PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: PaulS on November 30, 2016, 05:50:19 PM
-
after 9/11 and continue the Clinton policy of "launching missiles into empty tents" allowing a second attack. Unfortunately GW Bush had some balls. Interesting read..
http://www.youngcons.com/911-mastermind-admits-bush-did-opposite-of-what-al-qaeda-expected-prevented-second-wave-of-attacks/
-
I certainly don't fault GWB from going into Afghanistan and dealing with the Taliban. His greatest mistake was not finishing off the job in Afghanistan before diverting the majority of US assets to invade Iraq to eliminate WMD that didn't exist and enhance Iranian power in the region. While he was doing that the Taliban was able to reconstitute and to this day is threatening to return to power in Afghanistan. So now we have terrorists entrenched in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen and Somalia after spending trillions and thousands of American soldier lives. Good job GWB.
-
I certainly don't fault GWB from going into Afghanistan and dealing with the Taliban. His greatest mistake was not finishing off the job in Afghanistan before diverting the majority of US assets to invade Iraq to eliminate WMD that didn't exist and enhance Iranian power in the region. While he was doing that the Taliban was able to reconstitute and to this day is threatening to return to power in Afghanistan. So now we have terrorists entrenched in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen and Somalia after spending trillions and thousands of American soldier lives. Good job GWB.
Why didn't Obama rectify the situation in Afghanistan, and Iraq over the past eight years?
For the record, the Democrats voted to invade Iraq also, based on Allied intel. Hillary, Kerry, Schummer, Pelosi, Reid, etc.
-
But not Bernie!
:D
-
I certainly don't fault GWB from going into Afghanistan and dealing with the Taliban. His greatest mistake was not finishing off the job in Afghanistan before diverting the majority of US assets to invade Iraq to eliminate WMD that didn't exist and enhance Iranian power in the region. While he was doing that the Taliban was able to reconstitute and to this day is threatening to return to power in Afghanistan. So now we have terrorists entrenched in both Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen and Somalia after spending trillions and thousands of American soldier lives. Good job GWB.
I have a question. It is well known that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds. So he had WMDs. Why would Bush wage war to stop Saddam from further using them if, as it is claimed, Bush "knew" Saddam had no WMDs? The only possible outcome would be Bush looking like a stupid warhawk, something that I am sure no advisor or even Bush himself would have risked, unless they were confident the weapons were there, and would be found, legitimizing the whole action.
-
I have a question. It is well known that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds. So he had WMDs. Why would Bush wage war to stop Saddam from further using them if, as it is claimed, Bush "knew" Saddam had no WMDs? The only possible outcome would be Bush looking like a stupid warhawk, something that I am sure no advisor or even Bush himself would have risked, unless they were confident the weapons were there, and would be found, legitimizing the whole action.
That's a good question, but to me, Bush's biggest mistake was waiting so long to go in. In a closed society like that with an ironfisted dictator, it is not hard to remove any traces of weapons and kill witnesses. But Bush was insistent on using diplomacy first. And he got burned for it.
Bush allowed Saddam to play him like a fiddle.
-
That's a good question, but to me, Bush's biggest mistake was waiting so long to go in. In a closed society like that with an ironfisted dictator, it is not hard to remove any traces of weapons and kill witnesses. But Bush was insistent on using diplomacy first. And he got burned for it.
Bush allowed Saddam to play him like a fiddle.
If President Bush had ordered troops in before attempting to use diplomacy, he would have been eviscerated by the liberals.
-
If President Bush had ordered troops in before attempting to use diplomacy, he would have been eviscerated by the liberals.
It didn't matter what he did. The progressive pigs in DC played every hypocritical card they had. First voting to go in, then spending seven years blaming him for their votes. Nothing ever changes and the two head pigs, Pelosi and Schumer are already at it with Donald Trump and won't let up, even if he causes the greatest recovery in history.
-
I have a question. It is well known that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds. So he had WMDs. Why would Bush wage war to stop Saddam from further using them if, as it is claimed, Bush "knew" Saddam had no WMDs? The only possible outcome would be Bush looking like a stupid warhawk, something that I am sure no advisor or even Bush himself would have risked, unless they were confident the weapons were there, and would be found, legitimizing the whole action.
First off, it takes very little resources to manufacture chemical or biological weapons--just about any medical lab and insectide factory could start churning out the basics. Weoponizing them would require a bit more effort as well as manufacturing the delivery mechanisms. So even if Saddam had proven he destroyed all his on hand stock, it wouldn't take much to generate more.
The UN (and US) had people inside looking for evidence of WMD stocks and could find nothing. Of course Hussein did his best to harass the inspectors and instill doubt as to what if any WMD he might have hidden because he wanted his enemies, primarily Iran, to think he might still have a chemical capability. As long as inspectors were in country, there was little chance that any extensive WMD stock, if it existed, could have remained hidden forever.
I'm sure GWB "believed" there were WMD stocks in country. The problem was there was no reliable intelligence that there were WMD so GWB cronies decided they couldn't wait any longer so they used intelligence from known unreliable sources to make a case for proving the existence of WMD stocks that were a threat to the US/world. They manufactured a case based on suspected BS to garner support for an invasion on the pretext of saving the world from Saddam's WMD. Afterall, they "knew" he's hiding it somewhere so what's a small white lie if they could get world support to invade and find the warehouses of chemical and biological weapons. The problem is there were no stocks of WMD. Small amounts of chemical munitions and shells were found rusting away in forgotten depots but the only threat they posed was to anyone coming upon them without protective gear as they were basically leaking, hazardous waste in the state they were found. Again, these were in no way in any way viable weapons anymore and more than likely, the Iraqi authorities had lost any accountability for them. Similarly, the mobile biological weapons labs/production vans that Colin Powell briefed as existing were the product of the overactive imagination of an Iraqi dissident which turned out to be absolute fiction and was suspected as being such by intelligence analysts who were silenced in their skepticism. A nuclear weapons program also was manufactured out of whole cloth. None of it was true.
So we invaded Iraq and created the mess that is post Saddam Iraq based on the "gut feeling" of the GWB administration who were sure they were doing the world a favor. If the caveats that accompanied the WMD intel had been provided to the public with the rest of the "proof," no one in their right mind would have committed to an invasion. Of course, GWB apologists claim he was duped along with everyone else but it was his people that sold the invasion to everyone and they knowingly used information from unreliable sources without telling everyone.
-
GWB cronies decided they couldn't wait any longer so they used intelligence from known unreliable sources to make a case for proving the existence of WMD stocks that were a threat to the US/world. They manufactured a case based on suspected BS
Up to this point you almost sounded reasonable. This is where I quit reading because you were once again dreadfully transparent. Whatever came after this would have been based on this garbage so it wasn't worth reading.
Some questions that are vague about these two phrases?
1) Who are "GWB cronies"? What are their names?
2) What is the difference between someone who worked in the White House for the president and a crony? What is your definition?
3) What is your source that German, British, Russian, Israeli, French and Chinese intelligence were known to be unreliable? Come on, even Bernie Sanders said that he believed Iraq had WMDs.
3a) Here's a link to the British document, just one of 7 that said essentially the same thing. Please read through it and identify page and line numbers that were known at the time it was published to be unreliable. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd11.pdf
3b) And this is the NIE that Bush actually used http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd15.pdf. Again, please reference page and line numbers that were known to be unreliable at the time. In particular, please note the confidence sections on page 5 and tell us all what in those levels did not turn out to be actually true.
4) Can you define "suspected BS"? I mean we can all see the actual BS that you're putting out, but where does the difference begin?
You'd almost be funny, if it weren't all so pathetic. Can you not accept that intelligence gives a fuzzy picture? Are you still stuck on "bush lied" even 15 years later? Wow, that must be a crappy burden to bear.
Keep in mind that WMDs WERE found in Iraq. They were older ones that were supposed to have already have been destroyed. So Saddam Hussein DID have WMDs and an ability to make more. The Iraqi army trained in MOPP gear and not because they feared the US using chemical weapons against them. The intelligence that Iraq had WMDs was not incorrect. They may not have had new ones (or they may have and moved them somewhere else) but they did have them. And they did have the missile capabilities to delivery them from a distance.
Saddam Hussein was messing with the inspectors and giving them every reason to believe that they were being fooled. I think he was as surprised as Al Qaeda was when he was attacked. He didn't believe it would happen because if he did, he would have been much more cooperative.
And you are still sucking at this.
-
Up to this point you almost sounded reasonable. This is where I quit reading because you were once again dreadfully transparent. Whatever came after this would have been based on this garbage so it wasn't worth reading.
Some questions that are vague about these two phrases?
1) Who are "GWB cronies"? What are their names?
2) What is the difference between someone who worked in the White House for the president and a crony? What is your definition?
3) What is your source that German, British, Russian, Israeli, French and Chinese intelligence were known to be unreliable? Come on, even Bernie Sanders said that he believed Iraq had WMDs.
3a) Here's a link to the British document, just one of 7 that said essentially the same thing. Please read through it and identify page and line numbers that were known at the time it was published to be unreliable. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd11.pdf
3b) And this is the NIE that Bush actually used http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd15.pdf. Again, please reference page and line numbers that were known to be unreliable at the time. In particular, please note the confidence sections on page 5 and tell us all what in those levels did not turn out to be actually true.
4) Can you define "suspected BS"? I mean we can all see the actual BS that you're putting out, but where does the difference begin?
You'd almost be funny, if it weren't all so pathetic. Can you not accept that intelligence gives a fuzzy picture? Are you still stuck on "bush lied" even 15 years later? Wow, that must be a crappy burden to bear.
Keep in mind that WMDs WERE found in Iraq. They were older ones that were supposed to have already have been destroyed. So Saddam Hussein DID have WMDs and an ability to make more. The Iraqi army trained in MOPP gear and not because they feared the US using chemical weapons against them. The intelligence that Iraq had WMDs was not incorrect. They may not have had new ones (or they may have and moved them somewhere else) but they did have them. And they did have the missile capabilities to delivery them from a distance.
Saddam Hussein was messing with the inspectors and giving them every reason to believe that they were being fooled. I think he was as surprised as Al Qaeda was when he was attacked. He didn't believe it would happen because if he did, he would have been much more cooperative.
And you are still sucking at this.
Nice work.
-
Up to this point you almost sounded reasonable. This is where I quit reading because you were once again dreadfully transparent. Whatever came after this would have been based on this garbage so it wasn't worth reading.
Some questions that are vague about these two phrases?
1) Who are "GWB cronies"? What are their names?
2) What is the difference between someone who worked in the White House for the president and a crony? What is your definition?
3) What is your source that German, British, Russian, Israeli, French and Chinese intelligence were known to be unreliable? Come on, even Bernie Sanders said that he believed Iraq had WMDs.
3a) Here's a link to the British document, just one of 7 that said essentially the same thing. Please read through it and identify page and line numbers that were known at the time it was published to be unreliable. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd11.pdf
3b) And this is the NIE that Bush actually used http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd15.pdf. Again, please reference page and line numbers that were known to be unreliable at the time. In particular, please note the confidence sections on page 5 and tell us all what in those levels did not turn out to be actually true.
4) Can you define "suspected BS"? I mean we can all see the actual BS that you're putting out, but where does the difference begin?
You'd almost be funny, if it weren't all so pathetic. Can you not accept that intelligence gives a fuzzy picture? Are you still stuck on "bush lied" even 15 years later? Wow, that must be a crappy burden to bear.
Keep in mind that WMDs WERE found in Iraq. They were older ones that were supposed to have already have been destroyed. So Saddam Hussein DID have WMDs and an ability to make more. The Iraqi army trained in MOPP gear and not because they feared the US using chemical weapons against them. The intelligence that Iraq had WMDs was not incorrect. They may not have had new ones (or they may have and moved them somewhere else) but they did have them. And they did have the missile capabilities to delivery them from a distance.
Saddam Hussein was messing with the inspectors and giving them every reason to believe that they were being fooled. I think he was as surprised as Al Qaeda was when he was attacked. He didn't believe it would happen because if he did, he would have been much more cooperative.
And you are still sucking at this.
one significant problem with the whole discussion of reliable/unreliable intelligence sources: the people with actual knowledge of the intelligence cannot discuss the classified materials in an unclassified environment. It doesn't matter if it's been published in Aviation Leak and Spy Technology or the front page of the Enquirer or wikileaks. An oath to protect classified matieral is an oath. (yes, I know some people don't care about oaths....)
-
Google yellow cake uranium and Iraqi mobile biological weapons lab. Bush cronies: led by Dick Cheney. Go search some old threads--I'm really tired of repeating myself. Much of the case for invading Iraq was built on foreign intelligence that was shared with the US with the caveat that it was deemed unreliable by the country supplying it because the testimony was second hand or it was from Iraqi dissidents who had a vested interest in seeing Saddam toppled. It's still intelligence but unreliable so a reasonable person would not act on it unless it was corroborated from other sources. Single source data is suspect. None of this information on the potential false nature of this data was shared with the public. Only the "Iraqi sources state there exists stocks of WMD and an ongoing program to develop nuclear and biological weapons." Turns out the possible BS information was actual BS but it only came out after the fact when questions were asked about how the intelligence community failed when nothing of significance could be found indicating an existing WMD program. The American people were played, pure and simple, by an administration that wanted to topple Saddam and needed an excuse that would be supported by the nation.
-
Google yellow cake uranium and Iraqi mobile biological weapons lab. Bush cronies: led by Dick Cheney. Go search some old threads--I'm really tired of repeating myself. Much of the case for invading Iraq was built on foreign intelligence that was shared with the US with the caveat that it was deemed unreliable by the country supplying it because the testimony was second hand or it was from Iraqi dissidents who had a vested interest in seeing Saddam toppled. It's still intelligence but unreliable so a reasonable person would not act on it unless it was corroborated from other sources. Single source data is suspect. None of this information on the potential false nature of this data was shared with the public. Only the "Iraqi sources state there exists stocks of WMD and an ongoing program to develop nuclear and biological weapons." Turns out the possible BS information was actual BS but it only came out after the fact when questions were asked about how the intelligence community failed when nothing of significance could be found indicating an existing WMD program. The American people were played, pure and simple, by an administration that wanted to topple Saddam and needed an excuse that would be supported by the nation.
So you admit that many senior democrats such as Schumer, Kerry and Clinton also played the American people? And you also admit these democrats were "unreasonable" because they too had read the intelligence briefings and came to the same conclusion?
-
Add Tony Blair to the list of Bush cronies. I had to laugh at reading the pdf document laying out his JICs assessment of Iraqi WMD. It sounded just like Bush's. The fact is it was all BS based on unreliable sources and guesses. Because there was no proof that the WMD was destroyed, it must still exist. Wrong. The only certain conclusion of the lack of proof is that there is a lack of proof. If I destroy the records of the disposal of something that has been disposed of, it doesn't magically follow that the something still exists because the proof is gone. I have to conclude it may exist or it may not. Saddam counted on the uncertainty to give Iran and Syria pause and think twice before messing with him. He didn't count on the Bush administration actually invading based on his shell game. He gave the US too much credit and suffered the consequences. Unfortunately, several thousands of Americans died and continue to die because Bush wasn't smart enough to continue searching for confirmation of WMD before committing American lives and treasure to topple Saddam.
It's been 15 years or so and the lies of the Bush administration back then are still lies today. If they didn't know the intelligence they were relying on was unreliable, then their incompetence is just as telling. I don't believe they were incompetent--they knew what they were doing and successfully got the support they wanted from the nation.
"But WMD was found"...keep telling yourself that what was found is what justified Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath. All but a few Bush apologists have conceded that Saddam had no WMD program of any consequence, nothing on a scale that justified an invasion. Upon examination of the "proof" of a viable WMD capability, it was discovered that all the primary sources were poor and were suspected of being unreliable AT THE TIME. It's not that the Intelligence community failed totally to see through Saddam's deception, it's the people in charge who chose to ignore warnings and use the information because it fit their agenda.
-
So you admit that many senior democrats such as Schumer, Kerry and Clinton also played the American people? And you also admit these democrats were "unreasonable" because they too had read the intelligence briefings and came to the same conclusion?
I don't know if they were given access to intelligence assessments as to source reliability. I suspect someone suppressed anything which didn't go along with the administration's agenda for the necessity of regime change.
-
irony is strong with you
-
I don't know if they were given access to intelligence assessments as to source reliability. I suspect someone suppressed anything which didn't go along with the administration's agenda for the necessity of regime change.
Oh bullshit. You are so full of it.
-
irony BDS is strong with you
FTFY
-
The fact is it was all BS based on unreliable sources and guesses.
How do you know which British intelligence sources were unreliable and what was guesses? Did you participate in the JIC? Do you even have knowledge about the organizations that give input to the JIC? Do you even understand how the intelligence community works?
Because there was no proof that the WMD was destroyed, it must still exist.
Uhhh. The WMDs weren't destroyed and they did still exist. Along with missiles.
Are you aware of how much credibility you lose every time you make a post?
-
So Witmo, again, what did Obama do in EIGHT YEARS TO RECTIFY IRAN, IRAQ, and AFGHANISTAN? Bush is old news. The worldwide intel CONVINCED ALL THE DEMOCRATS ALSO.
So keep being delusional, and avoiding the obvious FAILURE OF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.
-
How do you know which British intelligence sources were unreliable and what was guesses? Did you participate in the JIC? Do you even have knowledge about the organizations that give input to the JIC? Do you even understand how the intelligence community works?
I know that intelligence always includes an assessment of how reliable the information is and why. After no WMD of consequence was discovered after the US removed Saddam, news reports were able to determine that the intelligence released to make the case for an Iraq invasion were considered unreliable by intel analysts at the time they were received. This fact was suppressed when the case for invasion was made to the public.
Uhhh. The WMDs weren't destroyed and they did still exist. Along with missiles.
and Elvis is still alive...
Are you aware of how much credibility you lose every time you make a post?
At least I have credibility to lose. You, on the other hand will continue to live a life unencumbered by the reality that Saddam Hussein had no WMD capability of consequence at the time GWB decided he needed to change the regime in Iraq and plunge the region into chaos.
Ask yourself why the US thought it necessary to invade Iraq on sketchy intelligence when North Korea was and is a much greater threat to world peace and the US directly and we have certain knowledge of their WMD capability. We even had inspectors in Iraq, who, while harassed in their duties, were able to travel around and seek out evidence of WMD on the ground in Iraq. GWB wanted Saddam out and used WMD as an excuse pure and simple. He couldn't just do it so his administration gathered up any intelligence that made a case, however weak or unreliable, and purposely disregarded evidence to the contrary that Saddam had a WMD program and it threatened the world. You can criticize me all you want and question my credibility but history will record that GWB's policy of regime change in Iraq was an unmitigated disaster of immense proportion and resulted in a mess that is ongoing with no end in sight. Criticizing BHO for not fixing what GWB thoroughly broke is like criticizing him for a slow economic recovery from the mess he was handed when he took office. His fixing or not fixing fast enough the problems generated by previous administrations belies the fact that GWB policies in large part created the messes to begin with.
-
So tell me what experience you have in the intelligence world? While I was only an operator, I had extensive experience working with the intelligence community and even acted as a liaison between the J2 and J3 in more than one JOC because I had the necessary clearances.
Ask yourself why the US thought it necessary to invade Iraq on sketchy intelligence when North Korea was and is a much greater threat to to world peace and we have certain knowledge of their WMD capability. We even had inspectors in Iraq, which were pulled out of Iraq
Has N. Korea invaded any foreign countries recently? Or have they used any WMDs on anyone? Have they shot an any of our aircraft?
Don't get me wrong. I agree (in hindsight) that invading Iraq was a mistake. But if we invaded N. Korea, I would support that, as long as we invaded with the intention of winning; That is, if we defined what "winning" meant.
-
Has N. Korea invaded any foreign countries recently? Or have they used any WMDs on anyone? Have they shot an any of our aircraft?
Don't get me wrong. I agree (in hindsight) that invading Iraq was a mistake. But if we invaded N. Korea, I would support that, as long as we invaded with the intention of winning; That is, if we defined what "winning" meant.
Remember the Pueblo? How about the numerous DMZ incidents over the years?
The point is we feel absolutely no compunction to invade a country unabashedly developing nuclear weapons and with a million men under arms, who has threatened us and our allies to its south and east with its nuclear weapons and continues to test delivery systems with the potential of reaching the US, despite numerous UN resolutions and sanctions, but we invaded a country that we defeated soundly less than ten years prior, over which we had combat and reconnaissance aircraft overflying its sovereign airspace daily immediately destroying facilities whenever an Iraqi fired a shot or turned on a radar within sensor range of our aircraft, within which we had people on the ground inspecting facilities suspected of WMD involvement. We couldn't come up with better proof of WMD than "Saddam had some chemicals and used it over twenty years previously against his own people and now he wouldn't give us what we considered adequate proof that he had gotten rid of them?" Give me a break. Bush wanted him out, WMD gave him an excuse. We paid and are paying for his blunder.
-
More Bush crap. It is really getting old. Obama?
-
Remember the Pueblo? How about the numerous DMZ incidents over the years?
The point is we feel absolutely no compunction to invade a company unabashedly developing nuclear weapons and with a million men under arms, who has threatened us and our allies to its south and east with its nuclear weapons and continues to test delivery systems with the potential of reaching the US, despite numerous UN resolutions and sanctions, but we invaded a country that we defeated soundly less than ten years prior, over which we had combat and reconnaissance aircraft overflying its sovereign airspace daily immediately destroying facilities whenever an Iraqi fired a shot or turned on a radar within sensor range of our aircraft, within which we had people on the ground inspecting facilities suspected of WMD involvement. We couldn't come up with better proof of WMD than "Saddam had some chemicals and used it over twenty years previously against his own people and now he wouldn't give us what we considered adequate proof that he had gotten rid of them?" Give me a break. Bush wanted him out, WMD gave him an excuse. We paid and are paying for his blunder.
Keep digging that hole.
-
Remember the Pueblo? How about the numerous DMZ incidents over the years?
The point is we feel absolutely no compunction to invade a company unabashedly developing nuclear weapons and with a million men under arms, who has threatened us and our allies to its south and east with its nuclear weapons and continues to test delivery systems with the potential of reaching the US, despite numerous UN resolutions and sanctions, but we invaded a country that we defeated soundly less than ten years prior, over which we had combat and reconnaissance aircraft overflying its sovereign airspace daily immediately destroying facilities whenever an Iraqi fired a shot or turned on a radar within sensor range of our aircraft, within which we had people on the ground inspecting facilities suspected of WMD involvement. We couldn't come up with better proof of WMD than "Saddam had some chemicals and used it over twenty years previously against his own people and now he wouldn't give us what we considered adequate proof that he had gotten rid of them?" Give me a break. Bush wanted him out, WMD gave him an excuse. We paid and are paying for his blunder.
You know all this happened like 15 years ago?
Dude. Get therapy.
-
Don't worry- his BDS is about to be supplanted by TDS.
-
Don't worry- his BDS is about to be supplanted by TDS.
That will be the true test of BDS. If it gets supplanted by TDS, it was just fair-weather BDS.
-
You know all this happened like 15 years ago?
Dude. Get therapy.
The capture of the Pueblo was more like 50 years ago (1968).
-
BDS? TDS? Sounds like a close cousin of ODS.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
BDS? TDS? Sounds like a close cousin of ODS.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
No derangement with O; people who disagree with his policies are just racists. Just ask him.
-
No derangement with O; people who disagree with his policies are just racists. Just ask him.
President Obama said that? Really?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
President Obama said that? Really?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Essentially the same thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-opens-up-about-racism-he-faced-in-office_us_5849457de4b0d0aa037f5848
-
Essentially the same thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-opens-up-about-racism-he-faced-in-office_us_5849457de4b0d0aa037f5848
Read the article, not just the headline.
President Obama refers to the very real and systemic problem our society still deals with today. It's hidden beneath a veneer of false pretenses.
But he also flatly says that the mainstream opposition wasn't an issue. It was the fringe groups. You know, folks like the "Birthers."
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Read the article, not just the headline.
President Obama refers to the very real and systemic problem our society still deals with today. It's hidden beneath a veneer of false pretenses.
But he also flatly says that the mainstream opposition wasn't an issue. It was the fringe groups. You know, folks like the "Birthers."
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
I read it. I just didn't read it with the typical liberal slant. ::)
-
If racism was all that rampant how was it the he got elected, twice?
-
If racism was all that rampant how was it the he got elected, twice?
Racist!
-
If racism was all that rampant how was it the he got elected, twice?
It was the anti Hillary vote, just like why Trump won! :)
-
If racism was all that rampant how was it the he got elected, twice?
Because the other candidates were worse.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
BDS? TDS? Sounds like a close cousin of ODS.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Very communicable. New infections occur every election cycle.
-
Because the other candidates were worse.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Not sure they were worse, but they definitely weren't good enough and both were coronated by the republican elite, Trump broke that process, hopefully forever.