So what was the invasion of Iraq for Professor? Please help me understand this crazy mixed up world. It's all legit, isn't it? Those 4000 + American troops and 1-1,000,000 Iraqis (pick a number) died for a righteous cause. But what was it? Please tell me.
So what was the invasion of Iraq for Professor? Please help me understand this crazy mixed up world. It's all legit, isn't it? Those 4000 + American troops and 1-1,000,000 Iraqis (pick a number) died for a righteous cause. But what was it? Please tell me.
I'll let noted British historian Andrew Roberts explain:
Sorry, I can't accept propaganda as an objective history lesson. I'll stick to my version and fail your class. At least that way I'm honest. Do you ever consider your source prior to posting? In the CNN link you provided the article goes on to state that Novak retracted his initial statement to Walsh, as having misspoke. Like so many other GWB admin officials who have had to walk back their initial statements in the press. Interesting that you glossed right over that as well as that he wrote in his article that senior administration sources told him about Plame. So, which is it? He found out her identity via the Washington Who's Who or it was leaked? It was later revealed to be Richard Armitage in the State Department. It's like it's okay that the lie that was initially told to Novak is okay because it's a lie. How was Novak supposed to know? He confirmed it so the lie must be true (Plame being a desk bound analyst rather than an operative, in an effort to discredit her, which the courts conveniently ruled that Wilson had no standing to sue after the bush justice department's investigation went nowhere) golly gee! You really don't know the history of Cheney's past and his mastery of the dark arts, do you? Beginning with Vietnam, the Nixon/Ford administrations and the first gulf war? You fell for it hook, line and sinker. And if that so called history lesson is to be believed, why wasn't that what was told to the American public and congress, the spreading of democracy throughout the Middle East as being the true reason for the invasion of Iraq?
Prager University is an independent, world renowned, unbiased repository of scholarly research, isn't it?
Bernie Sanders wouldn't lie this nation into an unnecessary war, of that I can be sure.
I look forward to the next dispatch from your fantasy world.
So when Mr. Novak became embroiled in perhaps the messiest story of his career, Americans had a face on which to focus. The episode began on July 14, 2003, when, acting on a tip, Mr. Novak published the name of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Her husband, the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, had made public assertions that the Bush administration had justified the invasion of Iraq by distorting intelligence about Iraqi efforts to acquire unconventional weapons. Referring to Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Plame, Mr. Novak disclosed her identity as “an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”
A federal investigation began; federal law prohibited the disclosure of the identities of C.I.A. officers in some circumstances. And it led to the conviction of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.
Mr. Libby was charged not with leaking Ms. Wilson’s name but with perjury, for lying about his conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson, and obstruction of justice. President Bush later commuted Mr. Libby’s 30-month prison term. (Mr. Novak himself was at little risk of prosecution under the disclosure law, which applies mainly to people who have authorized access to classified information.) Some reporters were pressured to identify sources with whom they had discussed Ms. Wilson. But to the consternation of some liberals and news media critics, there seemed to be little focus on Mr. Novak. Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, went to jail for 85 days before she agreed, with Mr. Libby’s permission, to testify to a grand jury about her conversations with Mr. Libby.
In interviews, Mr. Novak seemed to rub salt into the wounds of the other journalists. “I don’t know why they’re upset with me,” he told Brian Lamb of C-Span in 2004. “They ought to worry about themselves. I worry about myself.”
Mr. Novak insisted that he would not name his sources, then disclosed them to investigators and a grand jury, saying he had felt free to speak because the sources had identified themselves to the authorities.
(Mr. Novak’s sources were eventually revealed to be Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, and Karl Rove, the longtime political adviser to President George W. Bush. Neither official was charged with violating the law.)
Yea, sure, Rove, Cheney and Bush didn't know and didn't have anything to do with it. Wiped their hands clean they did. And Judy Miller? She was really the coup d' grace for doing their dirty work for them. Being the conservative journalist that he was, he took one for the team as there was no real penalty for doing so.
Here's another repudiation of your fantasy BS. Read it if you dare but I don't believe you will. Your mind is a closed mind, set in its mistaken ways of thinking:
And before you dismiss it as coming from the Huff Post and can't be trusted because its a "liberal blog," you see the links in the article? See those? They link to source documents and such that back up the points being made by the author. Facts, you know those pesky little things.
Read it. Will have to go through the links but you can tell from the outset that its full of mistatements of fact. Even if we just stick to the current topic the author says the leaking of Plame's name was a "Rove/Cheney plot" with know mention of Richard Armitage. As we both know this is a lie.
Half of a lie. Scooter Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff, he took the fall. Rove? He was revealed to be the second source. Or maybe he was the first? Either way, he was one of two and Rove's hands were all over it. You still want to claim Cheney didn't know or wasn't involved? Think there might be a reason for Bush's term of endearment of Rove as, "Turd Blossom?" Also, the CNN link you posted? From 2003. More information has become available since then, Professor.
in iowa polls, sanders is more favorable than any one of the republican candidates.
this guy is in it for real. he is going to pull everyone to the left, which is where the majority of americans are on the issues anyway. so that is a good thing. keep an eye on him.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Stories about this guy keep popping up on my newsfeed but I still don't understand exactly what his deal is. I heard he was an Independent from Vermont but now I see that he's actually from Brooklyn. I might just be falling for the hype but some of the stuff I've heard about him sounds a lot more inspiring than Hillary's fake southern accent.
What I don't understand is why they are saying he is going to have a big problem with the Democratic Primary in NY. Apparently they are not going to let him play because he is not a Democrat. But why does it matter? Are Independants not allowed to run for President? Is it really only limited to D or R?
And no, I don't have any idea how Presidential elections work.
the debates in the primaries are normally by party. the dems have x amount of debates and the gop has their own number of debates. it is hard for 3rd party candidates to get into the debates until the parties have made their decision on a nominee.
bernie caucuses with the democrats. he is an independent, but i think by the end of this, most dems will favor him over hillary.
he is exactly in line with the majority of americans on nearly every single issue. the gop, and even the mainstream "liberal" media paints him as an extremist. when you look at by issue polls, if sanders is an extremist, then so are the majority of americans.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
it seems like this country resets itself and has a major political shift every 80 years or so. fdr was the last great populist and the entire country changed with his election. lincoln was about 80 years before him and the entire country was changed. can't wait to see how this one turns out.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the debates in the primaries are normally by party. the dems have x amount of debates and the gop has their own number of debates. it is hard for 3rd party candidates to get into the debates until the parties have made their decision on a nominee.
bernie caucuses with the democrats. he is an independent, but i think by the end of this, most dems will favor him over hillary.
he is exactly in line with the majority of americans on nearly every single issue. the gop, and even the mainstream "liberal" media paints him as an extremist. when you look at by issue polls, if sanders is an extremist, then so are the majority of americans.
My bad I didn't know the primary was a debate. I figured it was a vote.
I hope they let him in the debates as I'm interested to see what he says. It sounds like he might be a candidate worth getting hopes up for. If they don't let him play in their reindeer games, I hope he can raise enough money to throw his own primary.
the debates in the primaries are normally by party. the dems have x amount of debates and the gop has their own number of debates. it is hard for 3rd party candidates to get into the debates until the parties have made their decision on a nominee.
bernie caucuses with the democrats. he is an independent, but i think by the end of this, most dems will favor him over hillary.
he is exactly in line with the majority of americans on nearly every single issue. the gop, and even the mainstream "liberal" media paints him as an extremist. when you look at by issue polls, if sanders is an extremist, then so are the majority of americans.
My bad I didn't know the primary was a debate. I figured it was a vote.
I hope they let him in the debates as I'm interested to see what he says. It sounds like he might be a candidate worth getting hopes up for. If they don't let him play in their reindeer games, I hope he can raise enough money to throw his own primary.
i am sorry, i think i misunderstood the question.
in the states, the campaign is called primary season. each state has a primary election where the democrats pick their nominee and the republicans pick theirs. during this time, between all of the state primary elections is when the debates occur. the debates are by party. dems debade dems and repubs debate repubs. not all states have their primary election on the same day. primary season goes until all of the states have voted. at that time the parties have their national convention. the convention is where the parties pick their party nominee for president. after the conventions, where the respective nominees are picked, then they debate each other until the national election day in november 2016. i hope that helps.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Yea I forgot about the electoral college thing and skimmed through the Wikipedia page. Hopefully he can elbow his way into it but I guess it's unlikely.
I have met Mr Sanders a few times, interviewed him one time when he was the mayor of B-town back when I was a kid. I dont think he has a chance in hell --- he likes the truth too much to win.
Alright! I mean besides agreeing about Sanders, it's great to see a few more faces from the other forums (or maybe some who have been away) posting here on AMT.
Saw these the other day and thought, "Yeah, sounds good!":
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
So I'll be honest, I usually avoid getting into politics because I'm pretty left wing and I always end up just getting pissed off that nothing I want to happen ever gets done. I know that's a poor excuse but it's what happens.
But with that being said Bernie is the perfect candidate for me, is it worth it for me to get my hopes up though? Does he stand any shred of a chance of actually getting in or should I just prepare to settle for Hillary? Some people are saying no way and others seem optimistic.
So I'll be honest, I usually avoid getting into politics because I'm pretty left wing and I always end up just getting pissed off that nothing I want to happen ever gets done. I know that's a poor excuse but it's what happens.
But with that being said Bernie is the perfect candidate for me, is it worth it for me to get my hopes up though? Does he stand any shred of a chance of actually getting in or should I just prepare to settle for Hillary? Some people are saying no way and others seem optimistic.
Think many have same frustration and get seriously disillusioned by the machines steady course. We did just elect a dope smoking gay loving universal healthcare promoting black president. Yeah I know he fked up some shit and he also went presidential. So have bit more hope American people have some progressive leanings.
So I'll be honest, I usually avoid getting into politics because I'm pretty left wing and I always end up just getting pissed off that nothing I want to happen ever gets done. I know that's a poor excuse but it's what happens.
But with that being said Bernie is the perfect candidate for me, is it worth it for me to get my hopes up though? Does he stand any shred of a chance of actually getting in or should I just prepare to settle for Hillary? Some people are saying no way and others seem optimistic.
Think many have same frustration and get seriously disillusioned by the machines steady course. We did just elect a dope smoking gay loving universal healthcare promoting black president. Yeah I know he fked up some shit and he also went presidential. So have bit more hope American people have some progressive leanings.
Now to Bernie, have to listen to him a bit.
Yeah I probably exaggerated a little bit there, I do like him for the most part. Corporations and education are the 2 issues I get worked up about most and it's seemed to me like he constantly talks about those things but then either 1. Doesn't actually get anything done about them or 2. Actually seems to be helping corporations out.
So I'll be honest, I usually avoid getting into politics because I'm pretty left wing and I always end up just getting pissed off that nothing I want to happen ever gets done. I know that's a poor excuse but it's what happens.
But with that being said Bernie is the perfect candidate for me, is it worth it for me to get my hopes up though? Does he stand any shred of a chance of actually getting in or should I just prepare to settle for Hillary? Some people are saying no way and others seem optimistic.
Think many have same frustration and get seriously disillusioned by the machines steady course. We did just elect a dope smoking gay loving universal healthcare promoting black president. Yeah I know he fked up some shit and he also went presidential. So have bit more hope American people have some progressive leanings.
Now to Bernie, have to listen to him a bit.
Yeah I probably exaggerated a little bit there, I do like him for the most part. Corporations and education are the 2 issues I get worked up about most and it's seemed to me like he constantly talks about those things but then either 1. Doesn't actually get anything done about them or 2. Actually seems to be helping corporations out.
My biggest concern is that if he did make it into office he wouldn't be able to get anything done cuz they'd just be blocking him the way the republicans did with Obama in the early days. My 2nd concern is that I think the electoral college would prevent him from getting elected. I don't pretend to understand the way the system works, it was somewhat explained here and then I had Googled it but I honestly don't really get it. The issue seems to be that since he's neither D nor R he won't be able to get the votes which is just stupid and a fundamental flaw in the system. My 3rd biggest concern is that in attempting to get him elected a significant portion of well meaning voters who would otherwise probably have voted D are going to wind up "splitting" the D vote between him and Hilary - thus giving Jeb a fucking majority and we're gonna get stuck with another Bush.
My biggest concern is that if he did make it into office he wouldn't be able to get anything done cuz they'd just be blocking him the way the republicans did with Obama in the early days. My 2nd concern is that I think the electoral college would prevent him from getting elected. I don't pretend to understand the way the system works, it was somewhat explained here and then I had Googled it but I honestly don't really get it. The issue seems to be that since he's neither D nor R he won't be able to get the votes which is just stupid and a fundamental flaw in the system. My 3rd biggest concern is that in attempting to get him elected a significant portion of well meaning voters who would otherwise probably have voted D are going to wind up "splitting" the D vote between him and Hilary - thus giving Jeb a fucking majority and we're gonna get stuck with another Bush.
Bernie Sanders is running as a Democratic Party presidential candidate. He will be up against Hillary in the Democratic Primary Election, and only one of them would run against the Republican presidential candidate in the General Election.
Your first concern will definitely be a problem for whichever Democrat wins the Election if the House and Senate stay Repub majority.
Bernie tracking well in New Hampshire thus far. Being from Vermont he has a higher name-recognition value there than in other places. Plus, Hillary continues to have the stink of scandal on her. Best thing for the Dems would be a legitimate alternative candidate arising.
I took this quiz isidewith.com/ and got a 97% match with Bernie. Guess I'll have to keep an eye on him.
Same exact score I got last night! Although we were a little iffy on the test because my mom got 83 percent Bernie in first place then 75 percent Huckabeein second place, how would that even be possible?
I tried it but I couldn't get through the whole quiz. Too many questions. I have up entirely at the foreign policy section but i half assed the section before that too. I still wound up with a 99% match to Bernie and 90% to Hillary.
I was 82% Rubio although I scored +50% on many Dems as well. My answers on these things are all over the board, surprised at the outcome...I dont know much about Rubio other than Senator from FL associated with Tea Party. I didnt spend the time to dig into why it would match me with this, will need to do that as we get closer. HillBilly was the top Dem and I strongly dislike her. A good reminder to focus on the stances people have and not their personalities. Bernie had some good numbers too...
Not sure I understand how I could score well over 50% agreement with many Dems and still slot the highest with an extreme Right position....but I guess that is because my answers vary so much depending on the issues.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Then we should let people get back to telling us how Bernie Sanders will save the world before this thread gets shutdown.
Prager University is an independent, world renowned, unbiased repository of scholarly research, isn't it?
Bernie Sanders wouldn't lie this nation into an unnecessary war, of that I can be sure.
I look forward to the next dispatch from your fantasy world.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So when Mr. Novak became embroiled in perhaps the messiest story of his career, Americans had a face on which to focus. The episode began on July 14, 2003, when, acting on a tip, Mr. Novak published the name of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Her husband, the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, had made public assertions that the Bush administration had justified the invasion of Iraq by distorting intelligence about Iraqi efforts to acquire unconventional weapons. Referring to Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Plame, Mr. Novak disclosed her identity as “an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”
A federal investigation began; federal law prohibited the disclosure of the identities of C.I.A. officers in some circumstances. And it led to the conviction of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.
Mr. Libby was charged not with leaking Ms. Wilson’s name but with perjury, for lying about his conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson, and obstruction of justice. President Bush later commuted Mr. Libby’s 30-month prison term. (Mr. Novak himself was at little risk of prosecution under the disclosure law, which applies mainly to people who have authorized access to classified information.) Some reporters were pressured to identify sources with whom they had discussed Ms. Wilson. But to the consternation of some liberals and news media critics, there seemed to be little focus on Mr. Novak. Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, went to jail for 85 days before she agreed, with Mr. Libby’s permission, to testify to a grand jury about her conversations with Mr. Libby.
In interviews, Mr. Novak seemed to rub salt into the wounds of the other journalists. “I don’t know why they’re upset with me,” he told Brian Lamb of C-Span in 2004. “They ought to worry about themselves. I worry about myself.”
Mr. Novak insisted that he would not name his sources, then disclosed them to investigators and a grand jury, saying he had felt free to speak because the sources had identified themselves to the authorities.
(Mr. Novak’s sources were eventually revealed to be Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, and Karl Rove, the longtime political adviser to President George W. Bush. Neither official was charged with violating the law.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/business/media/19novak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Yea, sure, Rove, Cheney and Bush didn't know and didn't have anything to do with it. Wiped their hands clean they did. And Judy Miller? She was really the coup d' grace for doing their dirty work for them. Being the conservative journalist that he was, he took one for the team as there was no real penalty for doing so.
Back to your fantasy world.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
this guy is in it for real. he is going to pull everyone to the left, which is where the majority of americans are on the issues anyway. so that is a good thing. keep an eye on him.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What I don't understand is why they are saying he is going to have a big problem with the Democratic Primary in NY. Apparently they are not going to let him play because he is not a Democrat. But why does it matter? Are Independants not allowed to run for President? Is it really only limited to D or R?
And no, I don't have any idea how Presidential elections work.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
bernie caucuses with the democrats. he is an independent, but i think by the end of this, most dems will favor him over hillary.
he is exactly in line with the majority of americans on nearly every single issue. the gop, and even the mainstream "liberal" media paints him as an extremist. when you look at by issue polls, if sanders is an extremist, then so are the majority of americans.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
it seems like this country resets itself and has a major political shift every 80 years or so. fdr was the last great populist and the entire country changed with his election. lincoln was about 80 years before him and the entire country was changed. can't wait to see how this one turns out.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I hope they let him in the debates as I'm interested to see what he says. It sounds like he might be a candidate worth getting hopes up for. If they don't let him play in their reindeer games, I hope he can raise enough money to throw his own primary.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
in the states, the campaign is called primary season. each state has a primary election where the democrats pick their nominee and the republicans pick theirs. during this time, between all of the state primary elections is when the debates occur. the debates are by party. dems debade dems and repubs debate repubs. not all states have their primary election on the same day. primary season goes until all of the states have voted. at that time the parties have their national convention. the convention is where the parties pick their party nominee for president. after the conventions, where the respective nominees are picked, then they debate each other until the national election day in november 2016. i hope that helps.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
maybe, just maybe, Gore would have actually paid attention to the intelligence briefings clearly stating al-queda was posied to stage an attack
but anyway, back on the topic... Bernie Sanders is the fucking man and has my vote
Alright! I mean besides agreeing about Sanders, it's great to see a few more faces from the other forums (or maybe some who have been away) posting here on AMT.
Saw these the other day and thought, "Yeah, sounds good!":
But with that being said Bernie is the perfect candidate for me, is it worth it for me to get my hopes up though? Does he stand any shred of a chance of actually getting in or should I just prepare to settle for Hillary? Some people are saying no way and others seem optimistic.
Now to Bernie, have to listen to him a bit.
My 2nd concern is that I think the electoral college would prevent him from getting elected. I don't pretend to understand the way the system works, it was somewhat explained here and then I had Googled it but I honestly don't really get it. The issue seems to be that since he's neither D nor R he won't be able to get the votes which is just stupid and a fundamental flaw in the system.
My 3rd biggest concern is that in attempting to get him elected a significant portion of well meaning voters who would otherwise probably have voted D are going to wind up "splitting" the D vote between him and Hilary - thus giving Jeb a fucking majority and we're gonna get stuck with another Bush.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Your first concern will definitely be a problem for whichever Democrat wins the Election if the House and Senate stay Repub majority.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I scored 3% match with Ted Cruz. Can you believe it??? LOL!
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
HillBilly was the top Dem and I strongly dislike her. A good reminder to focus on the stances people have and not their personalities. Bernie had some good numbers too...
Not sure I understand how I could score well over 50% agreement with many Dems and still slot the highest with an extreme Right position....but I guess that is because my answers vary so much depending on the issues.