I Found The Obama Transparency

Barack Obama promised to have a transparent administration. He promised that bills would be posted for five days before they were voted upon and he promised that all his actions would be open to the American public. Unfortunately, since taking office he has been anything but transparent. None of the bills signed have been posted for five days, he has spent a ton of money to keep his birth certificate and college transcripts hidden (regardless of what people think on the subject, that is not transparent), and he is now involved with members of his party who will write the health care reform bill behind closed doors and out of the public’s eye.

Barack Obama is more secretive than Richard Nixon (and that is not the only similarity – enemies list).

But I think I have found the Obama transparency. It is a shocker but I think I have actually found it. Barack Obama has decided to open all of our top secret nuclear weapons sites to the Russians so they can come in and count our nuclear warheads. Barack Obama is being transparent with the Russians and allowing them to snoop around in our most secret and most securely guarded places. He is showing our potential enemies what we have and where we keep it. By G-d, you just can’t get more transparent than that.

Clinton said the U.S. would be as transparent as possible.

“We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered,” she said, calling missile defense “another area for deep cooperation between our countries.” Fox News

I thought Joe Biden was transparent when he disclosed the location of the “undisclosed location” that the VP gets sent to but Obama takes the cake.

Secretary Clinton said that we (the Obama administration) want to make sure that every question the Russians have is answered. Isn’t it amazing that the very people who refuse to answer questions about Obama’s birth certificate are willing to answer any question that the Russians might have with regard to our nuclear weapons?

Isn’t it amazing that the very people who are avoiding the American public, who brushed people off at town hall meetings, who call those with concerns unpatriotic and un-American, who claim that the protests are contrived and are “astro turf”, who cut people off or refuse to allow them to speak are so willing to open their hearts and souls to the Russians?

Can someone explain to me how it is that the Russians, a potential enemy, get free access to our most guarded secrets while American citizens (who, BTW, would NEVER get access to the nuclear sites) are ignored and treated like the enemy?

It should worry all Americans that the Obama Administration has chosen to demonstrate its so called transparency by allowing the Russians access to our nuclear weapons.

The real enemy in this country is Barack Obama and his administration. He and his minions are doing damage to this country at an alarming rate.

Pretty soon we will have Muslim terrorists over here looking at building plans and maps of major cities and subway systems all provided by the Obama administration in the name of transparency (case in point).

Here is an idea for the moron in the White House. How about you stop giving the country away and practice transparency here at home. Instead of giving the Russians free access to our nuclear sites what say you tell them to stay home and instead give the American public unrestrained access to that closed room where you and your henchmen will be cooking up the health care bill?

At the same time, how about doing it all on C Span, something you said would happen when you were lying about transparency…

And since you are so into letting the enemy have a look see, why don’t you invite Fox News to oversee the health care bill writing. You did declare them an opponent so give them the same props you are giving the Russians.

The reset button he gave the Russians has reset us to the 1950s when our government was full of Communists supported by the Democrats. Now the Communists are the Democrats and they are giving away the farm…

Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.
He’s such a rookie and not real skilled
His stupidity will get us killed
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

103 Responses to “I Found The Obama Transparency”

  1. Schatzee says:

    I HATE THAT “song.” It gets in my head and I feel like I am a part of a strange and misled cult…

    This is so outrageous and I can’t believe that the entire country is not up in arms about this. Why on earth would we want to allow ANYONE unfetered access to our nuclear sites? I hate to sound like some conspiracy theorists I’ve read, but it almost seems like he’s trying to take us to destruction.

  2. Barbara says:

    Pinnochio (Obams’s) nose is getting so long and heavy that he is bowed over. Obama is deliberately trashing America and he will let Muslims take over America because he is one. He definitely is not a christian.

  3. Blake says:

    Schatzee, he IS trying to destroy us- let us have no illusions on that ffront- he DID say he was going to “Fundamentally Transform this Country”, he just didn’t say how,
    Well, now we are beginning to see that he is indeed a TRAITOR, pure and simple, as I have said all along- as are many of his followers.
    He is just giving our enemies the keys to our country.
    It may end up taking a generation and a good amount of our population to get back to freedom, because the other powers are going to want to feed off of our carcass.

  4. Jack says:

    Since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!

    • Big Dog says:

      Sure, if Palin’s daughter is really the mother of baby Trig, why not?

      Interesting you should bring up Obama’s birth. This link is to a Kenyan Newspaper and the date is June 27, 2004.

      Read the first line and tell me what you think.

      • Schatzee says:

        I tell you what I think – BUSTED. Of course, they are probably saying it’s a mistake or that they meant his brother was Kenyan-born or something else lame like that. But I personally think that says it all…

  5. Adam says:

    Yes, Obama was in fact born in Kenya. That news paper article with no author and no sources proves it. No, wait, he was Indonesia. That Hawaii staff writer says it so it must be true. Wait, that’s not right, it was Hawaii for sure, we have the birth announcements. Oh jeeze. It’s so confusing! If only somebody official could clear this up for us. That would be so helpful…

    • Big Dog says:

      Birth announcements are no big deal. I had my kids in Louisiana and their births could have been announced in Maryland. In some places the clerk who registers the birth also sends the announcement to the paper. So if a person registered a foreign birth in Hawaii (as they were allowed to do) the clerk would send the birth announcement.

      You guys like to say well sure, they put it in the paper so that he could run for president 48 years later.

      No, his mother had another incentive. She was ensuring that he was registered and it was announced so that he could be shown as an American citizen for the benefits. The issue is, does he meet the natural born requirement.

      He was a dual citizen so he does not.

      And the article is from the Kenyan newspaper. As for your official, I will take the Reagan approach and trust but verify. Her original statement included the words in accordance with Hawaiian law.

      She also certified he was a natural born American citizen, strange choice of words.

      Regardless, how do we know she is not telling the truth? She left herself an out.

      interestingly, the DNC filed papers with each state certifying Obama and Biden as the nominees for the Dems. The original filed with the DNC and signed by them and Pelosi says that they meet the requirements of the Constitution. The ones sent to the states are missing that certification.

      The last thing is, when McCain was questioned about his birth he provided a real, long form birth certificate and the Congress held meetings to decide he was eligible. It was a question and it was answered. Why is it that Obama is not held to the same standard?

      You can trust the government and the politicians but I want the questions answered. They work for me, I do not work for them.

  6. Big Dog says:

    And the piece I linked to was an editorial. I looked at a few other editorials and there are no authors for them either. Maybe it is because it is from the editorial board.

  7. Adam says:

    Kenya or Indonesia: Which is it? I have articles saying both. Which is true, which is false? Or are they both false?

    Obama’s mother could register a foreign birth: Wrong. The law allowing that wasn’t passed until 20 years after Obama was born. Do you have any evidence to verify such a law existed at the time of Obama’s birth?

    Obama’s has dual citizenship: Wrong. It expired in 1984. Do you have any evidence to suggest his expired Kenyan citizenship somehow renders him ineligible?

    Two different documents for certification: Was he not certified to be a candidate or was the document simply wrong to leave out the certification text?

    Most of what you base your case for questioning Obama’s birth on is bogus. Every time you talk about it that becomes clear, just like your recent questions about Obama’s trip to Pakistan.

    • Blake says:

      Actually, those were my questions about his trip to Pakistan, and there are still no answers, so I am still able to speculate at will, with my speculation every bit as valid as any you have- and I wonder if he went to be “radicalized” and is an enemy of the State in reality.

      • Adam says:

        You wanted to know what he was doing, Big Dog wanted to know how he got there. It’s simple how he got there. Your part of it is idiocy of course. You do not base a rational, logical argument on speculation. But we both know you care very little for logic.

        • Blake says:

          I love logic- but in the absence of facts and TRANSPARENCY (Nobama’s attempt at humor), obviously, for there is none, nor has there ever been, from Pakistan to the present.
          Tell your guy to quit lying.

      • Adam says:

        And again for the record I do not speculate on why he went. I just know that a lie has been spread saying Americans could not go to Pakistan at the time so if Obama went he must not be an American. Wrong. That’s just birther garbage. Birthers are as entertaining as they are moronic.

        • Blake says:

          I know you do not speculate, and I respect you for that- but I do- I wonder why he wants it kept secret?
          Did he contract a horrible STD while he was there?
          We do not know.

        • Adam says:

          Frankly I wasn’t really under the impression that he was hiding details about his trip. You want a day by day itinerary or something?

        • Blake says:

          There have been no details about his trip- none- not where he went ( Pakistan is awfully general), not anything he did, or anyone he met.
          That’s not transparent, that’s secretive.
          I can understand if he met some Afghani opium lord, so he could buy enough to pay his way through law school, that he might want to keep that quiet, but still…

        • Adam says:

          Obama has stated he went to Pakistan with a friend to visit that friend’s family. I can’t help it you think transparency in the work of his administration means you get to know the details of everything Obama has ever done in his life.

        • Blake says:

          I think it is hilarious that you even seriously believe there is ANY transparency in this admin at all- nothing could be farther from the truth.
          That is akin to saying cancer is a positive thing.

    • Darrel says:

      What I want for X-mas, fall 2016:

      After eight wonderful years of glorious Obama rule, he’s cleaned up most of the republican messes (as well as any mortal can). As is usual for demo presidents, but not republican presidents, almost all of the indicators we judge presidents by improved.

      And then, some lone American Taliban, you know, Bigdog Blakey types with more guns than brains, storm the state offices in Hawaii. They are finally going to find out the truth. They seize Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim long form birth certificate (probably a yard long at least) and discover… they were right all along! He was born in… Kenya, or Indonesia… or wherever (doesn’t matter).

      But alas, it’s too late.

      Better get busy boys. Do you really want to have a Christmas like that in 2016?

      D.

      • Blake says:

        No, 2012 will do.
        Seriously, I envision a future where you can distinctly tell the difference between a liberal and a normal person, because the normal person is walking and talking, while the liberals’ heads have exploded from the constant pumping of manure into their heads-
        A gigantic Methane fart then vaporizes any primeval brainstem they had left after following Tsar Hussein’s freaky teleprompter rantings.
        Peace and tranquility then followed, and the people grew rich in both spirit and goods.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Well Darrel, you have this vision based upon your deluded idea of America and it is wrong. The idea that Big Dog or Blake have more guns than brains shows your contempt for the culture you came to. Keep that in mind goat boy, you came here.

    We would not do that but we will participate in the next revolution if it means defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I swore to do that and I will.

  9. Big Dog says:

    How do we know that so called State Department document is not a fake like Dan Rather’s Bush memos?

    How do we know they are real? Has anyone verified that? Seems to me you Obamabots call every piece of paper produced garbage but accept as true anyone that you like.

    I am amazed that you would call birthers morons when people like you were so sure that Bush was AWOL from the military which was demonstrably false. And that you people concluded he could not be president if he was AWOL after you worshiped a man that dodged the draft (Clinton).

    Tell me who the real moron is…

  10. Big Dog says:

    Adam, the law at the time allowed foreign births to be registered. As for dual citizenship, that is not a natural born citizen.

    He was born to a Kenyan and that made him British by birth. He held both British and American citizenship then he was not natural born (dual citizenship is not natural born).

    Also, he had to be Indonesian to go to school there. We have seen the papers where he was registered in school there so he must have taken his adoptive father’s citizenship which means he renounced (or his parents did it for him) his American Citizenship.

    He would have to become naturalized and that is not natural born.

    • Adam says:

      You keep repeating these things but showing no proof.

      If the law in Hawaii at the time allowed foreign births to be registered. it then show me the law.

      Show me any US Code or interpretation of the Constitution that states Obama being born in the United States to an American mother but to a Kenyan father makes Obama not a “natural born citizen.”

      Show me proof that Obama was a citizen of Indonesia or where that disqualifies him from being president. Let’s see some facts.

      You pretend you’re not a birther. You just don’t take the government at it’s word, you say. Yet you parrot birther lies overs and over? Get real. You’re a birther and that’s a shame.

      Birthers exist in a world where a few questions about Obama have gotten wrapped in a ton of lies that they spread around the Internet just like you’re doing. Funny how those lies crumble under facts…

      • Blake says:

        I have seen no facts, Adam- come on- produce something verifiable.
        You pretend you are not a socialist, but you take any and everything these moronic marxists say as gospel.
        I thought Demmies were more skeptical of government in general.
        I see that I was wrong- you get on your knees for this guy as fast as Monica did for Bubba.

        • Adam says:

          For the record, when you Big Dog states that a law exists or applies then it is on him to prove that, not me. I know logic is hard for you to grasp though so take it slow.

    • Adam says:

      We call every piece of paper produced garbage? You mean like the Kenyan birth certificate? Birthers are liars. It’s a damn shame you’ve fallen into their garbage.

      • Big Dog says:

        I have fallen into nothing. I just want to see the real birth certificate and if it is what they say the issue will be settled.

      • Adam says:

        Don’t pretend that a lack of a vault copy birth certificate is justification for spreading lies and misinformation about Obama’s origins and travels. You have a right to question those origins. You don’t have a right to smear Obama with your falsehoods. You apparently don’t see the difference though…

  11. Big Dog says:

    You didn’t seem to have much of a problem when people were digging into every aspect of Palin’s Life. Where were you when they were saying her baby was really her grandchild and when they were in Alaska digging through the trash?

    I guess Palin owes us every detail of her life as does McCain who had to prove his citizenship but Obama does not.

    Proof, as Reagan put it, trust but verify…

    • Blake says:

      Amen, brother…….. If it is good for one, it is good for another.
      Adam, at least be consistent- treat Palin with the same regard you expect us to treat Obama, or just shut up, and take it like a man.

    • Adam says:

      Never did I call for or defend the actions against Palin, and you know that.

      I know it’s fun for Big Dog to make up a lie about me and then Blake to ask for me to be consistent, but it would help if I had actually done the thing you’re accusing me of.

      Stop dodging the real subject matter which is your inability to back up your lies about Obama’s origins.

      You keep quoting Reagan with his “trust but verify” and I’m still waiting on you to verify your lies.

  12. Blake says:

    Well, if you are going to take that tack, I have not questioned whether he is natural or not- we are past that – he’s like a pine beetle, burrowing under the bark and killing the tree.
    He is a traitor to America.
    That is a plain, declarative statement that I believe with all my heart. He is harmful to America.
    A Clear and Present Danger.

    • Adam says:

      I don’t recall accusing you of that either. If so let me make it clear that my questions about birtherism are directed at Big Dog who apparently hasn’t met a birther lie he won’t parrot with no evidence to back up his claims.

  13. Adam says:

    Still waiting on evidence you have to prove there was a law on the books when Obama was born that would have let his mother, or his grandmother falsely report to vital statistics or the hospital that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Still waiting on evidence you have to prove Obama’s expired dual citizenship disqualifies him from being president.

    Still waiting on evidence you have to prove Obama was an Indonesian citizen when he went to school and that he renounced his US citizenship to do so.

    Speculate all you want but don’t pretend there is any rational argument there.

  14. Big Dog says:

    What lies?

    I never said that you defended or called for anything, only that you did not speak out against it. You gave approval by being silent.

  15. Big Dog says:

    I never said there was a law on the books that would allow anyone to falsely report that he was born in Hawaii. I said that in Hawaii people were allowed to register foreign births.

    You can look at this American Thinker article which has information on it with links to the appropriate information.

    Lengthy article on natural born citizen.

    Another from the same attorney.

    That attorney said a person born with dual citizenship is not natural born. This was what the framers had in mind as they did not want someone who had allegiance to another country (which is what you have when you are a citizen of a country and the reason the 14th does NOT confer citizenship on those born here to non American parents) running this one. Obama has admitted he was born with dual citizenship (by placing the factcheck on his fight the smears site) so he is not natural born.

    I never said Obama renounced his US citizenship to go to school, I said his parents would have had to do that. He was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and he was registered in an Indonesian school and his Nationality is listed as Indonesian:

    That question has been circulating on the blogosphere with increased fury the past few days, since a photograph emerged of Obama’s school registration papers as a child in Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim nation – showing the presidential candidate listed as a “Muslim” with “Indonesian” citizenship. WND

    The copy of the document is at the site. Up until 2006 dual citizenship was not allowed in Indonesia. It is still not allowed for adults but in 2006 the law was changed to allow children to maintain dual citizenship. Therefore, prior to 2006 dual citizenship was not allowed for anyone. Obama (under his stepfather’s name) is listed as Indonesian probably as a result of his stepfather adopting him (though the adoption evidence is circumstantial) and since he is Indonesian and dual citizenship is not allowed, his parents gave up his US citizenship. Though it is important to note that even if Indonesia did not recognize him as a US citizen, the US would (provided he was one to begin with and that they did not officially renounce citizenship It is one thing to tell Indonesia you are only one citizen but if you tell the US you have given up your citizenship it is quite another).

    I think I answered you questions, or at least the ones that were accurate as to what I said.

    There is no doubt that his stepfather listed him as an Indonesian citizen.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Obama has admitted he was born with dual citizenship (by placing the factcheck on his fight the smears site) so he is not natural born.>>

      DAR
      From your link:

      “The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.”

      It doesn’t get more natural born than that.

      As I told you in July, the last time you tried this…

      14th amendment:

      “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

      Since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen regardless of who the papa is.

      D.
      ————–
      “The docu-ment that Obama posted and showed to FactCheck and PoliFact was confirmed by the two officials of the state when they looked into Obama’s records and found an original birth certificate. (At the time Obama was born Hawaii did not allow foreign birth certificates to be filed.) And subsequently, the spokewoman for the department spoke to the Chicago Tribune and said that the statement by the two officials was proof of birth in Hawaii.”

      LINK

  16. Big Dog says:

    It is only garbage because it does not fit your preconceived notion. You asked for proof, you have it. Sorry it is not what you wanted to hear.

    It could all be cleared up with the long form BC.

    • Adam says:

      The garbage statement was about your comments suggesting my silence is approval. That’s the biggest bunch of crap I’ve seen you say in a while.

  17. Adam says:

    On the first part:

    What the American Thinker fails to note is that HRS 338 was changed in 1982 to allow foreign births registered. You can see the note in 338-17.8 for 1982.

    Which part of HRS 338 that existed in 1961 did Obama’s family use to be able to report the birth and get it on record with Vital Statistics which then was sent to the newspapers for birth announcements for Obama’s 1961 birth?

  18. Big Dog says:

    No, it says the FEE may be charged as established by a 1982 rule.

  19. Adam says:

    Here is an interesting set of arguments showing why the opinion of who is and isn’t a natural born citizen is not as clear cut as you want it to be.

    I find it ironic that you say it will be cleared up by a long form BC at the same time that you argue Obama isn’t eligible even if he were born in Hawaii. This is why the birther issue will never die. No amount of documentation or case law will change your minds.

  20. Adam says:

    “I never said Obama renounced his US citizenship to go to school, I said his parents would have had to do that.”

    Kind of. You state:

    We have seen the papers where he was registered in school there so he must have taken his adoptive father’s citizenship which means he renounced (or his parents did it for him) his American Citizenship.

    There is no evidence Obama renounced said citizenship and case law in this instance does not support the claim that Obama could lose his citizenship as a minor through the actions of his parents or guardians.

    • Blake says:

      Actually, as a minor, he probably could- minors have few real rights, and outside the US, even less. Minors are seen as property of said parents.
      It could happen- whether it did, is, as we can see, a matter for debate.

    • Adam says:

      I’m not sure it is a matter of debate. I’ll match your “probably could” up against my case law saying it does not happen:

      It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.

      Obama clearly returned to the United States after a few years in Indonesia and resumed school in the United States.

  21. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, I clearly showed you the last time that subject to the jurisdiction means that the parents are subject to the country. Aliens, as pointed out by the guy who wrote it, are not subject to the state or jurisdiction. They are subject to the country of their parents’ citizenship. It is clear what the guys who wrote the 14th intended. They told us what they meant by it.

    A dual citizen is not natural born.

    • Adam says:

      Obama is not natural born only if you define natural born as meaning born in the US to two US parents. This view is not supported by all case law. You can talk about intent and such but this subject is not settled at all and in no way as clear cut as you keep pretending it is.

      • Blake says:

        Precisely- it IS NOT settled law, and thus is not clear cut either way.
        It’s almost a “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument here. You have your side, which you see as clearly in favor of Barry Soetoro- we might have doubts, which, because IT IS unsettled law, are valid doubts.

        • Adam says:

          So once again then, what part of “not having substantial evidence to base that claim” means you, or in this case Big Dog, can make the claim?

        • Adam says:

          Your so-called “valid doubts” (which I guess you’re admitting you have now which you tried to dodge earlier) are based on half-truths and outright lies. Don’t pretend this is a matter of neither side being able to prove what they suggest so your questions somehow become valid.

          Let’s review this again for the record:

          Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. We have the COLB released to prove it. We have the birth records reported in the newspaper that week that came from Hawaii vital records. We have the Hawaii department of vital records statement backing up the fact that he was born in Hawaii.

          What do you the birthers have that you keep citing? You have lies telling us Obama was born in Kenya which is not supported by real evidence. You have lies telling us Obama’s mother could have registered a foreign birth in 1961 which she could not have until 1982. You have lies telling us Obama lost his US citizenship in Indonesia despite there being legal precedent stating minors do not lose citizenship based on their parents actions until they come of age and renounce said citizenship. You have lies saying Obama could not go to Pakistan as an American despite the fact that no such travel ban existed. You have lies stating that to be natural born you need 2 American parents despite that idea not being clearly decided by case law.

          Did I leave off any other lies you like to tell?

  22. Blake says:

    Well, for starters, there are the lies about him being born in Hawaii, which a long form would settle- the lies about whether he did or did not attend an Indonesian Madrassa, or renounce his citizenship- Personally, I don’t know- I think at this time it is irrelevant, but when there’s this much smoke, there is usually a fire somewhere behind it.

    • Adam says:

      Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. All actual evidence points in to this. Only fabricated evidence and bogus questions point in other directions.

      For instance you wonder if he attended a “Madrassa” while in Indonesia? He did.
      He has said so in his first book. He attended a Muslim school and a Catholic school while there for 4 years. Of course, “Madrassa” simply means school. Obama never attended some radical terrorist school as the liars at Fox News would have wanted us to believe.

      I’m starting to think you’re equating things that Obama’s stated already to the idea of Obama’s so-called “lack of transparency” simply because you haven’t done your homework.

      • Big Dog says:

        We know that the state of Hawaii will not accept the COLB for some things that take place and it requires the actual long form. You cannot say that she was not allowed to until 1982. The only thing you can ascertain is that the law was changed in some way in 1982.

        As for the evidence of the law I go back to what the guys who wrote the 14th and who defined citizenship had to say. They were very clear on the subject.

        You want homework done then look those guys up.

      • Blake says:

        Perhaps it is in attending this Madrassa, that he got all buddy- buddy with muslims, and forgot that he is SUPPOSED to be the AMERICAN PRESIDENT, not some piece of muslim- infused Euro- trash.

      • Blake says:

        No, Adam, he has a serious lack of transparency- Where’s the bill (ANY Bill) that has been on the internet for five (5) days? Never-
        Where’s the debate we would see on C-SPAN?
        Didn’t occur-
        How many lobbyists are working in his Admin, after he said there would be NONE- I can’t even count how many. LIES.
        I could do this ALL day.

        • Adam says:

          I for one have never expected Obama to be perfect. It is only you who somehow expects the President to live up to his every word said on a campaign trail when actually executing the job of President of the United States is a much different animal.

          He’s broken promises going against things he campaigned for, and many more times he’s compromised on other things He’s also kept a lot more promises that you don’t seem to want to list.

          You attack his transparency because your idea of transparency differs from reality.

          As this article from a few weeks ago states:

          While the Obama administration is clearly more transparent than the previous administration, it still has a ways to go to accomplish what transparency groups recommended for its first 100 days, according to an assessment [3] released today by OMB Watch [4].

          On the plus side, President Obama hit the ground running on transparency issues:

          * Cite transparency in inaugural address [9]. Check. (“As Justice Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.”)
          * Revoke [10] President Bush’s executive order [11] that limited access to presidential records. Check. (Inside his first 100 days, Obama also authorized the release of over 250,000 pages of previously sealed presidential records.)
          * Reverse John Ashcroft’s FOIA memorandum [12] (PDF) that told agencies they had the administration’s backing to withhold information. Check. Obama’s new policy [13] can be summed as, “When in doubt, let it out. [13]”

          The administration has made strides on other transparency issues, the assessment found, but its record so far is not spotless.

          Obama has indeed worked toward transparency, but as the article points out, he has more work to do.

          • Big Dog says:

            I guess it is pretty easy to feign transparency when what you expose to the sunlight is information from the last guy in office. How tough is it to open someone else’s records?

            If Obama wants to be transparent then he should do so with his stuff. He could release his BC and all his college records, that would be transparent.

            I would also like to see the health care takeover bill debated in the opne, on C-Span like he said instead of in a back room where it will be deliberately shut out of the public’s view.

            Adam, if I exposed all your dark secrets (assuming I knew them) would that make me transparent? Putting my own stuff out in the open would make me transparent.

            Obama is real good at making the other guy’s stuff transparent but he lacks that with regard to his own stuff.

  23. Big Dog says:

    There was evidence of WMD in Iraq. Did we find them? We know they were there at one time but not there when we got in. This was proof to you that Bush lied. But the evidence said it was there.

    Now you want us to take the word of people at face value because they said so.

    Isn’t it better to find out now then face the Constitutional crisis that would ensue if the future proves he was ineligible?

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “We know they were there [WMD] at one time but not there when we got in.>>

      DAR
      One time, as in, pre 1992 and the stuff we left in ’92 because it was old. David Kay, Bush’s hand picked guy, said the stuff Saddam had (2003 adventure) was about as dangerous as what I have under my kitchen sink.

      Bigd: This was proof to you that Bush lied.>>

      DAR
      Not for me. I don’t think he lied. I believe Bush sincerely believed he would find them, as did many others (he certainly cherry picked evidence and suppressed material that conflicted with what he wanted to believe). If he knew WMD weren’t there (which would be needed for him to have “lied”), I think he would have brought some along and planted it rather go through the process (as he did) of making a complete fool of himself.

      Bigd: “better to find out now then face the Constitutional crisis”>>

      DAR
      Right now, everything that the birthers have thrown at this has been laughed out of the lower courts. If you have anything of merit why can’t it pass even the most basic muster?

      It’s like with creationism. You can talk a lot, and make stuff up, but when you get in court it FALLS apart. Why? Because in court you actually have to back stuff up and answer questions. And birthers (and creationists) can’t do that. Why? I’ll let Senator Lindsey Graham give the answer.

      D.
      —————-
      “The Senator [Lindsey Graham] called the birther community that questions the president’s U.S. citizenship “crazy” and implored them to “knock this crap off” so the country could get on to more important matters.

      “I’m here to tell you that those who think the president was not born in Hawaii are crazy,” said Graham, who went on to dispel another myth: that Obama is a closet Muslim.”

      etc.

      Link.

      • Blake says:

        And there are some who question Graham’s loyalties- he is as squishy as McCain- so is he just “covering up” for the Resident? If he is a conservative, then McCain is a liberal-both equally unlikely, and leaving us with a politician or two that need to re- evaluate their core principles.

  24. victoria says:

    Dar:Because in court you actually have to back stuff up and answer questions.And birthers (and creationists) can’t do that. Why? I’ll let Senator Lindsey Graham give the answer.
    “The Senator [Lindsey Graham] called the birther community that questions the president’s U.S. citizenship “crazy” and implored them to “knock this crap off” so the country could get on to more important matters.

    Darrel the truth is the truth no matter if some judge or Lindsey Graham or you or anybody else says it isn’t. Time will tell on it all. You say creationists can’t back stuff up. You know something God doesn’t have to back stuff up just to please your arrogant little ass and if you can’t look up and look around and realize that this world and everything in it didn’t just come from some big bang and then four legged creatures crawling out of the primordial ooze well that is your problem. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism and sometimes faith and trust is all you have to go on. As for the birther question as Blake put it there is a lot of smoke not to mention all the absolutely American hating things that the Obamacle is doing because he would rather kiss up to the likes of Putin and Hugo et al.

    • Darrel says:

      VIC: “You say creationists can’t back stuff up.>>

      DAR
      I know categorically, from decades of experience, that they cannot. This becomes especially obvious when they are in court. See the Dover decision or this famous Arkansas case in 1981.

      We recently had a local creationist give a two day presentation in our area. here is what happened when the freethinkers showed up.

      VIC: God doesn’t have to back stuff up>>

      DAR
      But people who make claims for “him” do, and they can’t. No exceptions. And this is all we have regarding any gods. People making claims. For some reason no gods ever show up to make claims themselves. Since there are at least 2,500 gods, and you reject 99.9% of them, I am just a little more consistent in that I don’t make an exception for that last one.

      VIC: everything in it [universe] didn’t just come from some big bang>>

      DAR
      Actually we have several lines of evidence confirming the “big bang.” What evidence do you have that a magical creature made everything out of nothing?

      VIC: It takes more faith to believe in evolution>>

      DAR
      Then why do we find people in church constantly singing about believing things by faith, and no scientists singing in their labs about believing things by faith? I know why. People only appeal to faith when they don’t have any good reasons to believe. Scientists all around the world believe in evolution because of the mountains of straightforward, publicly accessible information. The scientific debate about the truth of evolution ended about 130 years ago. Every question you have about evolution is carefully answered in this simple FAQ. If for some reason it isn’t, simply ask and I can quickly direct you to an answer.

      D.
      ————
      “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

      • victoria says:

        What evidence do you have that a magical creature made everything out of nothing?

        What evidence do you have that nothing suddendly exploded?

      • Darrel says:

        VIC: “What evidence do you have that nothing suddendly exploded?”

        DAR
        I didn’t and wouldn’t say “nothing suddenly exploded.”

        Here a few lines of evidence for the Big Bang:

        a) Large-scale homogeneity
        b) Hubble Diagram
        c) Abundances of light elements
        d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
        e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
        f) Large-scale structure of the universe
        g) Age of stars
        h) Evolution of galaxies
        i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
        j) Tolman tests
        k) Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect
        l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
        m) Dark Matter
        n) Dark Energy

        Some of these were predicted by BB theory and have since been confirmed.

        Each one of the above is carefully explained, in laymen’s terms here.

        What’ve you got? Genesis 1:1?

        D.
        ——————
        “The point is that faith, even moderate faith, is pernicious because it teaches that believing something without evidence is a virtue.” –Dawkins

        • Big Dog says:

          How do you know that when G-d said “Let there be light”, he did not initiate the Big Bang?

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “How do you know that when G-d said…”>>

          DAR
          God [assumption] said [assumption] something and this initiated [assumption] something?

          Any support for those assumptions? I would like to see it.

          The less unsupported assumptions (Occam’s Razor), the better.

          D.
          ————–
          “All religions die of one disease, that of being found out.” –John Morley

        • victoria says:

          “In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler.”

          I read your link and that is the best you can come up with. That is very pathetic and you want to put me down for believing “In the beginning God created…..”
          “The point is that faith, even moderate faith, is pernicious because it teaches that believing something without evidence is a virtue.” –
          There is plenty of evidence that God exists–you just don’t want to face it. You would rather believe that everything is here by chance or somehow evolved without there being an intelligent designer. Far be it from me to try and argue with you either. I think I said before time will tell who is right here. There is a word that comes after the word evolution and the words big bang which all you atheistic mockers completely ignore and that is the word THEORY. Hey, I am just saying…..

        • Darrel says:

          VIC: I read your link and that is the best you can come up with.>>

          DAR
          Cosmology is a young science. 14 lines of evidence is a good start. And there is no competition. What do you have? Nothing.

          VIC: There is plenty of evidence that God exists…>>

          DAR
          Okay, let’s see just a tiny bit of it.

          VIC: Far be it from me to try and argue with you either.>>

          DAR
          As you say while arguing with me.

          VIC: I think I said before time will tell who is right here.>>

          DAR
          Promises promises.

          VIC: There is a word that comes after the word evolution… the word THEORY.>>

          DAR
          This is a common misunderstanding and we covered it in June. Perhaps you weren’t here.

          The idea that the earth goes around the sun is a scientific “theory,” and it’s also fact. Do you believe the sun goes around the earth or do you think their is some question about that?

          “Theories” are actually the *goal* of science. Because theories, in science, tell us, explain to us, how things work (“laws” just tell us how things are).

          The idea that the earth goes around the sun is a theory, and a fact. Just like evolution. There has been no scientific challenge to evolution for at least 130 years. There is no other game in town. Our knowledge about cosmology is much younger and more tenuous than the thousands of lines of evidence for evolution, but again, it’s the only game in town. No one has any good evidence contradicting the lines of evidence I provided (there are lots of questions about some of them). This is why the BB is currently accepted as the prevailing theory.

          What have you got?

          D.
          —————-
          “Many theories have become established as fact. Doctors are certain of germ theory–that various germs cause a number of ailments. Astronomers are certain of the heliocentric theory of the solar system–the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system. Geologists are certain of the plate tectonic theory–that continents and sea floor are moving on large chunks of the earth’s crust. And biologists are certain that all living things share a common ancestor.”

          Victoria, science uses the word “theory” in a specialized way which is entirely compatible with “fact.” This is an important thing to know if you are going to talk about science.

        • victoria says:

          You know what Darrel just because the earth goes around the sun does not in any way prove BB or evolution. Evolution has never been proven as fact. Maybe in your mind or in some other atheistic scientist mind but that doesn’t prove anything either. As I said one has to do with there being a God and one has to do with there being no God and man actually being his own God and doing what he feels like doing.
          “All religions die of one disease, that of being found out.” –John Morley
          Atheism is a religion.

        • Darrel says:

          VIC: just because the earth goes around the sun does not in any way prove BB or evolution.>>

          DAR
          Of course. But it proves that in science the word “theory” is used in a way that is not incompatible with “fact.” Try not to make this mistake again.

          VIC: Evolution has never been proven as fact.>>

          DAR
          Actually it has, 10,000 times over. The modern American ignoramus doesn’t believe in evolution for one of two reasons:

          a) they don’t understand it, complete ignorance

          b) they won’t allow themselves to believe it because they think it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

          Often both. I can help you with the first, not so much the second.

          VIC: Atheism is a religion.>>

          DAR
          Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. That’s it. You are an atheist with regard to thousands of gods. I just don’t make an exception for that last one. This is because they all have the same level of evidence for them. None. Best to be consistent.

          D.
          ———-
          “OK, if there is no God, who changes the water?” –one goldfish to another

        • victoria says:

          “But it proves that in science the word “theory” is used in a way that is not incompatible with “fact.” Try not to make this mistake again.”

          That is an absolute load of crap.

  25. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, there were WMD in Iraq up until before we invaded.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Darrel, there were WMD in Iraq up until before we invaded.”>>

      DAR
      True, but only in the sense that I have WMD under my kitchen sink.

      This is sort of ancient history now but let’s review it again:

      ***
      Saddam had no WMD for a decade, report says
      Thursday, October 07, 2004
      By Bob Drogin and Greg Miller
      Los Angeles Times

      WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion last year, according to a comprehensive CIA report released yesterday.
      Saddam intended to someday reconstitute his illicit programs and rebuild at least some of his weapons if United Nations sanctions were eased and he had the opportunity, the report concluded. But the Iraqi regime had no formal, written strategy to revive the banned programs after sanctions, and no staff or infrastructure in place to do so, the investigators found.

      The 1,000-page report by Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group weapons-hunting teams, is the most definitive account of Iraq’s long-defunct weapons programs and comes as the presidential campaign increasingly is focused on President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq primarily to disarm Saddam of suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”

      Seattletimes

      Oh, and if Iraq did have WMD as you say, shouldn’t someone have told this guy?

      “And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet.”
      G.W. Bush, Prime Time Press Conference #3, White House, Apr. 13, 2004
      Link

      “I wasn’t happy when we found out there wasn’t weapons, and we’ve got an intelligence group together to figure out why.” –GW Bush, second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Missouri, Oct. 8, 2004

      Seems to me, if your claim was defensible, the person most invested in agreeing with you would be him.

      D.
      ———–
      “We have not found yet, and I’m sure you know this, otherwise you would know it earlier, we have not found at this point, actual weapons.”
      (David Kay, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, October 3, 2003).

  26. victoria says:

    Big Dog I received this email from a friend a while ago:
    Interesting Update on WMD – the real story

    Note: Verification link to MSNBC story at bottom of page.

    On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq .

    The opening paragraph is as follows:

    The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program – a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium – reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad , and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

    See anything wrong with this picture?

    We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, ‘Bush lied.’

    Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

    It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq .

    They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it.

    It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site, with large sand beams surrounding
    the site.

    This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere.

    Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story?

    Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

    This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush’s war motives all along.

    Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said, ‘The removal of 550 metric tons of ‘yellowcake” – the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment – was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy.’

    Closing the book on Saddam’s nuclear legacy?

    Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all?

    I thought Bush lied?

    As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

    Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism, and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact-finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger.

    The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose, but needed proof.

    During his trip to Niger , Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger , Ibrahim Assane Mayaki.

    Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in expanding commercial relations’ for the purpose of purchasing yellowcake_.

    Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki’s remarks, and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger .

    However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.

    Outraged by Bush’s insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in
    the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

    Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger .

    The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson , and supported Mayaki’s claim.

    This meant nothing to Wilson, who was opposed the Iraq war, and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister’s statements.

    It was a simple tactic, really.

    If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger , it would undermine President Bush’s credibility, and give them more cause for asking what other ‘lies’ he may have told.

    Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister’s
    statements, and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake
    was ‘unequivocally wrong.’

    Curiously, the CIA sat on this information, and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim.

    This was made public in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report in July 2004.

    Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign, by spreading the notion that the Bush administration ‘outed’ her as a CIA agent.

    Never mind that it was Richard Armitage — no friend of the Bush administration — who leaked Plame’s identity to the press.

    Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

    The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media, and
    their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration

    Now that Saddam’s uranium has been made public, and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong?

    Don’t count on it.

    The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam’s uranium.

    As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that Bush ‘lied’, we should tell them to ‘Have the yellowcake and eat it too.’

    This story was verified, If you want to see it, click on the link below.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

    If you wish more confirmation, check out on SNOPES:http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS244US244&q=Secret+U%2eS%2e+mission+hauls+uranium+from+Iraq

    • Blake says:

      Good one Victoria- lets see Dar knock this down- he will say something like , “Well, it was degraded yellowcake” or some qualifier that makes it seem like there was no big deal.
      I’ll bet there is still chem and bio weapons out there somewhere. God help the goatherder who stumbles on that.
      One gallon (size of a paint can) of bio weapons would be all that is needed.
      Iraq is the size of California- can you imagine how hard it would be to find a paint can(s) in an area that big?

      • victoria says:

        Well, he certainly can’t cry about it coming from rightwing source either.

      • Big Dog says:

        Biologicals are hard to weaponize, especially by people without specific training and without specialized equipment. It is not impossible, just difficult to have any effect. You can spread some Anthrax spores and kill a few people but people can’t catch inhalational anthrax from each other and the effect is not big enough to get a lot of reaction.

        Chemical agents are a bigger problem. They are hard to disperse without specialized equipment but they are dangerous. Nerve agents are lethal in minute amounts.

        We know Hussein had mustard agent [Bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide] (it is not mustard gas even though it is called that) and that he had nerve agents. He used mustard on the Iranians and the nerve agents on his own people.

        The question is, where did it all go. Darrel buys the line that he had old stuff from the 90s but this is not the case. He produced chemical agents for some time.

        Like I said, where did it go. You cannot just get rid of it and it does not degrade terribly in relatively short periods of time. Any method of getting rid of it would have left evidence.

        The US is spending billions of dollars getting rid of the agents that we have under the treaty we signed. It takes special equipment and trained people. You can’t just dump it in the desert or burn it in the open air without leaving some sort of evidence (and endangering people).

        So where did it go?

        Syria…

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “So where did it go? Syria…”>>

        DAR
        Before you can show something went somewhere, you first have to show… it was there.

        D.
        —————–
        “[i]t turns out that we were all wrong” and “I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons there.”
        –David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group and Bush’s hand picked weapons inspector

    • Darrel says:

      VIC: “now that 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.”>>

      DAR
      You apparently you didn’t read your own article carefully. Note, it says:

      “Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.”
      –your MSNBC article above

      So:

      1) this stuff wasn’t “now” “discovered,” we’ve known this stuff was there since around *1981.*

      2) it was so innocuous we didn’t even bother to take in the first Gulf war (or the second)

      3) it was under UN oversight

      4) while it’s chemically dirty stuff, you wouldn’t want it in your cornflakes, but it wasn’t remotely weaponized or in it’s condition anything to do with a bomb or even WMD.

      VIC: “[Wilson] concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was ‘unequivocally wrong.’>>

      DAR
      Bush’s claim in that speech (not his own, he was just reading what was handed to him), was wrong. The documents they relied upon for Bush’s comment in that speech were crude forgeries and this has been shown over and over including by the FBI. Note:

      “…it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were “in fact not authentic”.

      The more interesting question is why the US was so dumb/misinformed about this.

      Lot’s more than this here Niger uranium forgeries.

      VIC: “check out on SNOPES…”>>

      DAR
      Well, I figured it out on my own (by reading your article) but I see your snopes article also makes the very same point I just did above.

      So why do you quote a snopes article that refutes your point? Here’s the link:

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

      This probably goes on the pile of “milk that was spilled” a long time ago. And it was spilled in Bush’s lap.

      D.

      • Blake says:

        see? I KNEW this twit would mealy- mouth some excuse about this – Oh, it’s not Sufficiently weaponized, it was left- over from before-
        It is called “prior possession”, D-they had it- the fact that it wasn’t new is not in contention- the fact that they had it AT ALL is.
        If you have a gun, sooner or later, you will want to take it out and test fire it.
        am sure that CBW or atomics are no different. Use your head.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “am sure that CBW or atomics are no different.”>>

        DAR
        Yellow cake isn’t WMD. Get a clue.

        If you would like to respond to my points, please try. I numbered them for your convenience.

  27. Big Dog says:

    Wilson’s claims have already been debunked. Hussein had people trying to buy yellow cake.

  28. Big Dog says:

    You have to show it was there? We know it was there, he used it. We know he had it so where did it go?

    I can tell you without a doubt and based on years of experience that you cannot destroy it without leaving a trace.

    He had it there and an Iraqi AF General told us he moved stuff to Syria.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: We know it was there,>>

      DAR
      Actually, we know it wasn’t there. Ask Bush.

      Bigd: he used it.>>

      DAR
      In the eighties. Old stuff under UN supervision doesn’t count.

      Bigd: We know he had it so where did it go?>>

      DAR
      The old stuff was were we left it the first time. There was no new stuff. See the comprehensive 1,000 page CIA Duelfer report which concluded:

      Saddam had no WMD for a decade.

      Bigd: you cannot destroy it without leaving a trace.>>

      DAR
      You’re right. But you don’t have to destroy it when it doesn’t exist.

      D.
      ——————-
      “Saddam Hussein did not produce or possess any weapons of mass destruction for more than a decade before the U.S.-led invasion…” –ibid

      • Big Dog says:

        Right, and Duelfer was lying when he said that they could not rule out the possibility that it was moved to Syria.

        Yes, he had the plants and he produced the agents. Hid general, who was there, said that he moved it to Syria. Who will you believe? The person who was there or an inspector who looked after the fact?

      • Big Dog says:

        Did he say that it was not there or that we never found it?

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “Duelfer… said that they could not rule out…”

        DAR
        So in the end, the foundation of your incredibly weak case is found to be based upon the thin reed of “could not rule out.” While we can’t “rule out” that a teapot is in orbit around Pluto, this is hardly a reason to believe one is.

        D.

  29. victoria says:

    Here is an article about this. Two important points in this article are Bush did not say anything about Niger in his speech. And British Intelligence has never been refuted which is what Bush sited in his speech.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/deconstructing_the_niger_affai.htm

    I should have examined this further before posting that previous post–my mistake.

  30. Big Dog says:

    I believe the report you cite has information in it that says that there were chemical WMD.

    So the very people you call liars are now credible when they say it was not there?

    All the reports say is that we found none and that none are there but not that they were never there.

  31. Big Dog says:

    If you could prove religion it would not be called faith. People who believe are no more or less sane than those who do not.

    There are plenty of scientists who believe in God and they do fine work.

    Those who discount others because of beliefs are no better than those who discount someone because of what color he is.

  32. Big Dog says:

    The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

    The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

    “There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,” Mr. Sada said. “I am confident they were taken over.”

    Source

    From the Duelfer report:

    Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq, stating “ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place” but also acknowledging that there was evidence “about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved,” and that this evidence was “sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.” IAG noted that, due to security concerns, it “was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war.”

    Unlikely that and OFFICIAL transfer took place (or as the General said, secreted out) and Duelfer says that there is evidence of a transfer that might have included WMD and that they cannot rule it out.

    That is from the addendum to the report.

    Yes, this is all old news and there will never be any conclusive proof one way or the other. The only thing for certain is that we did not find them in Iraq. This does not prove that they were never there and it does not prove that they were there, it just proves they were not there when we went in.

    All the reports indicate that people “suspect” they were not there and the use of other terms that are not definitive. They are mostly people surmising based on inconclusive information.

    All I am saying is if there were destroyed, where is the evidence that they were? If he did not have them why did his General tell us that they existed and were moved to Syria?

  33. victoria says:

    Here is another article I found.

    Prior to the left deciding that the whole WMD argument was a lie (and part of the larger BUSH LIED!!! meme), there was this 2003 news report:

    In the suburbs about 18 miles south of the capital’s suburbs, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings — workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors, libraries and barracks — that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.

    Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago…

    …Yesterday, Hamza expressed great surprise that the underground site could even exist. The ground there is muddy and composed of clay, he said. The water table is barely a foot and a half below the surface of the ground. During construction of one of the former nuclear reactors there, French engineers spent a fortune pumping water from the foundation area, only to see buildings crumble when the water was removed.

    Hamza said the French built a reactor at Al-Tuwaitha that Israel destroyed in 1981. The Russians built a reactor that was destroyed during the Gulf War. Both had the muddy ground to contend with.

    So the Marine’s discovery makes the former atomic inspector wonder if the Iraqis went to the colossal expense of pumping enough water to build the underground city because no reasonable inspector would think anything might be built underground there.

    Nobody would expect it,” Hamza said. “Nobody would think twice about going back there.”

    Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

    “The plutonium processing was dispersed on-site by the bombing in 1991,” said Michael Levi, the Federation’s director. “But the Iraqis started to rebuild it. And they continued building there after 1998, when the Iraqis ended the inspections.

  34. victoria says:

    Darrel–Still waiting on your evidence that in the beginning nothing suddenly exploded.

  35. Big Dog says:

    The Big Bang is an assumption…

  36. Big Dog says:

    No Darrel, my information comes from other sources. I am not at liberty to disclose them to you.