freeflydrew

OMG Tuna... The Philippines is withdrawing 51 Humanitarian Troops 30 days ahead of schedule, and right away they're cowards... Ridiculous. "The 51-member humanitarian force was due to leave Iraq on August 20, but the kidnappers of de la Cruz said they wanted the withdrawal by July 20." "Let us leave the government to do what is necessary to save the life of an innocent Filipino and to uphold our nation's interest. It is not for us to judge and raise our voices now that Angelo's life hangs in the balance," Ignacio Bunye, a Philippine presidential spokesman, said Tuesday. "This is the most sensitive point in the hostage crisis. We must unite behind Angelo's family, keep our peace and pray hard." Call them a coward because you don't agree with their decision...

If it were true, no one would be debating it! So basically what you're saying is that you are convinced that something happened , based on claims by Iraqi defectors, that many intelligence organizations have deemed completely false, and without having any evidence what so ever. Hey Tuna, the moon is made of cheese... ha hA HA

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10086641%255E10949,00.html It was one year ago today that: The CIA accepts responsibility for the false claim regarding Iraq obtaining uranium from Niger in US President George W Bush's January State of the Union address. http://www.news24.com/News24/On_this_day/On_this_day/0,,2-1602-1492_1550278,00.html US President George W Bush's administration acknowledges for the first time that Bush relied on faulty intelligence when he claimed in his January State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1258767,00.html "There was only one point of substance on which the British disagreed with the US: the claim in the September dossier that Saddam had tried to buy uranium in Niger, seized on as evidence of an attempt by Saddam to build a nuclear bomb. MI6 believed it; American analysts did not. However, the British view still has some support: last week's Senate report appeared to confirm that some Iraqi inquiries were made. The British also strongly resisted American conclusions that Saddam had co-operated with al-Qaeda, a claim British ministers went out of their way to knock down. Bush eventually ignored the CIA's concerns and raised the Niger issue in his State of the Union address, but he was careful to source the claim to Britain, giving the administration room to back away from it when the CIA's scepticism became public. 'Calling the Niger intelligence somewhat flawed is being very polite about what happened. "Fucked up" would be more accurate,' said Larry Johnson, a former CIA agent and ex-deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counter-Terrorism. Butler may, however, take a different view. The ISC concluded last year that, having been allowed to study the raw intelligence, it believed the NIger claim was true. But as the autumn of 2002 wore on, the hunt for fresh material became ever more urgent. With almost no presence in Iraq itself, the intelligence community became increasingly reliant on the testimony of defectors, filtered through groups including the Iraqi National Congress, led by the convicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi, and the Iraqi National Accord, headed by Iraq's current prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Both groups had much to gain from exaggerating their stories. The INC has since openly admitted spreading false information, arguing that the end - deposing Saddam - justified the means." http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040628-012643-7517r.htm July 5th, In 2003, North Korea said work had begun on nuclear weapons with enough plutonium on hand to build six bombs. Oh wait a second... that's not some sketchy report about Iraq, it's North Korea, part of the "axis of evil"... 6 bombs! Now that's a threat! http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/94342/1/.html Posted: 07 July 2004 1628 hrs North Korea steps up combat readiness after US war in Iraq: South Korea SEOUL : North Korea has beefed up its combat readiness since the US-led invasion of Iraq, fortifying military facilities, digging tunnels and testing new missiles, South Korea's defence ministry said. The ministry said in a report that North Korea had dug trenches and camouflaged bases near the front line. It had also been developing weapons of mass destruction at a five-megawatt nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. "North Korea has been building up its combat preparedness along the front lines and in the rear as well," the ministry said in the report. "Following the outbreak of the war on Iraq, construction projects have been underway at more than 80 sites to build tunnels and trenches and to camouflage (military facilities)," it said." 300 billion dollars spent on Iraq... over 13,000 Iraqi deaths (civilian and military), and over 1000 US deaths...

OR C) They simply don't care to reply to your post! It's pretty stupid that you are reaching such an extreme conclusion just because people have chosen to not respond to a post by you. Maybe they're just ignoring your posts because they don't think that a discussion with you is objective or constructive, or perhaps they are choosing to focus on other topics because of any number of reasons. You may have your own opinion of Kerry and Edwards, but don't put that in the mouths of the people with whom you disagree. I'm hardly a democrat.. I believe that Edwards will be great as the Vice President, and I do not think that Kerry should be labeled as a liar... When Kerry starts telling America that he believes in the separation of church and state, and 4 years later attempts to change the constitution to ban gay marriages and speaks against abortion based on religion, then we can call him a liar... Or if he says it's not America's job to police the world, nor force democracy in other countries, then invades other countries, and forces democracy on them, then we should call him a liar. Oh wait, that's exactly what Bush said... Yet you sit here and ignore that and call Kerry a liar because he was insulting Edwards while he ran for the democratic nomination... so ironic. He may soon be your Commander in Chief, you know.

It's a safe assumption that Democrats can answer your question, but have chosen not to. To Add: I think that politicians say a lot of things and talk a lot of shit when they are running for presidency... We've seen Kerry do it, and we saw Bush do it. Kerry has talked shit about Edwards and already gone back on it. Time will tell if he does the same with his domestic and foreign policies. Bush has already done it with his domestic and foreign policies. I think it's safe to say that this is a common practice of politicians and should be expected. That's not to say that I agree with it, nor find it excusable for either candidate, quite the contrary, I do however, acknowledge that it occurs from both parties.

What? Rats! You know like "Ah Darn!" ? "Ahhh Rats!" -because I can't play MOV at work He replied like you were calling out for him... you know... "Rats!" He says: "What?"

If He believes that the Bush Administration "preaches neutrality and practices racial division", what's so wrong about the chairman of the NAACP being vocal about his opinion? There's a lot of very intelligent people in this country who do not agree with the Bush Administration's short history in office, nor the direction that they see the Administration leading the country. Perhaps they think that Bush doing and saying one thing as a candidate, and another thing as the President is unacceptable. To say that any one of them is a dumbass is a little bit ridiculous, and to say that it's disgusting is totally uncalled for... it's called freedom of speech, and they are entitled to it too.

Josh pretty much covered it... Final Cut Pro HD (High Definition).

So post it!

I just saw this funny animated gif of GWB and thought it would be cool to post it... So post pics or animated gifs that you find.

There's no evidence that Saddam was trying to aquire uranium from nigeria... You guys can say there was, and I can say there wasn't, but the fact remains that both before and after Bush gave his speech, it had already been concluded that saddam was not doing this. It's a stupid arguement... with no evidence to support what you're saying. A couple of empty shells on the side of the road is such a stretch from Saddams ability to strike in 45 minutes, nor having WMD. Empty shells from the early 90's hardly account for WMDs and WMD programs... It's been debated a bunch... Nobody is saying it's what Bush was talking about... not even Bush and Cheney. The threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent, and in no way justified our invading Iraq. The things that Bush said in the speech were bs, it's been all over the news and still is. Maybe he knew at the time, maybe he didn't, but regardless, we now know that it was... bs that is Thank you for responding, but You really didn't prove anything other than you believe what Bush said... From the Kay Report: "I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them: Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre." http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01302004.html Defending Aggression January 30, 2004 The David Kay Report By MIKE WHITNEY "We were all wrong" David Kay "We can finally put Weapons of Mass Destruction issue to rest. With the publishing of the Kay report it is clear that the entire pretense for the Iraq war was nothing more than a hoax. Kay appeared before a Senate subcommittee to disclose his findings and admitted that he and his team had found no stockpiles of proscribed weapons in Iraq. At one point he opined, "We were wrong, we were all wrong." Wrong? An estimated 8,000 innocent Iraqis died in the invasion, more than 500 American servicemen were killed in action, an entire country was destabilized and plunged into insurgency, and David Kay talks about being wrong like it was some minor miscalculation on the phone bill? This is the reality of the Bush Administration's new "preemptive" theory; hundreds of billions of dollars are spent, countless lives are lost or ruined, and the world community is thrown into turmoil, and yet, no justification is provided. Even worse, the head of the weapons inspection team presents his case to Congress as though it was all "just an honest mistake". So, why did Kay choose to address the Senate in the first place? After all, Kay has been a reliable Bush loyalist, and that hasn't changed. Kay's real intention in addressing the Senate was to use the CIA as a scapegoat for the bad information that led to the war. Now, that the election is approaching, the President's chief advisor, Karl Rove, is trying to put as much distance as he can between the White House and the myriad lies about the non-existent weapons. This is a delicate situation and has to be handled with great subtlety or intelligence agencies will see that Bush is trying to bury them in the media. Hence, the appearance of David Kay is intended to reinforce the false notion that the war was the result of faulty intelligence. Kay's testimony challenged the reliability of intelligence gathering methods and suggested that we may need a "major overhaul" of the intelligence services. Absent from the testimony was any detailed recounting of the many fabrications that were repeated with propaganda-like precision to support the war. Also, absent was the clear implication that the Administration was directly involved in "cherry-picking" intelligence to suit its own purposes..." Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, which Bush "never said, nor implied", and didn't really do anything major over the past 12 years, why did invading Iraq suddenly become the most important priority of the Bush Administration's agenda after 9/11? It's so interesting that it was spelled out in the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document written by the Project for the New American Century back in 2000.

You work for the CIA? Wow. I never knew. Hey Tuna, It was in the news before Bush used it in his speech... The day after Bush used it in his speech there were plenty of articles in the news questioning why he used it when the claims had already been determined to be false by the CIA. You don't have to be in the CIA to know that, you just have to pay attention to the details when the President is trying to justify invading a country that poses no threat, and read a little to see if it's true or not. But thank you for the scarcism... I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and assume Tunaplanet served in the military from the intelligence and logic of his statements. ...

Your control comes from you hips, not your hands... I know that's a huge generalization, so take as that... There is no set way of doing something. Everyone's body is different and everyone flies their body in different ways. If you want to side slide in a sit, you're going to do it with more arms, shoulders and hips than you are with your legs (not to say that you won't use your legs at all, simply less focus on them than the other parts). So flip your body position and apply the same theory, and you'll find yourself using your legs, hips, back, and less of your hands. Just keep on flying and things like this will fall into place. You'll be able to fly in all directions without having to think about what your doing with which part of your body.

It's always a good idea to search before you post, as you;ll probably find what you're looking for... (Please save target as) Tracking Mov(10.4MB)

When George Bush attempted to convince the US that Iraq was actively seeking Uranium from Nigeria, he did so knowing that the CIA had already concluded that those claims were false... There is no evidence at all that they were, and that is probably why the US media, with the exception of fox news, is not even touching the topic. The arguement of what these other countries believed Iraq possessed, and the reasons they did or didn't support the invasion of Iraq is one of opinion and very little fact. We have no idea what was said behind closed doors, and what deals, and/or sanctions may have been offered or threatened. Since we have no evidence to base any claim like this on, let's not argue what every intelligence agency on earth believed... No WMDs, no programs, no attempts to gain Uranium, no connection to Al-Queda, no nuclear capability, no threat... Prove it any different! You believe what ever you want to believe... I'm not going to buy into all the obvious BS that is being fed to us... I actually don't read newspapers... Too much liberal, left wing crap... Ha Ha Ha

Do it more with your legs and not so much your hands...

Yawn... So let's see the chain of thought here... Bush says something in his speech for invading a country that had already been publicly rebuked and deemed false by the CIA and other intelligence organizations. He talks about WMD's, the ability to strike in 45 minutes, implies the link to Al-Queda, mobile labs, seeking nuclear, and chemical weapons, blah, blah, blah... I'm scared now, we better invade Iraq. Let's assume that he gets his information from the CIA, right? Surely he can't take the time to research all the many facets of threat coming out of Iraq? Even though there was never any evidence for anything, literally, no evidence of a single thing, oh wait, they did show some shady satellite imagery of a couple backyards, they managed to convince people in the US that invading Iraq was warranted, justified, and necessary. So we attack Iraq, and accomplish pretty much nothing. There were no weapons found, no mobile weapons labs, no programs, no threat, no nothing... simply 1000 US deaths, and 10,000 Iraqi deaths. Then, after an independent investigation, we hear that all the evidence was flawed, and that there was literally no threat from Iraq, they had no WMDs, no WMD related program activity, no link to Al-Queda, no threat... Those of us who read the news and researched for ourselves had figured out all of this before we invaded, but whatever, right? So now. after everyone points blame at the CIA for exaggerating the threat from Iraq (which I think is a such a freakin' joke! and the President of the United States should take complete responsibility for this HUGE mistake), we turn around and are saying that although all their information about the threat was wrong, AND now, the information about Iraq NOT seeking Uranium from Nigeria was actually true???????... The CIA was wrong to think that it was wrong, the President was right to use the information in his speech, even though it was deemed wrong, and it was the last piece of the puzzle that was used to justify invading Iraq. Give me a freakin break... I can't believe that anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence here actually believes the bullshit that we are being fed. There is no evidence for anything that was used to justify invading Iraq... You're arguing something without merit... The article you referenced was written to justify the evidence used by Tony Blair to support his case for invading Iraq. It offers no evidence to anything that it claims and contradicts the finding of the CIAs investigation... funny how it comes at a time where the CIA has been deemed the scapecoat for bad intel leading up to the invasion, and Tony Blair's political career is out the window. It didn't take a genius to make that connection.

"wrong" is spelled with a g at the end... The claims were false. It was made public before Bush used it in his speech to gain support for the invasion of iraq. He should never have mentioned it at all. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. There's no evidence anywhere supporting this claim was true. No WMD's, no programs, no threat, no evidence... Prove it any different. There's nothing to spin! (I'm fighting off bursting out in laughter)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6456.htm I wonder if they took information from the CIA in order to draw these conclusions? "In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public. Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." But Please, click on the link to see the video for yourself...

pic attached

I didn't mention the 9/11 report... what exactly are you speaking of? Apparently you are a little behind the curve today. Turn on a radio or TV. I'm not a little behind the curve... The CIA rebuked this before Bush said it... He used the info anyway. At the time it was clear that he was using information that had already been proven false. IT WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS!!! This is so freakin stupid that you're saying that this, specifically, was the misinformation of the CIA, when the CIA had already publically said the findings were false. Bush used them anyway! What a silly arguement! There was no evidence supporting anything that Bush used to convince the public that the war was warranted! There is still no evidence for anything! Even He had to have figured that out when he was up there making his speeches... Of course Bush isn't at fault for leading this country into a war based of untruths, and a threat that didn't exist... You can't blame Bush for anything having to do with the Invasion of Iraq! Just put him in front of a teleprompter, and turn on the camera. To Add: Finding the CIA at fault shouldnb't come as any surprise to anyone since the Head of the CIA resigned a little while ago... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and see who was going to take all the blame.

I didn't mention the 9/11 report... what exactly are you speaking of?

Not this one... I think the whoile thing was bullshit, the invasion of Iraq was unwarranted, unjustified, and plain old wrong. I think that it has made the world anything but safe, and I think that GWB and Cheney knew what they were doing the entire freakin time. The whole thing was documented in 2000 by the PNAC which basically spelled out the entire movement into the Middle East so specifically that it predicted the bump up in annual military spending to the exact percentage. Tell me Bush didn't know exacvtly what he was doing... These threads are hilarious!!! We did not go into Iraq because of anything having to do with WMDs... Try reading a little of this... http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm "uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)."

Ha Ha HA... I didn't point fingers saying it was him or her, I merely laughed at the pure irony of the whole thing... Ha Ha Ha

Thye CIA rebuked these claims a year before Bush used it to convince the wortld that Iraq was a threat... This isn't democratic this or Liberal that, this is just fact... It only goes to show how little most of the people who post here actually researched anything they heard before the war. Sad... Saddam was not seeking uranium. We should all move on now because there's no point to this discussion.