Timothy McVeigh’s confession to be heard in MSNBC documentary

[Chaotic42]

There is a pervasive problem with movements like the Tea Party, however, and there is a comparison with Ayers and the Weathermen which illustrates the problem. Back in the 1960's and 1970's, we had a small but dedicated revolutionary Marxist fringe, for which violence was an ingrained part of the ideology. The same is true with the tea party. In the case of the tea party, it is the fascination with guns, the myth that some democrat is always trying to physically steal their guns from them, and the constant romantic mythologizing of the American revolution and Civil War. You're quite right that the vast majority of tea partiers would never act on violent rhetoric, but unfortunately the rhetoric is way too common in those circles and therefore it isn't just a matter of a few random loonies because sooner or later the memes get passed on to the ones who are willing to follow through.

- wolf

So can there be any movement which romanticizes past military victories or cherishes strong gun ownership rights which is acceptable? Remember, jpeyton compared them to someone who blew up a building full of innocent people. That's a hell of stretch.

 

[Chaotic42]

Uh-huh! The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who started a war in Iraq based entirely on lies that, as of April 19, 2010, has killed 4,392 American troops, left tens of thousands more American troops wouned, scarred and disabled for life and squandered trillions of dollars in current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying.

The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who shamed our once proud, once honorable, once respected nation by committing horrendous acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who shredded the rights guaranteed all American citizens with unwarranted domestic spying and imprisonment.

The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who abandoned the last vestiges of control and oversight of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors, resulting in the worst financial collapse in this nation since the Great Depression.

I'm glad McVeigh is gone. I'd be just as happy if he had spent the rest of his life in solitary confinement. The only sad thing about his death is that it didn't happen before he blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

Those things were done by the administration, not the "looney righty" equivalent of his "looney lefties".

 

[bamacre]

Those things were done by the administration, not the "looney righty" equivalent of his "looney lefties".

I'd definitely consider the neoconservatives loony.

 

[Darwin333]

I'd definitely consider the neoconservatives loony.

Lol, if Bush isn't considered the "loony" of the right, who the hell is?

 

[Harvey]

Uh-huh! The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who started a war in Iraq based entirely on lies that, as of April 19, 2010, has killed 4,392 American troops, left tens of thousands more American troops wouned, scarred and disabled for life and squandered trillions of dollars in current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying.

Vietnam?

I'm not arguing that the war in Vietnam was justified. In fact, it SHOULD HAVE been the object lesson that taught our elected representatives to question the lies the Bushwhackos spewed in pimping the in Iraq instead of following them blindly in their criminality.

You'll run into some problems if you want to prosecute Lyndon Johnson and those in his administration who were responsible for expanding the war in Vietnam because they're dead. OTOH, we'll still be paying for the Bushwhackos' crimes for generations, and they're still around to prosecute... and they should be as example to any future wannabe traitors, murderers, torturers who still think they were right.

The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who shamed our once proud, once honorable, once respected nation by committing horrendous acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Both sides have committed horrendous acts against humanity. Our recent actions are rather mild in comparison, we used to firebomb cities and use stuff like napalm.

BULLSHIT!!! No past crimes by anyone else excuses the fact that the Bushwhackos murder of 4,392 American troops, committed horrendous acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who shredded the rights guaranteed all American citizens with unwarranted domestic spying and imprisonment.

Just continuing them though eh?

Exactly. The Bushwhackos also committed treason by shredding the very rights defined in our once honored, once respected Constitution, You remember -- the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend in their oaths of office.

The "looney lefties" weren't the ones who abandoned the last vestiges of control and oversight of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors, resulting in the worst financial collapse in this nation since the Great Depression.

Bullshit. Clinton, with help from a Republican congress, are directly responsible for the banksters fucking us over. Not to mention the little fact that one of the guys whose job was to regulate the assholes who fucked us over now happens to be running the show.

While I am sure you won't admit it, both sides are bastards.

More bullshit. Clinton continued the deregulation started by Reagan, but all they saw was the predictable financial up side before the excesses of the greed allowed by deregulation became evident. The difference is that the Bushwhackos dismantled the last vestiges of control over their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors AFTER they were warned by financial experts, including some of their own advisors, of the impending financial meltdown and actual major collapses from criminal companies like Enron, Global Crossing, etc.

The crimes and mistakes of past administrations in no way excuse those committed by the Bushwhackos. The best way to discourage those of any party from doing so in the future is to prosecute those who committed the crimes in the past. We should start with the Bushwhackos because their crimes were beyond egregious, the evidence is fresh and they're still around to prosecute.

If you want to go after others, including members of the Obama administration, go for it. If you can prove the crime, you won't hear any objections from me.

 

[Thump553]

To try and get this somewhat back on topic:

I was looking forward to this with great interest. Maddow did OK, I guess, but for something based on 40 hours of exclusive taped interviews they conveyed precious little new info and a whole lot of commercials.

To me there never was any clear explanation of where McVeigh's hatred of federal law enforcement came from, other than the usual references to Waco and Ruby Ridge. Millions and millions of us were alive then, and fully aware of what happened at both places and didn't feel the slightest urge to blow up federal buildings in such a way as to intentionally maximize loss of life.

We've had these nutjobs around for a long time. In Wisconsin in the 70's we had the Posse Comitatus.

I was struck by how much of what McVeigh said was the same things said by teapartiers today.

I think the difference today is that we have a major MSM media organization (cough, Fox News) actively promoting the tea partiers and their extremist rhetoric. What was once fringe nutjob paranoia is now being promoted as acceptable and true.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm not arguing that the war in Vietnam was justified. In fact, it SHOULD HAVE been the object lesson that taught our elected representatives to question the lies the Bushwhackos spewed in pimping the in Iraq instead of following them blindly in their criminality.

The same lies the democrat whackos were spreading right along side him right? All the way up to 2004?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'm not arguing that the war in Vietnam was justified. In fact, it SHOULD HAVE been the object lesson that taught our elected representatives to question the lies the Bushwhackos spewed in pimping the in Iraq instead of following them blindly in their criminality.

You'll run into some problems if you want to prosecute Lyndon Johnson and those in his administration who were responsible for expanding the war in Vietnam because they're dead. OTOH, we'll still be paying for the Bushwhackos' crimes for generations, and they're still around to prosecute... and they should be as example to any future wannabe traitors, murderers, torturers who still think they were right.

And why did they not go after Johnson & company while they were alive?

BULLSHIT!!! No past crimes by anyone else excuses the fact that the Bushwhackos murder of 4,392 American troops, committed horrendous acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The fact that Congress was lock step with them should not excuse Congress.

As long as we are in Iraq; those in political power need to be held accountable from day 1 until we are out. Selective choosing only weakens your arguement.

 

[Harvey]

The same lies the democrat whackos were spreading right along side him right? All the way up to 2004?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc

You mean the same lies they believed and repeated that were spoon fed to them by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. Please don't continue trying to rewrite history echoing the same stale excuses you and the rest of the wingnuts spewed for years. Reality is not on your side.

And why did they not go after Johnson & company while they were alive?

Irrelevant. The fact is, they didn't. That's a state of being, but it's not an excuse for not prosecuting the living criminals who are responsible for their more recent crimes of murder, treason and torture, as well as our current economic crisis.

In fact, it's all the more reason to prosecute the Bushwhackos. It's the only way to set some standards and establish some deterent to those who would attempt such crimes in the future.

The fact that Congress was lock step with them should not excuse Congress.

As long as we are in Iraq; those in political power need to be held accountable from day 1 until we are out. Selective choosing only weakens your arguement.

The fact that Congress acted on lies spoon fed to them by the Bushwhackos excuses them from fault up to the point where the truth became known. There are a few in Congress we now know also were aware of the truth before we went into Iraq. Their prima facia excuse is that they were held to strict silence under threat of prosecution for violating national security laws if they disclosed what they knew.

Personally, I think they should still be held to account to disclose what they knew and when they knew it, and our security laws should be updated to provide a secure means to blow the whistle on such criminality before the fact, rather than after another national and international catastrophe.

 

[Chaotic42]

Personally, I think they should still be held to account to disclose what they knew and when they knew it,

Absolutely not. A person should never be in a situation where they have information and then have absolutely no legal action they can take. If they're held to account, they're being punished for not violating the law. If they had leaked the information, they'd be punished for violating the law.

It's a bad siutation.

 

[Tristicus]

It's clear that this guy is a tea partier.
How are you guys so damn blind?

 

[Harvey]

Absolutely not. A person should never be in a situation where they have information and then have absolutely no legal action they can take. If they're held to account, they're being punished for not violating the law. If they had leaked the information, they'd be punished for violating the law.

It's a bad siutation.

I didn't say they should be punished. From what I do know, those very few on the Senate and House Intelligence Committes were pledged to maintain the strictest secrecy about what they knew, and they could only have breached that at great peril to themselves.

I said they should account for what happened to inform Congress so they can make intelligent decisions and update the rules to allow better oversight and ways to deal with extreme circumstances such as when an administration is committing gross felonies like treason, murder and torture.

 

[Chaotic42]

I said they should account for what happened to inform Congress so they can make intelligent decisions and update the rules to allow better oversight and ways to deal with extreme circumstances such as when an administration is committing gross felonies like treason, murder and torture.

I got ya. My misunderstanding.

 

[xj0hnx]

You mean the same lies they believed and repeated that were spoon fed to them by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. Please don't continue trying to rewrite history echoing the same stale excuses you and the rest of the wingnuts spewed for years. Reality is not on your side.

Actually, not only is reality, but video proof is also on my side. I understand that it hurts when the foundation of your delusion crumbles before your eyes, but please stop the lies, for the children. Your democrat figureheads were shoulder to shoulder spouting the same lies, if you think they got all their information and intel from Bush you are truely naive, and deluded.

 

[Harvey]

Actually, not only is reality, but video proof is also on my side. I understand that it hurts when the foundation of your delusion crumbles before your eyes, but please stop the lies, for the children. Your democrat figureheads were shoulder to shoulder spouting the same lies, if you think they got all their information and intel from Bush you are truely naive, and deluded.

Actually, your so full of shit, my ass is jealous. The only one who pulled the trigger, in fact, the only person statutorily authorized to pull the trigger on going into Iraq was your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. The only ones pimping the lies to Congress, including those on Congressional intelligence committees, as well as the American people, was your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers.

The only "video proof" you could begin to produce would be of members of Congress parroting the lies spoon fed to them by the Bushwhackos because THEY were naive enough to trust the word of the President of the United States of America.

If you think otherwise, either it is you who is truly naive and deluded, or you're one of the liars.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually, your so full of shit, my ass is jealous. The only one who pulled the trigger, in fact, the only person statutorily authorized to pull the trigger on going into Iraq was your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. The only ones pimping the lies to Congress, including those on Congressional intelligence committees, as well as the American people, was your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers.

The only "video proof" you could begin to produce would be of members of Congress parroting the lies spoon fed to them by the Bushwhackos because THEY were naive enough to trust the word of the President of the United States of America.

If you think otherwise, either it is you who is truly naive and deluded, or you're one of the liars.

You should seek psychiatric help, really it would be a win/win since you could come back to earth, and the psychiatrist could make a career out of your delusion.

 

[Harvey]

You should seek psychiatric help, really it would be a win/win since you could come back to earth, and the psychiatrist could make a career out of your delusion.

Great arguement. Proves a lot. Where's that video showing anyone from Congress, particularly any Democrat, saying anything about any threats from Iraq other than the lies pimped by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers?
We'll be especially interested in any such videos that predate any of the following endless stream of lies the Bushwhackos fed to Congress to convince them to authorize their war of LIES:

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
  
• "Well, of course he is.”
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
  
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on “Meet the Press”
  
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchanan, 8/26/03
  
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/03 on “Meet the Press”
  
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem.

• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
  
• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

• Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
  Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
  
  
• Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
  George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
  
  
• No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
  Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
  
  
• If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002
  
  
• We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
  
  
• Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
  George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
  
  
• We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
  George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003
  
  
• Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
  George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003
  
  
• The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
  George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003
  
  
  Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
  Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003
  
  
• We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
  Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003
  
  
• But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003
  
  
• We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
  George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003
  
  
• There are people who in large measure have information that we need….so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
  Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003
  
  
• We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
  George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003
  
  
• I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
  Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003
  
  
• I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program.
  George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003
  
  
• We said what we said because we meant it…..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
  
  
• You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
  George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003
  
  
• U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
  Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003
  
  
• We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
  Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003
  
  
• I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
  Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003
  
  
• We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
  Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
  
  
• They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
  Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003
  
  
• "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
  Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004
  
  
• This is about an imminent threat.
  Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003
  
  
• After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
  Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
  
  
• After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein’s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

< crickets > :whiste:

 

[xj0hnx]

Great arguement. Proves a lot. Where's that video showing anyone from Congress, particularly any Democrat, saying anything about any threats from Iraq other than the lies pimped by your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers?

Your delusional copypasta ignores that Bush wasn't the only source for their information. You'd have to truly be a naive to think that, or a out right liar to pretend so. Not too mention no one is disputing that the neocons wanted to go into Iraq, duh.

 

[woolfe9999]

So can there be any movement which romanticizes past military victories or cherishes strong gun ownership rights which is acceptable?

Sure there can. It really depends on context and the particulars of what they are saying. Cherishing gun owernship rights is one thing. Many of us are pro-Second Amendment, including myself. Living in a fantasy world where a President who has spoken up in favor of the Second Amendment and has categorically stated he intends to pursue no gun control whatsoever is going to take your guns away is another. For one thing, it suggests a rather tenuous grip on reality, a paranoid style of political thought where politicians of a certain party or general ideological bent are viewed according to a certain template and when their views appear inconsistent with the template, the rest is assumed as a hidden agenda. Likewise, romanticizing past revolutions and civil wars is one thing; doing so in conjunction with talk of possible future action in accordance with these romtancized historical events is another. Put it all together, obsession with and constant talk of firearms, paranoia, obsession with revolution and civil war, and talk of "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of martyrs" and yeah, there is a definite reason for concern.

It isn't the bulk of "tea partiers" who are the issue, any more than it was the bulk of militia people back in the 1990's, or the bulk of leftists back in the 1970's. It's the language, rhetoric and ideas that are being circulated. Eventually, the wrong people will internalize it, and then you have a real problem.

- wolf

 

[Harvey]

Your delusional copypasta ignores that Bush wasn't the only source for their information. You'd have to truly be a naive to think that, or a out right liar to pretend so. Not too mention no one is disputing that the neocons wanted to go into Iraq, duh.

At the risk of stating the blatantly obvious, there would be nothing to copy and paste if your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers hadn't actually spewed all of those lies. Are you now denying the lies I cited are accurate quotes or that they're lies?

Not too mention no one is disputing that the neocons wanted to go into Iraq, duh.

Maybe you'd like to explain what you don't understand about the difference between "wanting to go into Iraq" and actually abusing the power of the office of the President of the United States of America to lie to Congress about the actual threat posed to our national security.

Then, try to explain what you don't understand about the difference between "wanting to go into Iraq" and abusing the power of the office of the President of the United States of America to order the attack. :whiste:

Earlier, you tried to dismiss their lies by saying:

Your democrat figureheads were shoulder to shoulder spouting the same lies, if you think they got all their information and intel from Bush you are truely naive, and deluded.

You even said you'd provide videos to prove it. I just posted numerous examples of the Bushwhackos' lies to set a benchmark for you to match. We're still waiting to see those videos, and unless they show Democrats spewing the same lies before they heard them from the Bushwhacko traitors, you've just proven my point. If you can't produce them, it's just further evidence of how much of a liar you are.

But wait... There's more...

In case you didn't know it, lying to Congress is a felony regardless of whether the lie is told under oath. There is no question that the Bushwhackos lied to Congress to pimp their war in Iraq and that Congress acceeded to their demands at least in part due to those lies.

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is defined by various state and federal "felony-murder statutes."

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5871/Criminal-Law.html

Felony-murder statutes evince a special brand of transferred intent. Under a felony-murder statute, any death caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a predicate felony is murder. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim. For example, a death resulting from arson will give rise to a murder charge even though the defendant intentionally set the structure on fire without intending to kill a human being. Furthermore, the underlying crime need not have been the direct cause of the death. In the arson example, the victim need not die of burns; a fatal heart attack will trigger a charge of felony murder. In most jurisdictions, a death resulting from the perpetration of certain felonies will constitute first-degree murder. Such felonies usually include arson, robbery, burglary, rape, and kidnapping.

The Bushwhackos' lies to Congress are the underlying predicate felony required to charge the Bushwhackos with murder.

Another definition of murder under Federal and most state statutes is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of March 21, 2010, your George W. Bush and his criminal cabal have murdered 4,392 American troops and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq. :'(

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you questionwhether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 4,392 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense?

So far, you've spewed bullshit and called me names, including "deluded" and "naive," and I replied to post facts, including actual names, dates and quotations and statutory citations to support my posts. So far, you've blustered your meaningless dumbass opinion with absolutely no supporting facts or citations, let alone links, and you referred to non-existent "videos" purported to show that Democrats "were shoulder to shoulder spouting the same lies," rather than repeating the garbage they were fed by the Bushwhackos.

It does beg the question of which of us is "deluded" and "naive." Put up, or STFU! Prove what you say with facts. If you can't, as they say in your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief's home state, you're all hat and no cattle. :thumbsdown:

 

[xj0hnx]

Are you now denying the lies I cited are accurate quotes or that they're lies?

No, I said I don't care about all your copypasta because everyone knows the neocons made up a bunch of bullshit, and told a bunch of lies. The problem here is that you are such a blindly following partisan hack that you actually believe the democrats didn't have any hand in it. You are so full of shit it isn't even funny.

Earlier, you tried to dismiss their lies by saying

Nope, not dismissing shit, just telling you they are accountable too, you're to fucking blind to see it, or just a completely dishonest hack, I think the latter.

You even said you'd provide videos to prove it.

No I didn't because there's nothing left to prove, the video I already posted is democrats approving your buddy Bush's war, even as late as 2004. I know it makes you sad that your idols are just as big of shitbags, but you need serious help, you've got issues.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

I don't think I've ever seen a single person say what McVeigh did was right or justified. Dude's problem was with the ATF, yet he never targeted a single ATF agent. Clearly he just wanted to kill people, so he killed people.

 

[Harvey]

Are you now denying the lies I cited are accurate quotes or that they're lies?

No, I said I don't care about all your copypasta because everyone knows the neocons made up a bunch of bullshit, and told a bunch of lies. The problem here is that you are such a blindly following partisan hack that you actually believe the democrats didn't have any hand in it. You are so full of shit it isn't even funny.

Go ahead. Show us ANY example of leading Democrats spontaneously coming up with lies other than those spewed by Bushwhackos AFTER they were naive enough to believe that your lying piece of shit tratior President would betray his oath of office and disgrace the office of President by lying to them to get them to approve his war of lies.

Earlier, you tried to dismiss their lies by saying

Nope, not dismissing shit, just telling you they are accountable too, you're to fucking blind to see it, or just a completely dishonest hack, I think the latter.

Accountable for what? Being duped because they were fools enough to believe that no President of the United States of America would lie to them to get them to allow him to squander the lives of thousands of Americans and trillions of dollars in current and future debt on a war with no valid purpose against a tin pot dictator who posed no threat to the nation?

I've already posted facts, not just opinions. You haven't posted jack shit, and you can't because either it doesn't exist, or you're too fucking lazy, or too fucking dishonest or too fucking stupid to do so.

You even said you'd provide videos to prove it.

No I didn't because there's nothing left to prove, the video I already posted is democrats approving your buddy Bush's war, even as late as 2004. I know it makes you sad that your idols are just as big of shitbags, but you need serious help, you've got issues.

So, in 2004, Democrats are approving YOUR lying Traitor In Chief's war of lies based on an endless blitz of bullshit, including the lies I quoted from 2002 - 2003. Got a statutory citation to define the crime, there? :whiste:

If you want to provide videos or any other evidence that Democrats actively falsified intelligence data and manufactured bogus evidence to support the Bushwhackos lies, I'd be glad to agree that they should be held accountable, as well. If you can't, you're full of name calling, and you're full of bluster, but when it gets down to facts and reality, you're running on empty.

The only "issues" I have are with jackasses like you who would rather continue disgracing this nation with your bullshit, rather than manning up to what happened and dealing with it. Trying George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of their criminal gang with treason, murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and more would be a good start.

 

[xj0hnx]

Your insignificant ranting and raving and copypasta isn't going to change anything. You know why Bush, and his "cabal" haven't been tried and convicted? Because you are delusional, and the dems were right there with him.

 

[Harvey]

Your insignificant ranting and raving and copypasta isn't going to change anything. You know why Bush, and his "cabal" haven't been tried and convicted? Because you are delusional, and the dems were right there with him.

Thanks for yet more rants, denials and and name calling. At least, you're consistant about posting absolutely no real facts to support your bullshit or to refute the facts I've posted.

Go home and practice, little boy. :hmm: