'SNL' Skit Blames Democrats For Financial Crisis

[ShamsWoof10]

nothing wrong with seeking the truth, nothing wrong with not believing the government, nothing wrong with not trusting the government, but anyone that believes george bush let planes fly into the twin towers so he could invade iraq is a fvckin dumbass.

Well I think you should correct this statement then because it's very counterdicting but let me see if I can get this straight your democracticship you...

You are saying there is nothing wrong with "seeking the truth", "not believing/trusting the governement" but the statement right after that does all three of those... I think this is how your comment should read...

nothing wrong with seeking the truth, nothing wrong with not believing the government, nothing wrong with not trusting the government, but anyone that believes something not reported by the major news networks or is something I myself don't know much about is a fvckin dumbass.

[daggerkobe]

So tell us, genius, why did Bush play hide and go seek with his anti-terrorism expert for 8 months? All the while receiving urgent memos warning of imminent terrorist attacks/hijackings within the US?

Maybe I'm wrong and he's just a lazy, incompetent idiot.



Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000
By Russ Baker


Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.

[losturmarbles]

Well I think you should correct this statement then because it's very counterdicting but let me see if I can get this straight your democracticship you...

You are saying there is nothing wrong with "seeking the truth", "not believing/trusting the governement" but the statement right after that does all three of those... I think this is how your comment should read...

yes that is correct, the news didn't say it was a inside job, so therefore it wasn't.
finally youre starting to get it
...
wait a minute, maybe the major news networks are the ones responsible for it, FVCK!

[Outlawdino]

it wasnt the dems and it wasnt the repubs...its the whole system...get with it people! look at all the incompetence over the last decade upon decade, decade, ect. matt millen could have run this crap better. get out of debt and buy your gold, silver, guns and ammo. aint no joke.....and i aint no 12 yr old posting about crap i dont know.

[ShamsWoof10]

yes that is correct, the news didn't say it was a inside job, so therefore it wasn't.

hahahaha I know I know I just wanted to make sure we were clear on things

[losturmarbles]

@dagger

im not debating whether or not the "neocons" bush included wanted to invade iraq, i have tend to believe they did, for much of the same reasons we are in cahoots with saudi arabia. the us government could then pretty much control opec being in the pocket of the 2 biggest members.

however, that has nothing to do with 9/11. same reason you use the argument against the war in iraq, suddam had nothing to do with 9/11. so how do you draw the conclusion that bush had intellegence that saudis were going to fly airplanes into buildings, and then thought, THAT'S IT!! I'll let them kill thousands of people to get overwhelming support to invade Iraq.

I'm sorry but that is a huge stretttch.

[daggerkobe]

Soon after 9/11, he (Richard Clarke) says that defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq, even though there was no evidence of their involvement, because they had more "good targets" than Afghanistan, which was actually involved.

Clarke also says that on September 12, 2001, President Bush asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies (the FBI, the CIA, etc.). The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit," apparently unshown to the President.

Clarke also recalls a meeting where then Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz expressed doubt that Osama bin Laden could have carried out the attacks on September 11 without state sponsorship — a theory based on the writings of Laurie Mylroie that Clarke says has been exhaustively investigated and disproven.

But perhaps most damagingly, Clarke claims that the administration has done "a terrible job" fighting terrorism, even since September 11. In particular, he feels the 2003 invasion of Iraq played right into Osama bin Laden's hands. For years, bin Laden had been producing propaganda saying that the US wants to invade and occupy an oil-rich middle eastern country, which was essentially validated by the US invasion of Iraq. As a result, says Clarke, it's not surprising that Al-Qaeda and its offshoots are having much greater success recruiting new members.

Furthermore, he feels the war has taken resources from the more important fight: stopping Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and around the world. He points out that had his plan been followed when he first presented it, Al-Qaeda could have been essentially eliminated. But since his plan was not followed, and bin Laden was essentially ignored as the United States and allies invaded Iraq, Al-Qaeda has grown in strength and number, and is now going to be difficult to stop.

His statements seem to be backed up by Bob Woodward's Bush at War, where he quotes Bush as saying "I know (Osama bin Laden) was a menace... but I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Clarke has been backed up by testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the National Security Council's Flynt Leverett, and Clarke's deputy, Roger Cressey.

Clarke also described many of these events in his almost 20 hours of testimony under oath before the 9/11 Commission, a portion in its public hearings.


Doesn't sound like an administration that was too eager to catch the real culprits of 9/11, were they? On 9/12, a day after 9/11, Bush was already trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq even when repeatedly told that no connection ever existed. Sounds like someone that wanted to invade Iraq in the worst way, just like his 1999 interview.

[losturmarbles]

opportunity knocks my liberal friend

[slacker00]

@dagger

im not debating whether or not the "neocons" bush included wanted to invade iraq, i have tend to believe they did, for much of the same reasons we are in cahoots with saudi arabia. the us government could then pretty much control opec being in the pocket of the 2 biggest members.

however, that has nothing to do with 9/11. same reason you use the argument against the war in iraq, suddam had nothing to do with 9/11. so how do you draw the conclusion that bush had intellegence that saudis were going to fly airplanes into buildings, and then thought, THAT'S IT!! I'll let them kill thousands of people to get overwhelming support to invade Iraq.

I'm sorry but that is a huge stretttch.

They needed a catastrophe and they needed a war. A catastrophe to cause chaos of thinking in general. A war to give the president a blank check to do whatever he wants. Whoever even questions the "commander in chief" during the time of war gets branded "unpatriotic" or "traitor" and agendas get pushed through at lightning speed. If we weren't fighting a "war on terror" while examining WMD possibilities in Iraq, it would've been much tougher to get congress to rubber stamp that war.

But Bush Jr. wasn't clever enough to pull it off, he was just the pigeon and maybe was completely in the dark. Sure, he could've questioned things along the way, but that's why the GOP put him up against Gore in the first place, they wanted someone who they could get elected and yet control. It's all really a masterful plan when you think about it. You just gotta follow the money to see who was behind it. But with the country now trillions poorer for the events of the past few years, you can tell it isn't anyone would gives a damn about the American people in general.

[ms61853]

I can see why some on here support a Biden co-ticket as you engage in shameless plagiarism, to. No need to stand up -- I know who you are. You cut and pasted a review of Richard Clarke's book without bothering to give credit. I'm sure it was an honest oversight just as you think everything Hussein Osama and Biden do.

Richard Clarke was a holdover who was pretty discredited by the time he was gone. He was in image repair mode and had an agenda. But I know the BDS suffererers take anything anybody says against Bush as Gospel.

[ryanXL977]

go look up mccains history, keating 5, what he has done to wives, etc

then get back to us

[ms61853]

go look up mccains history, keating 5, what he has done to wives, etc

then get back to us

You might want to realize McCain was exonerated of any wrongdoing in Keating 5. He even compensated for it (I would say overcompensated) by complying with the findings of supporting campaign finance reform.

[ryanXL977]

hahaha
he ratted out 4 other dudes and got let off bc of it

go read about it, not just the last day when you parrot talking points

[daggerkobe]

How was Richard Clarke dis-credited, retardo?

Sure, they tried to assassinate his credibility, but their own smear campaign backfired and blew up in their faces.

Yeah, it must be plagirized... that's why all the links were left in so anyone can clearly see it was from Wikipedia.

[ms61853]

How was Richard Clarke dis-credited, retardo?

Sure, they tried to assassinate his credibility, but their own smear campaign backfired and blew up in their faces.

Yeah, it must be plagirized... that's why all the links were left in so anyone can clearly see it was from Wikipedia.

Good analysis here

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006214.php

And the links were to Wiki articles about the terms used. No link to the original review. A reason you didn't provide that?

[daggerkobe]

Good analysis here

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006214.php

And the links were to Wiki articles about the terms used. No link to the original review. A reason you didn't provide that?

Wow, a blog by a blubbering idiot nobody, who is all over the place, is suppose to discredit Richard Clarke?

What exactly did he discredit??? Please outline it for me since I have no idea what message the idiot was trying to convey.

Richard Clarke = testified to the 9/11 Commission UNDER OATH.

Bush = REFUSED to testify UNDER OATH.
Cheney = also REFUSED to testify UNDER OATH.

Gee, I wonder who is telling the truth.


I assumed that everyone would know it was a Wiki article considering it had WIKI LINKS ALL OVER IT. I guess I didn't figure an idiot like you who copy/pastes propaganda from neocon websites would know that. I apologize. I will link every Wiki article from now on.

[ryanXL977]

seriously, why ot just testify
why are our president and vp afraid to testify

weird

[ms61853]

Wow, a blog by a blubbering idiot nobody, who is all over the place, is suppose to discredit Richard Clarke?

What exactly did he discredit??? Please outline it for me since I have no idea what message the idiot was trying to convey.

Richard Clarke = testified to the 9/11 Commission UNDER OATH.

Bush = REFUSED to testify UNDER OATH.
Cheney = also REFUSED to testify UNDER OATH.

Gee, I wonder who is telling the truth.


I assumed that everyone would know it was a Wiki article considering it had WIKI LINKS ALL OVER IT. I guess I didn't figure an idiot like you who copy/pastes propaganda from neocon websites would know that. I apologize. I will link every Wiki article from now on.

The book quote you plagiarized was written before the 911 Commission report which said Bush did nothing of the things you accuse him of.

Why would you even think it is relevant? Yes, I know the answer. You are still stuck in terminal Bush Derangement Syndrome mode. Can you point out any specific inaccuracies of that blog? I posted this because it is just easier than typing what I know.

[daggerkobe]

It wasn't from any book, you retard, it was from WIKIPEDIA.

You're the one who posted an incoherent blog. And now I'm suppose to decipher it???? I did get the part about Richard Clarke working for the Clinton administration so he must not be credible? Ummmmmmmm he also worked for Reagan & Bush Sr.

What dumbfvcks. (the retarded blogger and you for posting such incoherent ramblings as proof of nothing)

[ms61853]

It wasn't from any book, you retard, it was from WIKIPEDIA.

You're the one who posted an incoherent blog. And now I'm suppose to decipher it???? I did get the part about Richard Clarke working for the Clinton administration so he must not be credible? Ummmmmmmm he also worked for Reagan & Bush Sr.

What dumbfvcks. (the retarded blogger and you for posting such incoherent ramblings as proof of nothing)

Do you honestly thinks this justifies your position?

You're the one who posted an incoherent blog. And now I'm suppose to decipher it????

That "blog" is hosted by an individual far more intelligent than Hussein Osama. And everything posted is quite coherent. You are just too stupid to understand anything more complicated than "yes we can."

[ryanXL977]

8 years
and there are train wrecks everywhere in america

are we better off now than in 1998 or 1988

shut up dude
shut up

[daneblazer]

[daggerkobe]

You posted a BLOG from a very confused individual as "proof" of Richard Clarke being discredited.

By posting that incoherent, blubbering BLOG, you just made yourself look even more mentally deranged than usual.

That BLOG is a colossal failure, just like you. So you two have something in common.

[ms61853]

You posted a BLOG from a very confused individual as "proof" of Richard Clarke being discredited.

By posting that incoherent, blubbering BLOG, you just made yourself look even more mentally deranged than usual.

That BLOG is a colossal failure, just like you. So you two have something in common.

You are ignorant. I can understand you dismissing that as a blog, but that blog was instrumental in exposing Dan Rather's fake reporting on Bush's National Guard Service.

If you want to win, quit your stupid rantings against Bush on this forum.

Otherwise, i will continue to destroy you.

If you want to make this a non-political discussion forum only, then do that.

Let the moderaters check my posting history.

I didn't start this shit.

[daggerkobe]

You're the one who claimed you could prove Richard Clarke was discredited. You're the one who posted an incoherent BLOG as proof. Well, even you now admit it was a complete failure (gee what's new, your sources failing).

All the BLOG successfully did was proved that you're further deranged than I thought. Entering dementia at this point.

[ms61853]

You're the one who claimed you could prove Richard Clarke was discredited.

He is.

You're the one who posted an incoherent BLOG as proof. Well, even you now admit it was a complete failure (gee what's new, your sources failing).

Nothing in that blog was incoherent. the problem is you moonbats are too dense too understand anything more complex than "yes we can."

All the BLOG successfully did was proved that you're further deranged than I thought. Entering dementia at this point.


I can understand how you moonbats would think facts=dementia.

[Jacey]

dagger,

Please, I'm worried about your health, banging your head into a wall multiple times can only damage you. Sane people know Richard Clarke was a great American, worried about security and not an oilman who took month-long vacations. Seeing people try and shred the credibility of people who've honestly tried to blow the whistle on issues wrong in this administration makes me sick as well.

[ms61853]

dSane people know Richard Clarke was a great American, worried about security and not an oilman who took month-long vacations.

Richard Clarke was a fraud.

Very Awkward Facts

Richard Clarke's denials of Iraq's terror ties don't ring true.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004906

[slacker00]

Anyone catch the SNL skit of Obama-McCain debate tonight? During the debate McCain claimed to have crashed cars he didn't own or have permission to use, stole checkbooks and wrote bad checks, threw cherry bombs down public toilets all while having Alzheimers moments misnaming questioners during the town hall meeting. McCain must be a complete wreck of a person based on this skit. A different skit also claimed that McCain drank dog's blood, maybe a reference to McCain being a Vampire?

Discuss. Because apparently SNL is the source of truth in politics.