Anatta was right - NYT confirms Deep State White House coup attempt is real

Truth Detector said:
Wrong again; the choice was to enforce the resolutions Saddam had agreed to that were ignored after a decade of doing nothing about it. We were woken up by the attacks on 9-11 and the seriousness of doing nothing.

Of course, in liberal dumbfuck land, doing nothing is always preferable to REAL results.
Click to expand...

you aren't talking about the bullshit no fly zones I hope?
 
Thing1 said:
I need a little more convincing than you saying you're convinced.

CNN has nothing to do with it. If there was a deep state, we'd have more than your being convinced and the constant ominous repetition that there is one.
Click to expand...
read a book. The one i showed is NYTimes best seller,and heavily footnoted to support conclusions
 
Truth Detector said:
Wrong again; the choice was to enforce the resolutions Saddam had agreed to that were ignored after a decade of doing nothing about it. We were woken up by the attacks on 9-11 and the seriousness of doing nothing.

Of course, in liberal dumbfuck land, doing nothing is always preferable to REAL results.
Click to expand...

Clinton Bombed the SHIT out of Sadam you fuck lips
 
anatta said:
Trump isn't motivated to support Russia.
Why would he be selling JAVELIN to use against Russian armor in Donbass if he was?
Click to expand...

He didn't sell them anything. All he did was allow Ukraine to buy arms from US weapons manufacturers.

Secondly, he is motivated to support Russia because that's who loans him money. He can't get a loan from an American bank, only the bank that also launders money for Russian oligarchs and Putin's FSB.

Remember, it was Uday Trump who said that they get all the money they need from Russia.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)



The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from 16 December 1998, to 19 December 1998, by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.
The operation was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. The bombing campaign had been anticipated since February 1998 and incurred wide-ranging criticism and support, at home and abroad.[3] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates initially announced they would deny U.S. military the use of local bases for the purpose of air strikes against Iraq.[4]
 
anatta said:
there is no "definitive proof' either.
there is an IC assessment made by Clapper who has his own Russiaphobia to pander too.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Trump was shown definitive proof two weeks before his inauguration that Putin personally ordered the attacks that Comey was investigating. Then Trump fired Comey "because of Russia", and you've been arguing that words don't mean what they mean ever since.
 
LV426 said:
Firing Comey was running interference for Russia. Quite literally. Trump fired the guy who was investigating Russia's attacks.
Click to expand...
Strzok was in charge of the FBI counterintelligence investigation. Strzok was demoted and then fired
 
Truth Detector said:
You can....anytime. Here's a waltz down memory lane for you:

Democrat quotes on WMDs
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
Click to expand...

Thing1 said:
I've seen those a hundred times, and still can't find any calling for invasion.

And oh man, would it be great to have what you posted back in those days. I know exactly what it was - and you couldn't have possibly been more wrong.
Click to expand...

"29 Democratic US Senators, and all but one (R-RI, Chafee) Republican. The full roll call on H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is here. The vote count was YEAs 77, NAYs 23. Below is a list of the Democrat Senators who vote YEA."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html

That sure sounds like authorization to invade Iraq to me!
 
anatta said:
There isn't any proof the DNC server was hacked either -the FBI never did forensics on it.
Assange wasn't interviewed etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is proof the DNC server was hacked because that's how Russia got the 30,000 e-mails Scavino tweeted about on May 11th, 2016, and what Uday and Goldstone arranged the meeting for at Trump Tower that June.

Not sure why you are defending Trump. You should be laying the groundwork for your "No True Scotsman" defense now to protect your reputation once he is removed from office.

Too bad we're burning all the lifeboats.

You're going to own Trump. And when you delete this profile and create another that feigns opposition to Trump, we'll call that one out too.
 
Truth Detector said:
Wrong again; the choice was to enforce the resolutions Saddam had agreed to that were ignored after a decade of doing nothing about it. We were woken up by the attacks on 9-11 and the seriousness of doing nothing.

Of course, in liberal dumbfuck land, doing nothing is always preferable to REAL results.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)



The December 1998 bombing of Iraq (code-named Operation Desert Fox) was a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from 16 December 1998, to 19 December 1998, by the United States and United Kingdom. The contemporaneous justification for the strikes was Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions and its interference with United Nations Special Commission inspectors.
The operation was a major flare-up in the Iraq disarmament crisis. The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. The bombing campaign had been anticipated since February 1998 and incurred wide-ranging criticism and support, at home and abroad.[3] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates initially announced they would deny U.S. military the use of local bases for the purpose of air strikes against Iraq.[4]





Clinton bombed the fuck out of Sadam military in 1998 you fucking lying sociopath


its why we KNEW he had no WMDs
 
Grumpy said:
"29 Democratic US Senators, and all but one (R-RI, Chafee) Republican. The full roll call on H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is here. The vote count was YEAs 77, NAYs 23. Below is a list of the Democrat Senators who vote YEA."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html

That sure sounds like authorization to invade Iraq to me!
Click to expand...

So your argument is basically that everyone should have known better than to trust Bush when he said Saddam posed a threat to us.

That's exactly why I don't believe anything you people say today.
 
LV426 said:
Wrong.

Trump was shown definitive proof two weeks before his inauguration that Putin personally ordered the attacks that Comey was investigating. Then Trump fired Comey "because of Russia", and you've been arguing that words don't mean what they mean ever since.
Click to expand...
first off the intelligence is shaky, and the "Proof" is an assessment .
It supposedly goes back to the code used (malware)which in reality was common east European -not just Russian/

The only real proof we have is the Mueller indictments on the Internet Security Agency,
and that was just a Russian troll farm.

Comey was fired for a variety of reasons -Rosenweasel even wrote a letter. But that is executive purview anways
 
Invoking the 25th is not a coup.

The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addresses what happens to the presidency and vice-presidency if the president dies, resigns or becomes (even more) incapacitated or (mentally) disabled.

CvpqSyrUsAAiP3U.jpg

^ ^ lights are on but nobody's home ^ ^
 
anatta said:
first off the intelligence is shaky, and the "Proof" is an assessment .
It supposedly goes back to the code used (malware)which in reality was common east European -not just Russian/

The only real proof we have is the Mueller indictments on the Internet Security Agency,
and that was just a Russian troll farm.

Comey was fired for a variety of reasons -Rosenweasel even wrote a letter. But that is executive purview anways
Click to expand...

the dutch have tapes idiot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top