John Edwards says Israel greatest threat to Peace

[Calabrio]

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/

Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart's column on John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.

Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?

Or, you know, perhaps not.

02/20 05:58 AM

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727.html?categoryid=1&cs=1

 

[Calabrio]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24515_Edwards-_Biggest_Threat_Isnt_Israel&only

John Edwards would like you all to know that he did not, I repeat, did NOT, actually mean to say that Israel is a threat to world peace: Edwards: Israel NOT a threat to world peace.

What he meant to say, see, was that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons! It just sorta came out wrong.

WASHINGTON John Edwards’ presidential campaign wants to make it clear that he doesn’t consider Israel a threat to world peace.

A spokesman for the 2008 Democratic candidate issued a statement today denying such a report on Variety.com.

Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Edwards’ spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Bart and the host of the fundraiser, Adam Venit of the Endeavor talent agency, didn’t immediately respond to messages for comment.

 

[fossten]

Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman..."
Hillary: "The President tricked me! That's why I voted for the war..."
Kerry: "It was a botched joke..."
Gore: "I invented the internet..."
Edwards: "I did NOT say that Israel was a threat to world peace..."
Biden: "I was complimenting Obama by calling him clean and articulate...I'm not a racist..."
Obama: "I wasn't trying to insult the troops by calling their lives 'wasted'..."

Yeah, right.

 

[Joeychgo]

Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman..."
Hillary: "The President tricked me! That's why I voted for the war..."
Kerry: "It was a botched joke..."
Gore: "I invented the internet..."
Edwards: "I did NOT say that Israel was a threat to world peace..."
Biden: "I was complimenting Obama by calling him clean and articulate...I'm not a racist..."
Obama: "I wasn't trying to insult the troops by calling their lives 'wasted'..."

Yeah, right.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."​

None of your examples got us involved in a war.....

 

[Calabrio]

What a pathetic, lame, and thoughtless response.

Why don't you go through that list and tell us which ones were LIES.

And why don't you also remind us which ones were repeated by EVERYONE, from the Clinton administration through the Bush administration. From Republicans in the Congress and the Democrats as well.

Absolutely pathetic response. And it has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread. None of them were "lies," all of those statements were based on intelligence assessments. Intelligence information is not always 100% accurate, and since the Clinton administration decimated the intelligence community and military in the 90s, eliminating all human intelligence in Iraq, the U.S. collection capacity was greatly limited.

Some of them might not have been entirely accurate, some of the things you listed WERE accurate. Sadly, you're posting the list to make a point and you didn't even know that.

 

[MonsterMark]

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."​

None of your examples got us involved in a war.....

Time to get (or buy) a clue maybe .

Death to America...Unreported Battle of Iraq

Excerpt:

Ex-Pentagon official says Russia moved Saddam's WMDs
by KENNETH TIMMERMAN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006 —

A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein "cleaned up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them.

"The short answer to the question of where the WMDs Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John. A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored "Intelligence Summit" in Alexandria, Va. (www.intelligencesummit.org)

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred.

He called the evacuation of Saddam's WMD stockpiles "a well-orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states with which the Russian leadership had a long time security relationship."

Shaw was initially tapped to make an inventory of Saddam's conventional weapons stockpiles, based on intelligence estimates of arms deals he had concluded with the former Soviet Union, China and France.

He estimated that Saddam had amassed 100 million tons of munitions -- roughly 60 percent of the entire U.S. arsenal. "The origins of these weapons were Rusisan, Chinese and French in declining order of magnitude, with the Russians holding the lion's share and the Chinese just edging out the French for second place."

But as Shaw's office increasingly got involved in ongoing intelligence to identify Iraqi weapons programs before the war, he also got "a flow of information from British contacts on the ground at the Syrian border and from London" via non-U.S. government contacts.

"The intelligence included multiple sitings of truck convoys, convoys going north to the Syrian border and returning empty," he said.

Shaw worked closely with Julian Walker, a former British ambassador who had decades of experience in Iraq, and an unnamed Ukranian-American who was directly plugged in to the head of Ukraine's intelligence service.

The Ukrainians were eager to provide the United States with documents from their own archives on Soviet arms transfers to Iraq and on ongoing Russian assistance to Saddam, to thank America for its help in securing Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, Shaw said.

In addition to the convoys heading to Syria, Shaw said his contacts "provided information about steel drums with painted warnings that had been moved to a cellar of a hospital in Beirut."

But when Shaw passed on his information to the Defense Intelligence Agency and others within the U.S. intelligence community, he was stunned by their response.

"My report on the convoys was brushed off as 'Israeli disinformation,'" he said.

One month later, Shaw learned that the DIA general counsel complained to his own superiors that Shaw had eaten from the DIA "rice bowl." It was a Washington euphemism that meant he had commited the unpardonable sin of violating another agency's turf.

The CIA responded in even more diabolical fashion. "They trashed one of my Brits and tried to declare him persona non grata to the intelligence community," Shaw said. "We got constant indicators that Langley was aggressively trying to discredit both my Ukranian American and me in Kiev," in addition to his other sources.

But Shaw's information had not originated from a casual contact. His Ukranian-American aid was a personal friend of David Nicholas, a Western ambassador in Kiev, and of Igor Smesko, head of Ukrainian intelligence.

Smesko had been a military attaché in Washington in the early 1990s when Ukraine first became independent and Dick Cheney was secretary of defense. "Smesko had told Cheney that when Ukraine became free of Russia he wanted to show his friendship for the United States."

Helping out on Iraq provided him with that occasion.

"Smesko had gotten to know Gen. James Clapper, now director of the Geospacial Intelligence Agency, but then head of DIA," Shaw said.

But it was Shaw's own friendship to the head of Britain's MI6 that brought it all together during a two-day meeting in London that included Smeshko's people, the MI6 contingent, and Clapper, who had been deputized by George Tenet to help work the issue of what happened to Iraq's WMD stockpiles.

In the end, here is what Shaw learned:

In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003;

Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."

Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice;

In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel;

The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and psing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.

Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs;

The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."

The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."

Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.

The evacuation of Saddam's WMD to Syria and Lebanon "was an entirely controlled Russian GRU operation," Shaw said. "It was the brainchild of General Yevgenuy Primakov."

The goal of the clean-up was "to erase all trace of Russian involvement" in Saddam's WMD programs, and "was a masterpiece of military camouflage and deception."

Just as astonishing as the Russian clean-up operation were efforts by Bush administration appointees, including Defense Department spokesman Laurence DiRita, to smear Shaw and to cover up the intelligence information he brought to light.

"Larry DiRita made sure that this story would never grow legs," Shaw said. "He whispered sotto voce to journalists that there was no substance to my information and that it was the product of an unbalanced mind."

Shaw suggested that the answer of why the Bush administration had systematically "ignored Russia's involvement" in evacuating Saddam's WMD stockpiles "could be much bigger than anyone has thought," but declined to speculate what exactly was involved.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney was less reticent. He thought the reason was Iran.

"With Iran moving faster than anyone thought in its nuclear programs," he told NewsMax, "the administration needed the Russians, the Chinese and the French, and was not interested in information that would make them look bad."

McInerney agreed that there was "clear evidence" that Saddam had WMD. "Jack Shaw showed when it left Iraq, and how."

Former Undersecretary of Defense Richard Perle, a strong supporter of the war against Saddam, blasted the CIA for orchestrating a smear campaign against the Bush White House and the war in Iraq.

"The CIA has been at war with the Bush administration almost from the beginning," he said in a keynote speech at the Intelligence Summit on Saturday.

He singled out recent comments by Paul Pillar, a former top CIA Middle East analyst, alleging that the Bush White House "cherry-picked" intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq.

"Mr. Pillar was in a very senior position and was able to make his views known, if that is indeed what he believed," Perle said.

"He (Pillar) briefed senior policy officials before the start of the Iraq war in 2003. If he had had reservations about the war, he could have voiced them at that time." But according to officials briefed by Pillar, Perle said, he never did.

Even more inexplicable, Perle said, were the millions of documents "that remain untranslated" among those seized from Saddam Hussein's intelligence services.

"I think the intelligence community does not want them to be exploited," he said.

Among those documents, presented Saturday at the conference by former FBI translator Bill Tierney, were transcripts of Saddam's palace conversations with top aides in which he discussed ongoing nuclear weapons plans in 2000, well after the U.N. arms inspectors believed he had ceased all nuclear weapons work.

"What was most disturbing in those tapes," Tierney said, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission."

In addition, Tierney said, the plasma uranium programs Saddam discussed with his aids as ongoing operations in 2000 had been dismissed as "old programs" disbanded years earlier, according to the final CIA report on Iraq's weapons programs, presented in 2004 by the Iraq Survey Group.

"When I first heard those tapes" about the uranium plasma program, "it completely floored me," Tierney said.

 

[bufordtpisser]

The first one did..............

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”

“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."​

None of your examples got us involved in a war.....

If Bill Clinton were not so damn busy chasing interns and lying to the American public, maybe, just maybe, he could have accomplished something during his term. Like maybe for example picking up Osama Bin Laden when he was gift wrapped and waiting under the tree. Or maybe actually reading the intelligence reports that were in his possession after the first WTC bombing attempt. Or maybe even letting his staff do something more productive than removing "w's" from keyboards. You are wrong Joey, Clintons lack of being an example to the world did in fact get us into this war.

 

[fossten]

If Bill Clinton were not so damn busy chasing interns and lying to the American public, maybe, just maybe, he could have accomplished something during his term. Like maybe for example picking up Osama Bin Laden when he was gift wrapped and waiting under the tree. Or maybe actually reading the intelligence reports that were in his possession after the first WTC bombing attempt. Or maybe even letting his staff do something more productive than removing "w's" from keyboards. You are wrong Joey, Clintons lack of being an example to the world did in fact get us into this war.

A-freaking-MEN.

 

[MonsterMark]

Like maybe for example picking up Osama Bin Laden when he was gift wrapped and waiting under the tree.

"So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted," Clinton said.
............................................................................................
But I did get a couple of bj's from a chunky intern in the oral office

 

[Joeychgo]

If Bill Clinton were not so damn busy chasing interns and lying to the American public, maybe, just maybe, he could have accomplished something during his term. Like maybe for example picking up Osama Bin Laden when he was gift wrapped and waiting under the tree. Or maybe actually reading the intelligence reports that were in his possession after the first WTC bombing attempt. Or maybe even letting his staff do something more productive than removing "w's" from keyboards. You are wrong Joey, Clintons lack of being an example to the world did in fact get us into this war.

What does any of that have to do with Iraq and Bush?

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee -- 7 out of 10 americans believe Bush has done and is doing a terrible job. Especially in Iraq. Many believe as I do... We had no business going there, we were misled by the Bush administration to gain our support in going to war ,and he has not managed the war effectively. In the meantime he has spent time and money that could have been spent on matters more important to the american people, like health care and social security.

That has -0- to do with Clinton. It was 100% Bush's decision to go to Iraq.

Maybe BUSH should have read the intel report that predicted 9-11 instead of spending his time in Crawford.

 

[Calabrio]

You have to work hard to cram so much stupid into every one of your posts:

What does any of that have to do with Iraq and Bush?

Why don't you first explain to me what the Iraq has to do with John Edwards stating that Israeli is the greatest threat to world peace?

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee -- 7 out of 10 americans believe Bush has done and is doing a terrible job.

And they receive about 25,000,000 votes on American Idol. What's your point? After a long military operations and three years of relentlessly negative media coverage the public is getting discouraged? That an unconventional peace keeping mission performed under the microscope of a biased media and amplified by the political opposition more worried with regaining power than they are with winning might be losing popularity? Surprise.

Especially in Iraq. Many believe as I do... We had no business going there, we were misled by the Bush administration to gain our support in going to war ,

And right there is where Clinton enters the story. You maintain that Bush "misled" the public, but he was repeating the same information the Clinton administration before him had stated and used to authorize military strikes in the past. Furthermore, Bush simply continued the stated Clinton POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ. So, in order for Bush to have "misled" the public, he must have coordinated it with Clinton long before he even ran for the Presidency.

and he has not managed the war effectively.

Classic throw away line. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The MILITARY operations went well. There were intelligence problems even at the start of the operations, but I know how you hate to go back to Clinton, but it was the result of the massive cuts in intelligence during the Clinton administration and the policy they adopted that basically eliminated human intelligence and maintaining human resources with criminal pasts.

The extremely ambitious and challenge peace and democracy building element of the mission has been much more difficult and challenging. It's not something that has been done before and mistakes were made.

Interesting, ONE TERRORIST manages to explode a Coffee Can size explosive that can kill a soldier, it leads the news. But when the soldiers capture a bomb making plant, when they kill several HUNDRED terrorists in battle, not a word is said about it. How can you win a war in the media when the stories are so grossly misrepresented?

In the meantime he has spent time and money that could have been spent on matters more important to the american people, like health care and social security.

Since you don't understand the strategic reasons for going into Iraq even at this point, I doubt it's worth expending the effort to teach you here. But to imply that our involvement in the war on terror is denying critical dollars to your big socialist government programs is STUPID.

First of all, Social Security isn't currently bankrupt. Spending more money on the program as it currently exists makes NO sense. Bush has proposed reforming the S.S. program, but the Democrats refuse to reform the program. Politically they can't afford to have one of their landmark, benchmark programs (as poorly designed and as big a failure as it will be) being reformed and saved under a Republican administration. Furthermore, the concept of privatization flies in direct contrast to their theory of great reliance and dependence on the federal government.

As for health care??? what do you want done? Are you saying that Bush should have spent the money on a socialized health care system? Why? So our standards can fall to the levels of the Canadians, British, or Europeans? I would certainly hope not.

Of all the examples of things to 'spend the money on' you managed to pick two of the dumbest. Why don't you just say "rebuild New Orleans"- that's idiotic too.

That has -0- to do with Clinton. It was 100% Bush's decision to go to Iraq.

As stated, the original argument was made by Clinton. Clinton repeated launched military strikes on Iraq. And it was under Clinton that the policy of Regime Change was made official. And it was endorsed by virtually everyone in the Democrat party. So if Bush misled you, then everyone in the Democrat party including Clinton was working with him, and they misled you too.

Maybe BUSH should have read the intel report that predicted 9-11 instead of spending his time in Crawford.

You're just flinging crap hoping something sticks. Frankly, I don't even think you know what this crap you're regurgitating even means. You're statements clearly indicate a complete lack of understanding of how intelligence works.

There was NEVER an intel report that predicted 9/11. To say there was is both dishonest and ignorant.

For a guy who seems to make a living working with computers, I would think you would understand the ability for a world leader to be able to work and function regardless where he was. You can effectively govern from Crawford as well as you can from D.C. And in case you forgot, Bush was here in Sarasota on the morning on 9/11- NOT Texas.

As I mentioned, it must take some effort to cram so much stupid into every one of your posts.

 

[MonsterMark]

Vladimir Putin has a lower approval rating than Bush at 34%.

When the Democrats presumed next President of the United States, tada, Hillary Clinton, was asked about her vote to authorize force against Saddam, she didn't ask the Bush administration for intel. Noooooo. She needed the BEST intel. So who did she go to you ask???? The Clinton Administration.

She has been asked repeatedly to admit she made a mistake on her vote but she refuses. Why you again ask??? To do so would mean her husband and his completely worthless dikey Janet Reno, Madeline Not-So-Albright and pants stuffing Sandy Burglar were incompetent stiffs.

I love the Bush bashers. We've been unharmed (not even a fart in a subway train here in the U.S. EVERY day since 9/11 and you guys have once again been lulled to sleep. Now you can afford to whine. What would of/could of/might of happened if Bush had done nothing with Saddam? Would you still be laying cosy in your bed? Who knows, right? I'm truly glad you sleep well. You really should be thanking George Bush and the men and women that make the huge sacrifices that allow you to sleep so peacefully.

And I truly love the money argument about spending on Iraq.

Another attack on our soil will cost the United States TRILLIONS of dollars. You will wish we spent any amount of money to stamp out the vermin. You allowed the media to destroy the safety of this Country. Go ahead and elect your Hitlary or elect the worst disaster ever to hit the Country, Obama - the Muslim white hater and see what happens.

I've told you the real civil war is not in Iraq, it is here in the United States and if you really think those of us on the right are going to take much more of this :q:q:q:q, believe me, the 30 to 40 million gun owners in this country are going to make sure the left doesn't f'it'up for our kids and grandkids.

 

[fossten]

Well said, both of you, although I doubt Joey will comprehend the brilliance of your posts. He's like a robot, showing up like clockwork and spouting talking points much in the same manner as Phil. Your common sense is lost on him, what with all the Kool-Aid stains on his face.

 

[bufordtpisser]

Well 7 out of 10 voted Clinton in twice also..........

What does any of that have to do with Iraq and Bush?

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee -- 7 out of 10 americans believe Bush has done and is doing a terrible job. Especially in Iraq. Many believe as I do... We had no business going there, we were misled by the Bush administration to gain our support in going to war ,and he has not managed the war effectively. In the meantime he has spent time and money that could have been spent on matters more important to the american people, like health care and social security.

That has -0- to do with Clinton. It was 100% Bush's decision to go to Iraq.

Maybe BUSH should have read the intel report that predicted 9-11 instead of spending his time in Crawford.

and that does not make them right on that issue either. Smelling the coffee was an impossibility during the Clinton debacle because of the overwhelming stench of Cigars and intern sex. And it was not 100% Bush's decision to go into Iraq. He had the backing of the majority of the Senate and the House. They voted for the war, until they voted against it. You can not lay this blame entirely on Bush any more than we can lay it entirely on Clinton. There have been years worth of stupid mistakes made by both Dems and Repubs. It is not a partisan issue. But I will say this, the blame for the WTC tragedy was Clintons, and his alone. He gave Bush a few months to stop what he could not stop in eight years. And he was given the means to do so over and over.

And one more thing that you seem to be failing to realize, most of the intelligence that Bush used to justify the Iraq invasion came from Clinton era sources. If Slick Willy could have gotten his face out of the intern bush long enough to run this country, maybe, just maybe GWB and this country would not have been in the situation that caused GWB to make the rash decisions that he did. Should we be in Iraq? No we should not. Was our hand forced by the ineptness of the former administrations, Hell yes.

 

[Marcus]

I've told you the real civil war is not in Iraq, it is here in the United States and if you really think those of us on the right are going to take much more of this :q:q:q:q, believe me, the 30 to 40 million gun owners in this country are going to make sure the left doesn't f'it'up for our kids and grandkids.

Oh brother, more doomsday talk. You're the one who accused me a while back of wanting harm to come to the country, and yet you keep implying that you can't wait for another attack to happen so that your Second Civil War begins and you can start picking off fellow citizens from your bunker.

Just bear in mind that not all of us 30 - 40 million gun owners are Republicans.

 

[TheDude]

You Republicans/Conservatives are a funny lot... Let's see what Edwards said:

"Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

Key word right off the bat is "Perhaps", meaning a possibility not a fact. Another is Israel's actions [which could lead to a much larger war], not "Israel is a threat" just because it's Israel as you try to twist to your will.

Was it a stupid comment? Yea, in this day and age it was; but the knee-jerking and twisting to make it seem far more nefarious is just sad.

 

[MonsterMark]

Oh brother, more doomsday talk. You're the one who accused me a while back of wanting harm to come to the country, and yet you keep implying that you can't wait for another attack to happen so that your Second Civil War begins and you can start picking off fellow citizens from your bunker.

Just bear in mind that not all of us 30 - 40 million gun owners are Republicans.

I haven't seen you at any free-fire events, have I?

Listen, I don't want it to happen. I know IT IS GOING to happen as soon as we let down our guard. Let me ask you... Do you sucker a punch guy when he has his hands covering his face or do you offer a handshake and let him have it then?

I love lefties. You need to lose big-time before you'll do anything. You will never preempt anything. Even Clinton and Kerry said they wouldn't preempt. So with your people in charge we are going to have to suffer the losses of 10,000 - 100,000 - maybe even a million or two of our citizens before people like you get it thru their thick skulls that we are at war with a people, more directly a religious sect of people, that wants to destroy us all. They take no prisoners. They feel no sympathy. They want to dance on the blood of your parents and children and you want to invite them to dinner.

Sheesh. You're like a hen sitting in a hen house waiting for the fox to come and get you.

You may have a gun but you'll freeze when the time comes and never pull the trigger.

 

[fossten]

Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman..."
Hillary: "The President tricked me! That's why I voted for the war..."
Kerry: "It was a botched joke..."
Gore: "I invented the internet..."
Edwards: "I did NOT say that Israel was a threat to world peace..."
Biden: "I was complimenting Obama by calling him clean and articulate...I'm not a racist..."
Obama: "I wasn't trying to insult the troops by calling their lives 'wasted'..."

Yeah, right.

Well, let me add another one to the "That's not me" crowd:

George Soros: "I didn't really mean the U.S. was like Nazi Germany."


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, Feb. 23, 2007 5:14 p.m. EST
George Soros Clarifies 'Nazi' Statement


Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros admitted to "a bad choice of words” when he made comments that seemed to compare the United States to Nazi Germany.

In remarks to a group of reporters, Soros said the U.S. needed to admit it had made a mistake in waging war in Iraq and then drum out the responsible parties.

"America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” he declared. "We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.”

The New York Post slammed Soros in a February 18 editorial headlined "Soros’ Latest Slur,” pointing out that "de-Nazification was the post-World War II process by which Germany and Austria were forcibly cleansed of any and all remnants of their Nazi past.”

Now Soros has written a "that’s not what I meant” letter to the Post that reads in part:

"Post-war Germany underwent a profound soul-searching, to its lasting benefit. It was in that context that I said that the United States ought to undergo a process of ‘de-Nazification.’ "I clarified my position in a letter to the editor of The New Republic which states: ‘I am not too proud to admit this was a bad choice of words. I certainly do not put the United States and Nazi Germany in the same moral category. What I meant was that the United States needs to engage in a profound soul-searching about the harm the war in Iraq has done to others and ourselves.’”