Oil Spill Devastation

[Rockindeano]

Dude, there are multiple sources in each article. It's too painstaking.

No there are MULTIPLE OPINIONS in EVERYTHING you post. EVERYTHING. You post nothing but left wing fucking nutjob opinion pieces and call them sources. TNC at least TRIES to find things that are neutral.

You're wrong here. 7 is as fair as fair gets. He just gets you narrow minded Cons all bubbly and shaken up because you get lost in yourselves. Next thing you'll tell me is FactFinder is fair and balanced.

By the way, are you disputing W didn't plan this war before he took office?

[G.I.Jim]

Dude, there are multiple sources in each article. It's too painstaking.

You coming up for any shows this summer? We're going to Atlanta for the Scorpions & Ratt and Rush. Petty - up here.

No, I'm not planning to catch ANY shows this year. I just haven't really been in the mood for concerts this year for some reason. I haven't seen anything out there that I'm jumping up and down to see yet. Now about those sources... I'm not calling you out, but I WOULD like to see the sources for those statements.

[7 Wishes]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]

But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?

“I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”[/b]

[7 Wishes]

Sorry to hear that, Jim.

Stuart, this has been common knowledge for years. Where the fuck have you been hiding?

This is brand new...put it in your corn cob pipe and smoke it, Stewie.

[url]
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/130384
[/url]
A hearing on the UK's involvement in the Iraq War has reportedly revealed that the U.S. was discussing plans -- less than a month after the Bush administration took office -- to invade Iraq, and the UK government reportedly 'distanced itself' from talk of removing Saddam Hussein in early 2001 despite concerns about his threat.

According to testimony from officials, the British government was aware of Washington's drum beats of war with Iraq immediately after the inauguration of former President George W. Bush, long before the attacks of 9/11. Britain was opposed to military involvement at that time.

The decision to deploy British troops -- which was later met with charges that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, who will be a future witness in the hearings, had misled the country into believing that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction -- faced strong public opposition in the UK.

Hundreds of pages of reports obtained by the Sunday Telegraph reportedly reveal that Tony Blair covered up British military plans for a full Iraq invasion throughout 2002. Blair lied to parliament and the public when he said that Britain's objective was 'disarmament, not regime change.'

[RossValoryRocks]

You're hilarious.

My posts DO contain IRREFUTABLE information and sources.

Just because it shoots down your ridiculous posts full of holes doesn't make them viable.

Fuck's sake, man. I could have Dubbya himself tell you he had rigged the Iraq war in 2001, in person - and you would still say the source was unreliable.

SAYING it's not a viable source does NOT make it so, merely because it makes you look the fool, Stuart.

Bwahahahaha...IRREFUTABLE? Bullshit...and the only one who looks the fool is you asshole.

You are nothing but a Bush obsessed fucktard who couldn't correctly cite a reputable source to save your life.

Your pedantic rants about Bush and your desire to place the blame for the failures of the democrats on ANYONE but them has led you to such wonderous a notch above the Inquirer souces as opinion pieces for the Huffington Post...YEAH real unbiases and irrefutable.

[RossValoryRocks]

Dude, there are multiple sources in each article. It's too painstaking.

No there are MULTIPLE OPINIONS in EVERYTHING you post. EVERYTHING. You post nothing but left wing fucking nutjob opinion pieces and call them sources. TNC at least TRIES to find things that are neutral.

You're wrong here. 7 is as fair as fair gets. He just gets you narrow minded Cons all bubbly and shaken up because you get lost in yourselves. Next thing you'll tell me is FactFinder is fair and balanced.

By the way, are you disputing W didn't plan this war before he took office?

I wasn't commenting on Fact Finder...and since I wasn't privy to the meeting before the he took office I couldn't tell you what his plans were, but then again neither can you. Of course like 7 the only thing you have offered is your opinion backed by the most left wing sources you can find.

7 is about as FAIR as you are in your politics.

[7 Wishes]

Bwahahahaha...IRREFUTABLE? Bullshit...and the only one who looks the fool is you asshole.
You are nothing but a Bush obsessed fucktard who couldn't correctly cite a reputable source to save your life.

Dude, this is common knowledge! WTF?!!

Now the Telegraph and CBS are biased sources, but the Globe is reliable? You are so far out in right field, man.

[G.I.Jim]

Dude, there are multiple sources in each article. It's too painstaking.

No there are MULTIPLE OPINIONS in EVERYTHING you post. EVERYTHING. You post nothing but left wing fucking nutjob opinion pieces and call them sources. TNC at least TRIES to find things that are neutral.

You're wrong here. 7 is as fair as fair gets. He just gets you narrow minded Cons all bubbly and shaken up because you get lost in yourselves. Next thing you'll tell me is FactFinder is fair and balanced.

By the way, are you disputing W didn't plan this war before he took office?

By the way, are you saying Bill didn't buy that box of cigars on purpose? I've said it before and I'll say it again... one of the terrorists that flew the plane into the WTC was captured by our Special Forces during Clinton's administration (along with ten other terrorists), and Clinton ordered their release.

[7 Wishes]

Hey, Bubba's hands aren't clean at all. He didn't get the job done, either.

[Rockindeano]

Stu,

7 just posted an article by CBS News...a neutral source if there was any...and they interviewed Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary. He spoke about the Bush Administration first hand. What is there not to see here? He speaks of the need and want to go after Saddam 10 days after the inauguration....which means this idea was being brainstormed as far back as possibly the Austin, Texas Governor's mansion. Read it!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/ ... 2330.shtml
(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]

But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?

“I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”[/b]


I mean c'mon! It's right here!

[RossValoryRocks]

Bwahahahaha...IRREFUTABLE? Bullshit...and the only one who looks the fool is you asshole.
You are nothing but a Bush obsessed fucktard who couldn't correctly cite a reputable source to save your life.

Dude, this is common knowledge! WTF?!!

Now the Telegraph and CBS are biased sources, but the Globe is reliable? You are so far out in right field, man.

Go back and look at the sources you posted: Capitol Hill BLUE? Tom's Dispatch??? Those AREN'T sources, they are opinion pieces...akin to Fact Finder posting a Hannity article.

[RossValoryRocks]

Stu,

7 just posted an article by CBS News...a neutral source if there was any...and they interviewed Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary. He spoke about the Bush Administration first hand. What is there not to see here? He speaks of the need and want to go after Saddam 10 days after the inauguration....which means this idea was being brainstormed as far back as possibly the Austin, Texas Governor's mansion. Read it!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/ ... 2330.shtml
(CBS) A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]

But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?

“I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”[/b]


I mean c'mon! It's right here!

Ok..1 source in 300 he has posted...even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion.

And the STATED position of the US Government from the Clinton Administration was regime change...If that is what Bush did then he was following years of precedent.

[7 Wishes]

Dude, they are just re-postings of articles written by major news organizations.

Stop trying to change the subject. I've already proven you wrong.

Now, get back to wallowing in your crapulence...don't keep Limp Dick O'Reilly waiting too long. That is why you spent $25 on that strawberry flavored cock gel, after all.

[Rockindeano]

Ok..1 source in 300 he has posted...even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion.

And the STATED position of the US Government from the Clinton Administration was regime change...If that is what Bush did then he was following years of precedent.

1st, don't try to deflect from the pointed question about Bush/Saddam. It's irrefutable that Saddam was being thought of prior to being "given" the election.

2nd, I don't really care what the Clinton folks said, they didn't act on anything did they? Going to war is not some type of Playstation 3 that Bush thinks it is.

[RossValoryRocks]

Ok..1 source in 300 he has posted...even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion.

And the STATED position of the US Government from the Clinton Administration was regime change...If that is what Bush did then he was following years of precedent.

1st, don't try to deflect from the pointed question about Bush/Saddam. It's irrefutable that Saddam was being thought of prior to being "given" the election.

2nd, I don't really care what the Clinton folks said, they didn't act on anything did they? Going to war is not some type of Playstation 3 that Bush thinks it is.

Oh NOW who is fogging the issue here??? GIVEN the election?? EVERY post election analysis shows that if they had continued to count using Gores method Bush would have won by MORE votes. The blue-hairs buyers remorse about Nader doesn't allow them a do over AFTER they cast their vote.

Following your logic in #2...at this point I could CARELESS if Bush is/was Satan himself...Obama is as BAD or worse...and the Democrat controlled congress is just pushing us further down a road that Bush started us on...and YOU APPLAUD? Talk about and the band played on?

[7 Wishes]

Wrong again, Stewie.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-01.htm

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

[treetopovskaya]

watching shepard smith. looks like they have capped the leak... so far it seems no oil is leaking... good news... but... time will tell. }:C)

*praying*

[Rockindeano]

Finance Reform Bill passed. Go eat dicks Cons. Again, how can republicans be against this? Unbelievable.

[conversationpc]

Finance Reform Bill passed. Go eat dicks Cons. Again, how can republicans be against this? Unbelievable.

It's a bill of goods and even the Huffington Post thinks as much...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 87728.html

[7 Wishes]

It's the standard "this isn't liberal enough" mantra from the far left. Yawn.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Anybody wanna eat their words around here?

Given that these microbes have stunned the world scientific community, I'd say that most people's reaction to the crisis was appropriate. Don't pretend like you knew everything would turn out ok. Blind faith and optimism did little to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill. IMO something doesn't smell right. I think these microbes were engineered in a lab somewhere at the Pentagon.

[BobbyinTN]

Anyone that believes reports financed by BP about the oil spill is more than just a little naive.

And I wouldn't trust what DC has to say about it either.

That oil doesn't just disappear and the devastation will be felt for years.