Classyposter58;1658603 wrote:Uh 60 minutes is one of the best true journalistic outputs in America. I would say easily WSJ is #1 but then probably 60 Minutes is #2

BGFalcons82;1658570 wrote:Low Information Voters drool over it!

HelloAgain;1658712 wrote:Fox News viewers typically score the worst on current event tests.

BGFalcons82;1658671 wrote:I highly recommend you find a Youtube of last night's stroking session on 60 Minutes. After watching it, tell us if you believe he was asking hard and probing questions with well-timed follow up rebuttals whenever the King is dodging or simply inventing his "facts" like a journalist should OR was he tossing softballs, nodding in agreement with the King's answers and failing to confront Barry's obfuscations with known facts. Hint: Guess what the first "I" in ISIL stands for vs Barry's constant statements that we are not at war with Islam.

ptown_trojans_1;1658743 wrote:We are at war with a religion? Huh, well, that has always worked out well throughout history.

BGFalcons82;1658753 wrote:My initial point is "Islamic" is in the ISIL name he always uses and nobody calls it out to his face. Sissy-boy Steve is his new name.
Regarding your assertion that Islam is a religion; this also under scrutiny. Sharia Law isn't exactly a prayer, is it? Beheading non-believers is a religious ceremony? Mutilating vaginas is akin to a ceremony like a baptism? The more I learn about their so-called religion, the more I question how their behaviors represent it.

ptown_trojans_1;1658758 wrote:So, just because some use the terms Islamic and take a radical portion of it to its extreme, means everyone who is a Muslim is the enemy?

So, let's play this to the logical conclusion, should we round up all Muslims around the country? Put them in prison, try them for being the enemy?

Should we go guns blazing to all Muslims countries then? Cause that will take a while.
Come on man, you are smarter than that.

ptown_trojans_1;1658804 wrote:Really? Just Google some news articles and you will find your answers. It will take 5 seconds.
Geesh. Amazing.

Classyposter58;1658847 wrote:BGFalcons are you scared of the KKK? I haven't heard you speak out against them and they're the equivalent of groups like Al Qaeda. Obama interview wasn't all bad, he didn't go after him but did you expect him to? Honestly though Obama is a pretty smart dude and I'm not quite sure which interviewer could go after him

Classyposter58;1658847 wrote:BGFalcons are you scared of the KKK? I haven't heard you speak out against them and they're the equivalent of groups like Al Qaeda. Obama interview wasn't all bad, he didn't go after him but did you expect him to? Honestly though Obama is a pretty smart dude and I'm not quite sure which interviewer could go after him

Classyposter58;1658847 wrote:BGFalcons are you scared of the KKK? I haven't heard you speak out against them and they're the equivalent of groups like Al Qaeda. Obama interview wasn't all bad, he didn't go after him but did you expect him to? Honestly though Obama is a pretty smart dude and I'm not quite sure which interviewer could go after him

QuakerOats;1658956 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/29/Report-Obama-Has-Missed-Over-Half-His-Second-Term-Daily-Intel-Briefings


obama misses majority of intel briefings ...........then throws intel under the bus.



Change we can believe in ...

HelloAgain;1658712 wrote:Fox News viewers typically score the worst on current event tests.

ptown_trojans_1;1658804 wrote:Really? Just Google some news articles and you will find your answers. It will take 5 seconds.
Geesh. Amazing.

BGFalcons82;1663779 wrote:The New York Times published this yesterday? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2

So, if the Times says Hussein had chemical weapons... a/k/a Weapons of Mass Destruction... does that exonerate Bush43 and virtually every intelligence agency that said Iraq possessed them?

On another level, how do you feel about your government withholding this vital information from you? We all paid for that war in treasure and trillions of dollars, why are those people elected to represent us keeping us in the dark?

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said.

Many chemical weapons incidents clustered around the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, the center of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s.

ptown_trojans_1;1663797 wrote:No no no. Read.
In the article they even say that all the munitions were from pre-1991, so post Iraq War I.
All the intel and run up to the war was suggesting Iraqi still had a massive complex WMD program that was growing, and a nuclear program. (Which, there was no active nuclear program.)
That has turned out to be false.

There is a difference, but obviously, you did not catch it.



But, your take away from that article was, "Bush was right!"
Boy, poor comprehension there.

On your last point, yeah, I am shocked from the cover up, but does not surprise me really as that time was just chaos and damage control in the DOD

BGFalcons82;1663810 wrote:American troops discovered and came into contact with chemical weapons while in service in Iraq. Period. You want to claim that because they were made years before EXCLUDES them from EXISTING???
The bottom line is that our troops found WMDs in Iraq. That's the story along with the fact our government chose not to tell us.

ptown_trojans_1;1663884 wrote:If you go back and look at the presentations and intelligence statements, they are still largely wrong.

But, to me, that isn't the main story.
Your last sentence is the takeaway. We found old mustard gas from pre-1991 and the DOD, for whatever reason from 2004 to now has chosen to hide it.
Why the hell did the DOD not come forward with this information before?
How many others are out there? How are the impacted people coping now?

I think we both can agree it is a hell of a story and one that needs further investigation. I just don't want to fall in the easy case of "See Bush was right" crowd because the story is much more complex than that.