People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

Jan 17, 2013 Full story: Reuters 4,995

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joined the gun control debate on Thursday when he told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.

Full Story
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3512 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no difference between the intelligence Bush had and the intelligence Clinton used to bomb Saddam Hussein every other week.
To learn what our actual intelligence capabilities were at the time Clinton left office, search "Bill Clinton CIA human rights purge" to learn how Clinton gutted the CIA. Then, search "FBI charter Clinton foreign intelligence" to learn how Clinton was adopting the Soviet KGB model for our intelligence, combining both foreign intelligence and domestic federal police within the same agency. Then, search "Saddam Hussein UN oil for food" to learn who was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's infrastructure for war.
Coincidentally, it was those same countries rebuilding Saddam Hussien's infrastructure for war and sellling him weapons systems in violation of UN sanctions, and being paid with money Saddam Hussein stole from the UN's oil-for-food scam that were giving Clinton and Bush the intelligence that would keep the 18 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein active, while they were paid with money stolen from the UN's oil for food scam that would only remain active as long as the 18 UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein remained active.
Bush put a stop to that bullshit, didn't he, son?
You're right son. bushie had what Clinton had.

In fact, he had MORE than Clinton and still came to the same conclusion regardless of what he was told.

Even the Aussies knew better. You otoh, only believe what you want to believe since you really can't find much of anything in the real world...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/105...

"A lack of intelligence

May 31 2003

Former analyst Andrew Wilkie. Photo: Andrew Taylor

Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes.

'Intelligence" was how the Americans described the material accumulating on Iraq from their super-sophisticated spy systems. But to analysts at the Office of National Assessments in Canberra, a decent chunk of the growing pile looked like rubbish. In their offices on the top floor of the drab ASIO building, ONA experts found much of the US material worthy only of the delete button or the classified waste chute to the truck-sized shredder in the basement.

Australian spooks aren't much like the spies in the James Bond movies. Not many drink vodka martinis. But most are smart - certainly smart enough to understand how US intelligence on Iraq was badly skewed by political pressure, worst-case analysis and a stream of garbage-grade intelligence concocted by Iraqis desperate for US intervention in Iraq.

It wasn't just the Australians who were mystified by the accumulating US trash. The French, Germans and Russians had long before refused to be persuaded by Washington's line. British intelligence agencies were still inclined to take a more conservative position. And the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, even went so far as to say during a late April interview that "much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been shaky".

So it was no surprise in some of the more mysterious corridors of Canberra last week when news broke about the CIA investigation into the US intelligence failure over Iraq. In fact, there was probably some relief, given the importance to Australian security of having the US intelligence system work properly.

After all, the Australia-US intelligence relationship is supposed to be one of the main reasons for the broader alliance between the two countries...."
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#3513 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Clinton bombed Saddam Hussein for the same reason Bush bombed Saddam Hussien.
And, in case you were in a coma in 2001, the UN authorized the resumption of military operations against Saddam Hussein, which was a direct result of the war having never officially ended due to the UN accepting a truce with conditions Saddam Hussein didn't comply with, before Bush received authorization from the UN and removed him from power and stopped the UN's oil-for-food scam that was rebuilding Saddam Hussein's war machine.
Then, after the UN authorized Bush to resume military action, THE DEMOCRATS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ.
Now, why would you support something then, and condemn it now?
You really are ignorant of history, aren't you?
bushie didn't "bomb" Saddam.

He invaded a sovereign country as an international coalition.

As for the UN approval in 2001, you'll need to point show me your source son. All I recall was Powell being rebuffed.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#3514 Feb 27, 2013
Barack Obama LIED about Obamacare. It's costing trillions of dollars and it's a bureaucratic nightmare. Barack Obama LIED about the stimulus bill. It was the most pork-filled bill in history and it did NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Barack Obama LIED about Unemployment. He hasn't done a damn thing to help unemployment because he's too busy shoveling taxpayer money out to parasitic lemmings through his Socialist agenda. Barack Obama LIED about Gun Control. None of his proposals (or Feinstein's) would have save a single life at Newtown--and semi-automatic rifles ARE NOT F*CKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
Obama the liar. PERIOD.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#3515 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated the person who outed Valerie Plame was guilty of treason.
It's obvious Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame.
Thus, you state Robert Novak is guilty of treason, right?
Say it. "Robert Novak is guilty of treason."
This is a very interesting puzzle pitting two legitimate and competing principles.
Any gov't has the right to defend itself. Part of legitimate national defense is covert agents, their identity protected by law. A law that was violated by some one in the W. White House.
The White House used an unlawful, expedient means of getting rid of a disagreeable opinion.
Then Novak had a jolly time abusing a reporters ability to torment his Democratic foes.
thus if I am a judge and asked to render an opinion I would find that when two opposing legitimate principles clash the choice has to go to the constitution freedom of the press would win out.
The exception would be if Novak had materially damaged the nations security during a war or other emergency.
If a reporter had knowledge of the Manhattan project long before the bomb was developed would the Gov't imperative then over ride free speech.
I believe that it would

To all the other participants
I beg pardon for the base sophomoric posting from earlier..
A tit for tat spitball contest with DBW is no excuse.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#3516 Feb 27, 2013
Overseer58 wrote:
Barack Obama LIED about Obamacare. It's costing trillions of dollars and it's a bureaucratic nightmare. Barack Obama LIED about the stimulus bill. It was the most pork-filled bill in history and it did NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Barack Obama LIED about Unemployment. He hasn't done a damn thing to help unemployment because he's too busy shoveling taxpayer money out to parasitic lemmings through his Socialist agenda. Barack Obama LIED about Gun Control. None of his proposals (or Feinstein's) would have save a single life at Newtown--and semi-automatic rifles ARE NOT F*CKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
Obama the liar. PERIOD.
Get a grip on yourself - since you're hiding your location, from your rant, you either live in the south or mid west - pretty obvious.

Come with proof, or just STFU please!

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#3518 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a grip on yourself - since you're hiding your location, from your rant, you either live in the south or mid west - pretty obvious.
Come with proof, or just STFU please!
So I'm obviously in the South or the Midwest? Wow, you hypocritical JERK! I have to be Southern or Western because I hate Obama's politics? Thanks for proving what we already know: Liberals are the most racist, hypocritical, hateful and judgemental people on earth.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3519 Feb 27, 2013
Overseer58 wrote:
Barack Obama LIED about Obamacare. It's costing trillions of dollars and it's a bureaucratic nightmare. Barack Obama LIED about the stimulus bill. It was the most pork-filled bill in history and it did NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Barack Obama LIED about Unemployment. He hasn't done a damn thing to help unemployment because he's too busy shoveling taxpayer money out to parasitic lemmings through his Socialist agenda. Barack Obama LIED about Gun Control. None of his proposals (or Feinstein's) would have save a single life at Newtown--and semi-automatic rifles ARE NOT F*CKING ASSAULT RIFLES.
Obama the liar. PERIOD.
Huh?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#3520 Feb 27, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Which medical marijuana shop do you frequent? They must be selling you some good shit.
You betcha buddy :-)

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#3521 Feb 27, 2013
Overseer58 wrote:
<quoted text>
So I'm obviously in the South or the Midwest? Wow, you hypocritical JERK! I have to be Southern or Western because I hate Obama's politics? Thanks for proving what we already know: Liberals are the most racist, hypocritical, hateful and judgemental people on earth.
Tell ya what schmuck - stop hioding your location - problem solved.

How fcukin easy is that?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#3522 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell ya what schmuck - stop hioding your location - problem solved.
How fcukin easy is that?
Whatever you say, you racist hypocrite.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#3523 Feb 27, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>Which medical marijuana shop do you frequent? They must be selling you some good shit.
He would give pot a bad name.

He had to be born stupid and it only got worse.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3524 Feb 27, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
Who said WMD never turned up?
Wipe your chin, Donglicker.

WASHINGTON When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday. U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer presented his findings Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration's case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.

Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.

The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."

The report, released four weeks before the presidential election, immediately became political fodder.

Bush's spokesman said the report justified the decision to go to war. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," the president said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A spokesman for opponent John Kerry said the report "underscores the incompetence of George Bush's Iraq policy."

"George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war," Kerry spokesman David Wade added.

"In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

The report resolves disputes about allegations made prior to the U.S. invasion:
Aluminum tubes that the Bush administration alleged were for nuclear weapons production were, in fact, for making conventional artillery rockets.
Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas.
The team found no evidence that Iraq was developing biological weapons trailers or rail cars. Two trailers found after the war were for producing hydrogen gas for weather balloons.

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," a report summary says. "Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

The report's conclusions about Iraq's weapons plans came from interviews with jailed Iraqi officials, including Saddam, who is in U.S. military custody while awaiting an Iraqi war crimes trial. Duelfer quoted Saddam as telling an FBI interrogator "that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them."

The report, which drew on CIA and FBI interrogation reports on Saddam, says he was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.

That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the report, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3525 Feb 27, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
Which medical marijuana shop do you frequent?
Better the marijuana shop than hanging out in bus station bathroom yelling 'phkiesuckie, five and ten' like you, Blowface.

Wipe your chin... you're dripping DNA on the floor again.
pokkoh

Pittsburgh, PA

#3527 Feb 28, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
Whats the Price? people buy more assault weapons,,The Guns Harmless

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#3528 Feb 28, 2013
There was a reason the last ban went away, it was stupid and the people didn't want it.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3529 Feb 28, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right just like the rest of the wingnuz lies.
1. President Obama is soft on terrorism/won't protect the country/is a Muslim sympathizer. From the time Obama took office, he has had to contend with a Republican campaign to portray him as weak on national security. The attacks really took off after the unsuccessful attempt by the "underwear bomber" on Christmas Day 2009, as the Republicans engaged in what Steve Benen brilliantly described as a "collective display of pants-wetting."
But the record shows that Obama has been more aggressive than his predecessor was in targeting and killing terrorist group leaders, including authorizing more drone attacks. But the last couple of weeks really made the Republican scare tactics look downright silly. First, NATO bombed Muammar Gaddafi's home, killing his son. Then, putting nearly 10 long years of frustration to bed, Obama authorized a daring and well-planned operation to kill Osama bin Laden at his retreat in the suburbs of Islamabad.(Remember, George W. Bush didn't prioritize catching or killing bin Laden.)
And while terrorists may be able to strike in the United States no matter what precautions are taken by the president, it is telling that the greatest domestic terrorist attack of the last 100 years took place on Bush's watch (despite being given a memo in August 2001 entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"), but, to date, under Obama, no foreign attacks have been successful on U.S. soil.
2. President Obama wants to raise your taxes....blah... blah... blah... Sen. Richard Shelby, a month before Obama took office, said that attempts to help the auto companies were "only delaying their funeral." But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral home. By 2010, with the auto makers prospering and getting ready to go public again, the WSJ declared the bailout a success.
Here's the facts:
Obama's first orders in Afghanistan were for the US forces to cease combat against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the mountainous region along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ordered US forces to retreat to the population centers. The Taliban and Al Qaeda merely got on the road and followed Obama's retreat.
Then, Obama sends only 2/3 of the forces requested by the commanders in Afghanistan.
Then, Obama gives the Taliban (thus, Al Qaeda) "safe passage" throughout Afghanistan.
Then, Obama promises the Taliban will be part of the future government of Afghanistan.
That's why the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now engaging us at and in the population centers today, when before Obama ordered US forces to retreat the Taliban and Al Qaeda were bottled up in the mountains and immobile, where all of the combat in Afghanistan was occurring before Obama took office.
Obama didn't have a clue to operation to kill bin Laden was even happening. He thought he'd be playing golf all goddam day that day. It was leaked to Valerie Jarrett the operation was happening 40 minutes before the SEAL Team landed in bin Laden's compound, when she issued an abort order with presidential authority (which Panetta ignored) and summoned Obama to her office.
That is the "longest 40 minutes" Obama talks about.
Let's repeat this. Obama didn't have a clue the operation was happening. He thought he'd be playing golf all day that day.
He had to be photoshopped into the photo of the people who actually killed bin Laden because he didn't go to the operations center when Valerie Jarrett summoned him from the golf course. He went to Valerie Jarrett's office.

The tax issue in another post...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3530 Feb 28, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right just like the rest of the wingnuz lies.
... to date, under Obama, no foreign attacks have been successful on U.S. soil.
2. President Obama wants to raise your taxes. These attacks were works of pure fiction, given that Obama campaigned that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000 per year, and would cut taxes on most families below that range. And what did he do? Exactly what he promised. In fact, he went beyond his campaign promise, agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy. The result? The Bureau of Economic Analysis just found that Americans now enjoy their lowest tax burden since 1958. Despite the fear mongering tactics of Republicans who promised the American people Obama wanted raise their taxes, he has been a tax-cutting president.
4. President Obama is a socialist trying to nationalize industries, as evidenced by the automobile bailout. When, shortly after taking office, Obama decided to bail out Chrysler and General Motors to avoid two million lost jobs at a time when the country was already reeling from high unemployment, he was met with criticism from Republicans. Sen. Richard Shelby, a month before Obama took office, said that attempts to help the auto companies were "only delaying their funeral." But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral home. By 2010, with the auto makers prospering and getting ready to go public again, the WSJ declared the bailout a success.
There wasn't a terrorist attack on the United States during Bush's term, idiot. Teh goddam terrorists came here and started training to fly the planes while Clinton was president. The terrorist attacks originated from within the United States, idiot.
Now, how many muslim terrorist attacks in the United States have there been since Obama took office?
Half a dozen? More?

I never called Obama a socialist. Obama is an elitist who was indoctrinated in Marist revolution and communism his entire life. I've always called Obama a Marxist communist.
Shall we go over Obama's mentors during his whole life?

You conveniently ignored Obama taking over the banking industry, dupe. Misdirection toward GM leads the audience in the wrong direction. How about you talk about the Democrats taking over the banks while Obama plays golf and mooches a home in the White House?

Taxes....
How about you answer this question:

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

So far, nobody in the world has been able to answer that question.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#3532 Feb 28, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wipe your chin, Donglicker.
WASHINGTON When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday. U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer presented his findings Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration's case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.
Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.
"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War," the report states.
The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" and the survey team found "no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production."
The report, released four weeks before the presidential election, immediately became political fodder.
Bush's spokesman said the report justified the decision to go to war. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.
"...blah... blah... blah... typical misleading party line bullshit blah... blah... blah...
That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the report, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities.
You forgot to mention the 18 UN resolutions Saddam Hussein was in violation of.
You forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein rebuilt his infrastructure for war and purchased weapons systems with money he stole from the UN's oil-for-food scam.
And, you forgot to mention that Valerie Plame was responsible for all intelligence on Iraq given to the president.
When you mention this, you might want to mention the fact that it was Robert Novak that outed Valerie Plame.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3533 Feb 28, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Well son.
It's still better than what you've presented... which really is nothing but your opinion and questions you want OTHERS to answer to support YOUR claims.
Nothing got blown out of the water except that Kay lied. And he was handpicked by bushie because he didn't want to believe the UN inspector.
Whatever you claim as "fact" regarding Plame is still your opinion. But apparently you feel the longer you repeat it, the more factual it becomes for others. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.
You're still delutional. keep up the good work.
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#3534 Feb 28, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
This alias of yours, like the others, is stuck on stupid.

aujimfraud cry-a-thon: Day 114.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 4 hr Squach 12,064
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot Dec 16 Independent1 4
Open Carry Activist Charged With Shooting Ex-Hu... Dec 13 Here Is One 3
Ferguson braces for grand jury decision Dec 11 Vern5554566 4
Deer Hunting Time Dec 9 kurtcooksalot16 1
Bill would stiffen background checks Dec 8 Independent1 3
SAFE Act PROTEST draws crowd in Lewis County (Jun '13) Dec 7 lowville resident 4
More from around the web