talk about fear mongering.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002


"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002


"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 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... 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:
  • 0
Posted Image

#14 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 10:10 PM

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 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... 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

Question, which of those guys took us to war that cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's?

Buck stops at the top.
  • 0

#15 matcat1116

matcat1116

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 02:53 PM

Question, which of those guys took us to war that cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's?

Buck stops at the top.


Sounds to me like all of those mentioned were willing to do the same. Need I not remind you that Bush's decision came after numerous UN resolutions disobeyed and multiple warnings from the UN and western nations.
  • 0
Posted Image

#16 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 03:35 PM

Sounds to me like all of those mentioned were willing to do the same.

Thats irrelevent, Bush was the person who decided to go to war, IF any of those other people you listed actually sent us to war based on false preconditions and then refused to take responsibility for their actions they would be equally as responsible. You can't say a senator saying something in a speech is the same thing as signing the declaration for war.

Need I not remind you that Bush's decision came after numerous UN resolutions disobeyed and multiple warnings from the UN and western nations.

Need I remind you that countries disobey UN resolutions time and time again and we never get involved. Iran is building nuclear facilities, North Korea is threatening to test them, yet you see not even the slightest hint that Bush was ready to invade these countries (and for damn good reason too). Lets not pretend like the UN has much pull in the world.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users