Michele Bachmann’s Ridiculous “Values” Speech is the Most Absurd Thing You’ll See All Day (Video)

bachmann-mothers-dayIn my opinion, Michele Bachmann epitomizes nearly everything for which the tea party stands. She’s a radical, right-wing Christian who lives in a world of delusion, where “facts” aren’t based on reality – but what she wants to be real.

It’s why you can’t get anywhere with these tea party Republicans. You can’t use facts, logic or even reality to convince them of anything because nothing matters outside of what they want to be factual, logical or real. And if they disagree with the truth, then that truth simply becomes lies.

And that’s exactly what Michele Bachmann epitomizes.

Her recent speech at the radical right-wing “American Values” event showcased just how ridiculous this woman is.

Here are just a few things she said during this speech:

“Well, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we want our 1980s foreign policy back! Peace through strength! Peace through strength! We don’t want your failed ‘Russian reset’! We don’t want four Americans dead in Benghazi!”

“Unbelievably, we have the first anti-Israel president in American history.”

“And I believe if you have an evil of an order of this magnitude, you take it seriously. You declare war on it, you don’t dance around it. Just like the Islamic State has declared war on the United States of America. You kill their leader, you kill their councils, you kill their army until they wave the white flag of surrender. That’s how you win a war!”

She wants our 80’s foreign policy back, huh? When we were “safe”?

Here’s a list of a few of the attacks against Americans during the 1980’s:

  • April 18, 1983 bombing of an American embassy in Beirut: 17 Americans dead
  • October 23, 1983 Marines barracks bombed in Beirut: 241 Marines killed
  • December 12, 1983 bombing of American embassy in Kuwait: 6 people dead
  • September 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut: 24 people killed, 2 U.S. military personnel

And let’s not forget that during this time the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and the United States then fought a proxy war arming Afghani “freedom fighters” – who later turned out to be some of the same terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Oh, and we also supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war and sold illegal arms to Iran.

That’s some real “cracker jack” foreign policy, let me tell ya.

It’s amazing. Four Americans tragically die in Benghazi and conservatives pretend to act like that’s the most horrific event in United States history. When the truth is more Americans have died in the last 3+ decades while Republicans have been president than they have when a Democrat has sat in the White House.

Republicans also seem to get confused with the Soviet Union crumbling around that time as a “sign” that Reagan was some powerful leader. Well, I hate to break it to these people, but Reagan had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union. That was bound to happen with or without Reagan. He just became president at the right time.

As for the rest of Bachmann’s absurd speech, it’s just more of the same nonsense you’ll hear from most conservatives.

I find it funny how much respect they give to ISIS. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but it’s the ultimate sign of disrespect that Obama isn’t treating them like their own “state.” He’s treating them like terrorists. And you don’t “declare war” on a group of terrorist thugs.

Besides, Congress declares war. House Republicans could easily bring that up for a vote if that’s what they wanted to do. They don’t need President Obama to ask for it. But we don’t see them doing that now, do we?

And trust me on this, no matter how much we go after ISIS militarily, they will never “wave the white flag.” Because that’s really the difficult part with fighting terrorism. You don’t just take out a few leaders, conquer a couple of capitals and the “war is over.”

The war against terrorism will never be over. 

But Bachmann was just being Bachmann. And by that I mean she used this opportunity at this event to pander to the most ignorant among us: tea party Republicans.

Watch her speech below via C-SPAN


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Michelle F. Becker

    she will be gone soon, but not soon enough

    • Jim Valley

      And someone will take her place right away. There is an endless supply of right-wing nutjobs in America. That’s why we are gradually descending into Third World status.

      • John Conaway

        Interesting how the situations in America and in ISIS mirror one another: there is an endless supply of nutjobs in either place. You kill one, three more appear!

        Whack-a-mole games come to mind….

      • Ivan Renko

        You kill one, three more appear!

        Dumber statement than anything Michele Bachmann has ever said.

  • crispin

    She should go to see ISIS maybe we would get lucky and she would be beheaded.

    • Nemisis

      That’s a rather disgusting comment.
      She is still an American, still a person.
      Even if she is a despicable person.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        On the other hand, those who want us to go to war so badly never offer up their own kids to do the fighting.

      • Cemetery Girl

        True, but it is still disgusting to wish such a horrible death on her. Besides, that would just make her a martyr. Can you imagine the outrage if we didn’t immediately go on a mission to wipe out the Middle East because a beloved politician was beheaded?

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        I prefer her to love a long life and to continue to remind us liberals —through her seemingly endless idiocies– that we indeed are riding the crest of the proper side of American historical progress.
        IMAGINE having that woman at a dinner table with us?

      • Nemisis

        Sometimes it is not matter of people wanting to go to war but rather the war is forced upon us.
        ISIL is forcing/ has forced the inevitable.
        If we do nothing and allow the world to do what it will ISIL or groups like ISIL will still do what they do. They will still attack Americans or anyone else who does not adhere strictly to their demands. Some have called me a pacifist others a warmonger, and still others a coward who arm chair generals. I know what I am and I am none of those things. I won’t presume to believe that most would or would not do a thing. I know I would rather go then send one of the kids I spawned or their friends or anyone else. That is because I have experienced what war is. I can also tell you that there are times when there is no other option. Except surrender and that is just not an option for me.

        I do agree with you there are a certain number of people concerned with war only as long as it does not touch them.

      • LoveArchy444

        Life is a privlaege. If you’re an idiotic jerk who treats everyone like the typical bug that people would accidentally step on, you’re abusing your privilege.

      • Nemisis

        Your not familiar with my commentaries are you?

      • LoveArchy444

        What are you talking about? I was making a point.

      • Nemisis

        Your use of “you’re” was not directed at me then?
        In that case I withdraw my prior statement and concur with yours.

      • LoveArchy444

        Yeah sorry about that. I was expressing my opinion on your response to Crispin. Politicians who are idiotic and suppress the population will lead others to believe he or she should lose his or her privilege to life

    • John

      I’d have to agree with nemesis. We are supposed to be better than conservative nutjubs such as Bachman, why lower yourself to their level?

      • Ivan Renko

        It’s remarkable how often you guys say that.

        That, along with protesting the ‘both sides do it’ meme, because you think only one side does it.

        Shocked, shocked to find that sort of thing going on in this establishment.

      • Nemisis

        “That, along with protesting the ‘both sides do it’ meme…”

        I don’t care if both sides do “do it” it is wrong regardless. Right Stephan Barlow? If it’s wrong if the GOP does it, then it is wrong if a DEM does it.

        I won’t argue that both sides do it. It being make meme’s up that point out irony. Some are true irony others are just hate biased or factually inaccurate.
        Irony is funny, hate bias is not.

      • Sandy Greer

        Many of us believe that wrongs aren’t wrong when done by nice people like ourselves.

      • Nemisis

        Shh…I have a rep to live down to.

    • bobg

      For her that would merely be a flesh wound. Nothing in there anyway. She would just start spouting bullshit from her neck hole.bobg

    • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

      that’s stupid,,,,,,, and u are highly likely 2B a regressive troll planted here to attempt look as a popinjay liberal. — easy 2 spot,,,,,, useless upon this planet

  • LoveArchy444

    Most pro-capitalists don’t want to follow a world based on reality, rather what they want to be real. Not just this henious politician and her fellow cronies.
    They want an end to all the policies that guarantee higher standards within the workplace so both their labor and wages aren’t as awful as the sweat shops in African countries (minimum wage, maximum wage etc.). They want to wreck any chance of actual universal healthcare that would let us catch up to the European social democracies like the UK which has the best healthcare in the world according to the Commenwealth Fund. Most of the right I believe looks at the economy before the 1920s and view it as this Utopian model for a world. This is evident in the fact several Right-wing scum hate child labor laws.
    None the less, they think that a completely unregulated capitalist economy is the best way to go, but as we can see in several countries that have no minimum wage and the history of the American economy before the great depression clearly demonstrates that this will be a disaster and could even cause greater economic inequality then we have today.

    • Cemetery Girl

      I look at their idea of ideal really more 1890’s, roughly, in that range by a decade or so. When self made men built empires. No income tax to impede their personal growth. No regulations to impede profits. No labor laws and any unions held really no power because the government favored the businesses. Politicians could be easily and openly bought.

      • Charles Vincent

        Corporations/businesses were taxed, individuals were not there is a big difference between the two.

      • Cemetery Girl

        I refered to personal income tax, but in hindsight I could have been more clear. I did mingle business and personal in the post. Still, roughly 1870-1900 time period is, I think, more their ideal.

      • LoveArchy444

        True. Although the 1920s was the period of industrialization. That’s why I referred to it.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Industriization began in the late 1800’s. By the 1920’s small progresses had been made in the realm of labor rights, obviously there was still progress to be had, but the late 1800’s the industrialized world was still new. The huge monopolies had massive freedom.

      • LoveArchy444

        Thanks for the corrections.

      • LoveArchy444

        You’ve earned my respect.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Thank you. It is nice to have polite discussion.

    • hellbent

      play catch up. move to Europe then. oh that’s right you couldn’t do that there free benefits aren’t as great as ours are they. can’t say really what you want to say can you.

  • mom2780

    “Creator Gives US our Rights???? ” What kind of RANT are you on? PLEASE go back to Church Honey……You are very weird.

    • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

      Technically the “creator(s) ” gave us everything. That being said– our RIGHTS as americans come from the voting process and legislative activities associated with those votes. Different countries and cultures espouse different rights.
      Please note— the ‘creator(s)’ of this existence cannot be defined by humans as we are finite; and thus– JESUS ( or any other man-made deity) is NOT GOD. Tea party regressive trash disagree- so we have this progress into iconoclastic conversations.
      Luckily; the regressive white trash john birch leftovers are dying off and being replaced by inquisitive nympholepts– such as me!!

  • Alan Anderson

    She is not a Christian, Maybe a false prophet!!

  • Nick Wride

    And the crazy train rolls on, filled with TeaBaggers, right wing, delusional Christians and other assorted America haters.

  • Harry Miller

    I have no doubt that the Republican strategists and decision makers are well aware of this lady’s “nuttiness, and lunatic fringe” attraction. I have no doubt they are using her as a comparison to their other more “moderate” and therefore more palatable candidates. She will be done with “obvious” politics shortly and then will start her second career in some conservative think tank or consulting firm.

  • Avatar

    This is real unbelievable, Bachmann continue to bemoan about her love of Reagan and his failed policies.

  • Gabriel Gentile

    “Well, I hate to break it to these people, but Reagan had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

    That’s debatable. The arms race he perpetrated was arguably a very significant factor.

    True, it was a method from which WE may never recover either, but nevertheless…

    • Stephen Barlow

      Charlie Wilson had more to do with bankrupting the USSR than any Republican

      • Nemisis

        That I can agree with If applied strictly to Reagan.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Explain your self

      • Look it up yourself. Is this fool a robot? Dumb as a rock.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I DO believe you are a propagandabot.

    • Cemetery Girl

      The USSR didn’t fall apart because of our massive supply of arms. It could be said that their country would have been more financially secure if they had not also been trying to build their own stockpile, but corruption and oppression was the final straw.

    • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

      agreed,,,,,,,,,,,,, he out spent the Russians and started breaking our bank

    • Nemisis

      Reagan’s arm race? What exactly was Reagan’s arms race?
      The continuation of All the preceding president’s arms race?
      The continuation of expanding US economic power on a global scale while continuing to undermine the Russian economy while corruption with-in Russia’s government continued to grow.
      The downfall of the soviet union was predicted in the early 70’s by a Russian economist who sited the very factors that lead to it’s fall.
      RR was just siting on the porcelain throne while that happened in the time frame predicted.

      The biggest contribution RR made was in subterfuge with the announcement of the “Star Wars” defense plan. Which oddly enough is more plausible now than it was then.

      • Gabriel Gentile

        “Reagan’s arm race? What exactly was Reagan’s arms race?The continuation of All the preceding president’s arms race?”

        No, the preposterous escalation of it.

      • Nemisis

        foreignpolicy DOT com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_
        the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong

        Apply the proper header and replace “DOT” with a . to the use the link.

        That article is not wholly accurate in that it says “no one predicted” , however it points to a more in-depth assessment of the actual reasons for the collapse. Mikhail Gorbachev, had more to do with the collapse than RR did.

        George Keenan theorized in 1946 that the USSR would collapse if contained (not allowed to expand) or it’s leaders became moderate. Both event’s happened.

        Exiled USSR co-founder Leon Trotsky also predicted the circumstances that would lead to the dissolution of the USSR.

  • Grant the Socialist

    she should choke on a stick of dynamite. and maybe while giving a group hug to Teddy boy Cruz and a few more morons.

  • Cemetery Girl

    1980’s peace through strength, so…the Cold War? Yeah, that was peaceful. Our strength didn’t really do anything (other than help empower people in the Middle East that we are now supposed to declare war on), but despite Reagan’s “tear down the wall”, the oppression did in the USSR. It self combusted.

  • forpeace

    And, this unintelligent ignorant woman remained a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during the 113th Congress!

    Yes, Michelle Bachmann being stupid, ignorant, clueless, and unintelligent is because of Benghazi, and it is President Obama and Islam’s fault.

  • forpeace

    The crazy woman with scary eyes shouted: “Well, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, we want our 1980s foreign policy back!” She doesn’t even know what happened in 1980s during Ronald Reagan administration:

    — In 1980 Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget.
    — In 1981-1989 with support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
    — He grow the federal government, BIG time.
    — Ronald Reagan’s “Iran–Contra affair” the biggest Scandal right after Nixon’s Watergate Scandal.
    — Ronald Reagan administration – April 18, 1983, suicide Bombing at US Embassy in Beirut Lebanon killing 63 mostly embassy and CIA staff members follow by the Bombing of the Marine Barracks on October 23, 1983 in Beirut killing 299 American and French service personnel including 220 U.S. Marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers.
    — Ronald Reagan supporters should be horrified that he signed a 1986 law granting amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants.
    — Taxpayers already foots the bill for undocumented immigrants’ care, just in an incredibly inefficient and half-baked way because under the auspices of the Ronald Reagan-era Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), hospital emergency rooms can’t turn away patients based on their citizenship or insurance status.
    — Obama Phone that doesn’t even exist was a program started in 2008 under George W. Bush, and was originated in the Ronald Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984.

    • Cemetery Girl

      Some Reagan loyalists still contend that neither he or George Bush had any knowledge of Iran-Contra. He said so, so he didn’t. (Just like Clinton didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.)

      • Nemisis

        Clinton was a law professor prior to his election.
        He managed to get the judge in that case to define what sex was. The judge critically left out oral sex in the finite definition. That blunder actually enabled the president to say he did not have sex. I know, you know, we all know it was sex. However, it was not perjury, do to the definition the president was required to adhere to.
        Brilliant move. Keep in mind congress was looking for something to pin on him because he refused to privatize social security.

  • MsYellowDog

    Farewell,One-L. You will not be missed when the new Congress assembles in 2015.

  • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

    “thump thump thump,,,,,,,,another one bites the dust…” ( see: QUEEN lyrics)

  • Jim Bean

    In the 80’s we a had leadership that wasn’t afraid to call terrorism, terrorism. In the 80’s, the President didn’t share are strategies for fighting terrorism with the terrorists. I think that’s what she (and I) want back.

    • LoveArchy444

      He didn’t share all the strategies. He just told us the basic goals in a speech. I don’t care about Obama as much as before, but you folks have to attack him in any way possible. You nitpicked over him saluting.

      • Dennis

        So did quite a few of ‘you folks’.

        There are about a hundred liberal blogs that got their start nitpicking Bush for everything he did, too.

      • LoveArchy444

        First off your grammar is flawed, poor grammar that manifests online is pretty hackneyed, so I suggest you retake English.
        Also, I’m not a liberal. I’m a democratic socialist.

      • Dennis

        I didn’t call you a liberal, and your grammar is flawed, too. Along with your politics.

      • LoveArchy444

        Oh really? Please prove your system is better.

      • Guest

        Can you prove your little capitalist fantasy land where everyone is a wage slave (capitalism) is better then a system where all workers, for example, own what they produce, are self-employed, and have complete autonomy in their work place (democratic socialism).

      • LoveArchy444

        Prove your society is better, or you’re just wasting my time.

      • Jim Bean

        When you have the most formidable ground troupes in the world and you promise ISIL they won’t have to face them, that’s sharing the main strategy. What do y’all get out of continuing to defend this guy, anyway?

      • LoveArchy444

        I’m not defending him, Obamas presidency was basically worthless to me. But he is preferable to Bush.

      • LoveArchy444

        I like how you never actually try to rebut me. You’re an idiot.

      • congero

        You’re right. He’s not the sharpest pencil in the box and matter of fact is just a parrot living in a bubble. He loves Fox and loves him some Bill O’liely. Matter of fact just listen to a little of both and you can guess what he is going to say even before he does. lol.

      • LoveArchy444

        So glad intelligent people like you exist on the internet.

      • congero

        Look in the mirror. ;-))

      • Nemisis

        Jim…Troupes are not Troops..

        That said, Saying we are not committing troops is not divulging troop movements or battle plans.

      • Jim Bean

        It would say to me, “look up – not toward the horizon.”

      • Nemisis

        Aye, and it should. They can’t stop a bomb.
        I don’t think this will end without ground troops.
        Those troops don’t need to be ours right now.

      • Jim Bean

        I think you’re correct.

      • congero

        You are too funny. Swallowing every right wing lie. The reason we had Al-qaeda was because of what Ronald Reagan did in funding,training and arming the radicals who were fighting the soviets in Afghanistan that eventually became Al_Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The Reagan administration one of the most corrupt in our history with over 100 or more indictments and convictions of members of his administration. Violations of the Boland amendment. Selling arms to terrorist after he lied and said he wasn’t and then had to come back and admit he did.

        I see your over at MM planting more lies about how we got into Iraq. The project for a New American century which GW Bush surrounded himself with had it as their stated goal in the 90’s and helped make the case for invasion by doctoring the intelligence.

        Key false statements

        On September 8, 2002, Bush administration officials hit the national airwaves to advance the argument that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium. In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly stated that Saddam Hussein “now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium.”

        Condoleezza Rice, who was then Bush’s national security adviser, followed Cheney that night on CNN’s Late Edition. In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on how close Saddam Hussein’s government was to developing a nuclear capability, Rice said: “We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

        In April 2001, however, the Energy Department had concluded that, “while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production.” During the preparation of the September 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the Energy Department and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated their belief that Iraq intended to use the tubes in a conventional rocket program, but the Central Intelligence Agency’s contrary view prevailed.

        The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence subsequently concluded that postwar findings supported the assessments of the Energy Department and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

        Get our email newsletter

        Sign up for the Center for Public Integrity’s Watchdog email and get the news you want from the Center when you want it.

        Email address

        More options ▼

        There was dissent within the intelligence community in the first 48 hours after 9/11 over the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, President Bush’s chief counterterrorism adviser, has written that President Bush asked him on September 12 to “see if Saddam did this. See if he is linked in any way. . .” Clarke said that he responded by saying, “Absolutely, we will look . . . again,” and then adding, “But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq.”

        Beginning apparently in late November 2001, a team in the office of Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, working independently of the formal intelligence community, reviewed intelligence data related to Al Qaeda. In August and September 2002, this team provided three separate briefings to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, and finally to high-level White House officials. The briefings, titled “Assessing the Relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda,” included the assessment that “Intelligence indicates cooperation [with Al Qaeda] in all categories: mature, symbiotic relationship.”

        Bush administration officials were soon publicly linking the two. For example, on September 25, 2002, in response to a reporter’s question, President Bush said: “They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.”

        Such statements were not supported by the intelligence community’s findings. In July 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information.”

        In September, the CIA circulated a draft report titled Iraqi Support for Terrorism, which found “no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.” On September 17, CIA Director George Tenet reiterated this point in testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “The intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points have discussed safe-haven, training, and reciprocal non-aggression,” he said. “There are several reported suggestions by Al Qaeda to Iraq about joint terrorist ventures, but in no case can we establish that Iraq accepted or followed up on these suggestions.”

        The 9/11 Commission Report found that while there may have been meetings in 1999 between Iraqi officials and Osama Bin Ladin or his aides, it had seen no evidence that the contacts “ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.” It added: “Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

        ______________________________

        In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly asserted that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

        Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet later wrote that Cheney’s statement “went well beyond what our own analysis could support.” Tenet was not alone within the CIA. As one of his top deputies later told journalist Ron Suskind: “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from? Does he have a source of information that we don’t know about?'”

        ______________________________

        In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

        What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush’s radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done.

        The CIA put the NIE together in less than three weeks. It proved to be false. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later concluded, “Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

        ______________________________

        In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

        But as early as March 2002, there was uncertainty within the intelligence community regarding the sale of uranium to Iraq. That month, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research published an intelligence assessment titled, “Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely.” In July 2002, the Energy Department concluded that there was “no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq” and suggested that the “amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program.” In August 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency made no mention of the Iraq-Niger connection in a paper on Iraq’s WMD capabilities.

        Just two weeks before the president’s speech, an analyst with the Bureau of Intelligence and Research had sent an e-mail to several other analysts describing why he believed “the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax.” And in 2006 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: “Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake’ from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ‘highly dubious.'”

        ______________________________

        In his dramatic presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said: “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” In preparation for his presentation, Powell had spent a week at Central Intelligence Agency headquarters sifting through intelligence.

        One of the “human sources” that Powell referenced turned out to be “Curveball,” whom U.S. intelligence officials had never even spoken to. “My mouth hung open when I saw Colin Powell use information from Curveball,” Tyler Drumheller, the CIA’s chief of covert operations in Europe, later recalled. “It was like cognitive dissonance. Maybe, I thought, my government has something more. But it scared me deeply.”

        In his presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Powell described another of the human sources as “a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda.” Six days earlier, however, the CIA itself had come to the conclusion that this source, a detainee, “was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.”

        In a report completed in 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: “Much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect.”
        ——————————————————

        ______________________________

        In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: “We found the weapons of mass destruction.” Bush was referencing two trailers or “mobile labs” discovered in Iraq.

        Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers “could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured.” It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

        ______________________________

        On July 30, 2003, in an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, Condoleezza Rice said: “What we knew going into the war was that this man was a threat. He had weapons of mass destruction. He had used them before. He was continuing to try to improve his weapons programs. He was sitting astride one of the most volatile regions in the world, a region out of which the ideologies of hatred had come that led people to slam airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington. Something had to be done about that threat and the president to simply allow this brutal dictator, with dangerous weapons, to continue to destabilize the Middle East.”

        Just two days earlier, David Kay, the Bush administration’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, had briefed administration officials. “We have not found large stockpiles,” he told them. “You can’t rule them out. We haven’t come to the conclusion that they’re not there, but they’re sure not any place obvious. We’ve got a lot more to search for and to look at.”

        ————————————————-

        No you little Fox hack and republican shrill this was GW’s failure. Even going so far to out a CIA agent because the information she had countered what the Bush administration was selling. The Bush administration who was saying you’re either with us or against us drowned out all the dissenting voices as they rushed for their New American century and fixed intelligence.

        The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.”[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[2][3] With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bushand affected the Bush Administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[4][5]

        alls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years[edit]

        The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]

        Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC—Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton—”were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein.”[8] Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations[citation needed]. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.[9]

        The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[10] urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[11]

        On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, andRobert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: “we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections” and “American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein’s defiance of UN “containment” policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[12]

        On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq’s demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again forregime change in an editorial in his online magazine, The Weekly Standard: “… any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power.”[13] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create “a ‘liberated zone’ in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime … The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground.”

        In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any “containment” policy as an illusion.

        Google it yourself.

      • Jim Bean

        Reagan caused al Qaeda? You need to go watch Netanyahu’s speech to the UN yesterday. You’ll learn the about the causes, symptoms, and probable outcomes of Islamic terrorism?

      • congero

        Too funny. Yes let me go to the butcher of the Palestinians? lol. Better yet just learn history. Here is some for you.

        Ghost Wars: How Reagan Armed the Mujahadeen in AfghanistanDuring Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We take a look at America’s role in Afghanistan that led to the rise of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda with Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.[Includes transcript]

        What Cheney along with the corporate media failed to mention yesterday was the Reagan administration’s role in financing, arming and training what was destined to become America’s worst enemy in the Middle East and Asia.

        During most of the 1980’s, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to Afghanistan to support the mujahedeen–or holy warriors–against the Soviet Union, which had invaded in 1979.

        The U.S.-supported jihad succeeded in driving out the Soviets but the Afghan factions allied to the US gave rise to the oppressive Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda.

        Today we take a look at America’s role in Afghanistan and the roots of 9/11 with Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Steve Coll. He is the managing editor of the Washington Post and the author of “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.” Steve Coll joins us on the phone from his home in Washington.

        Steve Coll, Puliter Prize-winning journalist and managing editor of the Washington Post. He is the author several books, his latest is Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

        AMY GOODMAN: Steve Coll joins us on the line from Washington, DC. Welcome to Democracy Now!.

        STEVE COLL: Thank you, Amy. Good morning.

        AMY GOODMAN: Very good to have you with us. You write that the CIA, the KGB, Pakistan’s ISI and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Department all operated directly and secretly in Afghanistan. They primed Afghan factions with cash and weapons, secretly trained guerrilla forces, funded propaganda and manipulated politics. In the midst of the struggles, Bin Laden conceived and built his global organization. Can you give us a thumbnail sketch of this history which you to say the least, very comprehensively deal with in “Ghost Wars?”

        STEVE COLL: Well, it of course begins in 1979 when the Soviets invaded during the Carter administration, and it really swelled between 1981 and 1985. Essentially, under Bill Casey, the CIAcreated a three-part intelligence alliance to fund and arm the Mujahadeen, initially to harass Soviet occupation forces and eventually they embraced the goal of driving them out. The three-way alliance in each of the parties had a distinct role to play. The Saudi, their intelligence service primarily provided cash. Each year the congress would secretly allocate a certain amount of money to support the CIA’s program. After that allocation was complete, the US Intelligence liaison would fly to Riyadh and the Saudis would write a matching check. The US role was to provide logistics and technological support as well as money. The Saudis collaborated with Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, to really run the war on the front lines. It was the Pakistani army, in particular the ISI, that picked the political winners and losers in the jihad, and who favored radical Islamist factions because it suited the Pakistan’s army goal of pacifying Afghanistan, a long-time unruly neighbor to the west, whose ethnic Pashtun nationalism the army feared. The army saw Islam not only as a motivating force in the anti-Soviet jihad, but as an instrument of Pakistan’s regional policy to control Afghanistan. The US acquiesced with all of this in part because they thought that the only purpose that brought them to the region was to drive the Soviets out, and they didn’t really care about local politics. But also because after Vietnam, the generation of CIA officers involved in this program were scarred by their experiences in Southeast Asia, and they essentially operated under a mantra of no more hearts and minds for us. We’re not good at picking winners and losers in a developing world. Let’s let the Pakistanis decide who carries this jihad forward. That’s how the favoritism of the radical Islamic factions was born and nurtured.

        JUAN GONZALEZ: Steve, at what point in this process did the Mujahadeen basically turn their guns around, and was the United States aware at the point in which their allies had become now — had begun to target them for their next jihad?

        STEVE COLL: Yeah. That’s a good question. It happened gradually in the late 1980’s. Certainly, there were people in the early 1980’s involved in the program who were aware that many of America’s favorite clients were fundamentally anti-American in their outlook. But it was only in the late 1980’s as the amounts of money and guns and really the success of the jihad began to swell that clients such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Abdul Sayyaf, who were two of the most vehemently anti-American leaders of the jihad began to explicitly turn their propaganda pamphlets, at least their rhetorical efforts, against the United States as well as against the Soviet Union. As that began to happen, to the second part of your question, there were individuals inside the US bureaucracy, at the state department, elsewhere, who began to warn that the United States needed to change its political approach to this covert action program, that they needed now to start getting involved in the messy business of Afghan politics and to start to promote more centrist factions and to negotiate compromise with the Soviet-backed communist government in Kabul to prevent Islamist extremists from coming to power as the Soviets withdrew. These warnings, when you look at them with the benefit of hindsight, are quite prescient and certainly were strongly given, but they languished in the middle of the bureaucracy and were largely ignored by both second term Reagan administration and the first Bush administration, Bush 41.

        AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Steve Coll. He is managing editor of the Washington Post, and he has written a book, Ghost wars — The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Can you talk about the role of Kashmir in all of this as the conflict in Kashmir?

        STEVE COLL: After the Soviets withdrew in 1988, the Pakistan army and intelligence service interpreted this victory as essentially providing them a model for combating their neighbor to the east, India, a country with much larger standing army, much greater industrial potential and a much larger population base, but threatened, at least in the Pakistan army’s view, Pakistan’s national existence. As a spontaneous indigenous rebellion against corrupt Indian rule began in Kashmir in 1989, the Pakistan army and intelligence service began to pour in support for Islamism factions using not only the model of the anti-soviet jihad in Afghanistan, but also many of the training camp facilities that had been built up to support the Afghanistan war. They also used same Muslim brotherhood influence networks to essentially take over the Kashmir rebellion and try to turn it into an instrument of Pakistan’s national policy, an effort in which they were partially successful by the mid 1990’s. So, what it means as a practical matter, looking at al-Qaeda, is that as Bin Laden began to use the sanctuary of Afghanistan to develop his global ambitions and his global organization, he found indirect and sometimes direct support from the Pakistan army which sought to use his infrastructure to run their own jihad in Kashmir. The Pakistan army’s purpose in Kashmir was to support what they viewed as the liberation of an occupied territory, but sometimes more cynically, they thought to tie down the Indian army in Kashmir, and they succeeded. They tied down 600,000 Indian troops by running the cross-border Islamist jihad they rehearsed, in effect, in Afghanistan.

        JUAN GONZALEZ: Steve, I’d like to ask you, to what degree was the US policy in supporting the Mujahadeen, or its policy in Pakistan an aberration and to what degree was it a continuation of policy in the Middle East. I don’t know if you have read the book by Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms where he posits that this has been a historical pattern in the Middle East, that the British and United States have supported right wing or religious or — or organizations and groups covertly or sometimes overtly to stop modernist governments such as Nasser in Egypt or Gandhi in India as well as a leftist oriented governments in the region. Has this been a historical pattern?

        STEVE COLL: Yes. I think there is a pattern of that kind. It’s not comprehensive, but it’s certainly prevalent through the history that you refer to. In the Cold War period, I think there was a real belief, certainly by Bill Casey, who was a devout catholic and by the Saudi royal family, that the support of religious networks and organizations against soviet supported either communist or leftist governments was not only good tactics, but it was also righteous. It was the battle of the faithful against the godless was really, I think, at some personal level, how Casey and some of the Saudis saw it. As you say, that wasn’t spontaneous idea. It was rooted in approaches that governments had taken, the British and the United States, when secular socialist governments had risen in the Middle East earlier. The British certainly supported the Muslim Brotherhood as an instrument of challenge against Nasser once they were concerned about Nasser’s ambitions. At the same time, the Muslim Brotherhood had been born as an anti-colonial, anti-British force, so the pendulum swung both ways. During the 1980’s, it’s generally agreed now, though a lot of the details are not available, that the Israelis supported Hamas covertly as an instrument of sort of a covert program to create a rival movement within the Palestinian community against the PLO. Now presumably they regret that strategy as well.

        AMY GOODMAN: How did the Reagan administration — how did President Reagan describe what was happening in Afghanistan during the time? What awareness did Americans have of what was going on in the 1980’s in Afghanistan and the US support for the Mujahadeen?

        STEVE COLL: It’s interesting to go back and look at the public discourse about this. During the Reagan years in particular, it was a very superficial, certainly, Reagan often used the terminology of his, you know of freedom. These were freedom fighters. These were noble freedom fighters. I don’t want to overstate this, but the Afghans were regarded with some distance almost as noble savages in some sort of a state of purity fighting for an abstract idea of freedom. The idea that Afghanistan was a messy place filled with complexity and ethnicity and tribal structures and all of the rest of what we now understand about Afghanistan was it was generally not part of American public discourse. By contrast, the covert wars in Central America were much richer controversies in the United States, and they were often discussed in much greater detail and nuance in Congress and elsewhere. Of course, the support for the Contras became a raging controversy by the second term of the Reagan administration. Afghanistan never became such a program. It attracted bipartisan support and a general quietude throughout. In part because it was so far away, in part because the war was one between an occupied people and the soviet army. This is not a — this is not proxies on both side. This is a direct invasion that was generally regarded at unjust across the developing world. Also, the United States didn’t play a very direct role on the front lines of the jihad. There were not Americans in tennis shoes generally standing up on the paths getting shot or creating episodes. This was a war in which the United States acted as quartermaster and let the Pakistani intelligence service run things on the front lines.

        AMY GOODMAN: Steve Coll, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Steve Coll is the author of Ghost Wars — The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. He’s the managing editor of the Washington Post.
        ———————————————————-

        I don’t expect you to stop with your lies and Fox bs but the truth is there to counter it and I’m happy to be of service.

      • Jim Bean

        I read as far as “butcher of the Palestinians.”

      • congero

        Yea the truth hurts. didn’t expect you to read it but it is there for anyone else interested in facts and not your bs Fox talking points.

      • Jim Bean

        The first line just screams, ‘paranoid schizophrenic.’ I’m sure that motivated nearly everyone to digest it in its entirety.

      • congero

        Well it wouldn’t a Foxbot and that is obvious. Now go get refund on your serial box degree. lol

      • Jim Bean

        Is that the full story or is there other information you’ve completely omitted? Has Hama’s done anything you don’t fully support?

      • congero

        “Israel expands West Bank settlement subsidiesCabinet approves funding for dozens of illegal settlements just days after resumption of talks with Palestinians.

        The Israeli cabinet has voted to expand the list of illegal West Bank settlements eligible for government subsidies, just days after the resumption of talks with the Palestinian Authority in which settlements are a major issue.

        Ministers on Sunday approved a new “national priority map,” a list of poor communities earmarked for housing subsidies and other benefits.

        Included on the list are 91 settlements in the occupied West Bank, up from 85 on the previous version. Many of them are in areas which would almost certainly be evacuated by Israel in a deal with the Palestinians.

        Three of the newly-added settlements – Rehelim, Sansana and Bruchin – were until recently considered “illegal outposts,” which means they were built without government approval. Their status was normalised last year by a cabinet vote.”

        So the question is what is a defenseless people to do in the face of this?

        I found this and thought of YOU and it fits so well. Replace Black with Palestinian and both fit.

        “Dear white racists and your fragile fee-fees:

        Relax, I’m white, too. Look, I can do the secret handshake and nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Lemme whitesplain something to you, fellow white men: no one buys your bullshit.
        That’s because your bullshit runs like this: For historically- and presently-oppressed black people to be treated decently, they must carefully avoid doing anything that could be remotely twisted into behaving like a white racist, even if you’re squinting and looking at it from five hundred meters away in a thick fog. Because that would be racist, and therefore hypocritical, and if that’s the case, they deserve to continue to be oppressed.

        Here’s the thing you thick-headed assholes totally fail to get: NO ONE DESERVES TO BE OPPRESSED, PERIOD. You can talk all you want about how it’s okay for black people to be mistreated if— but get this, there is no “if”. It’s not okay, ever. That’s why we call it mistreatment. Your error is to think that it’s ever justified, and your active misdeed is to constantly search for a justification. Black people, collectively, are not guilty of anything. In fact, a basic principle of civil society is that we reject the notion of collective guilt.

        Some individual black people, like individual white people, have done bad things, and in those cases, may deserve judicial punishments. But even those people don’t deserve mistreatment from some random white guy on the street. And black people in general don’t owe anyone anything as a prerequisite for being treated decently. No one does.

        Now I know there are a bunch of you in the back of the room waving your hand and getting ready to launch the argument that it’s racist to complain about white privilege. No, it is not. Complaining about white privilege is not the same as assigning collective guilt to white people. White privilege is a pervasive feature of our society and our legal system. It’s hard to see if you’re white (and you’re not looking or actively trying not to look), but it is real, it is powerfully destructive, and if global warming had the kind of statistical support that evidence of white privilege has, Bill O’Reilly would be haranguing FOX News viewers to install solar panels.

        And here’s the subtle point that you folks either can’t or won’t grasp. White privilege is especially the responsibility of white people to fix, not because we’re all racist schlubs like you are, but because white privilege itself means that we’re the ones who have the power to change it. Black people don’t have that power, again because of white privilege, and not because they aren’t sufficiently careful in the way they phrase their complaints about being mistreated. It’s our problem and our responsibility as white people to fix not because whites are collectively guilty, but because it is the responsibility of ALL PEOPLE to fight for decent treatment for ALL PEOPLE. It just happens that, because of our shithead ancestors and a helping handful of historical accident, we white people are the ones who can do something about it. When the finger on the trigger is white, it’s pointless to ask a black guy to lower the gun.

        And quite frankly, given all the shit that our black fellow citizens have put up with, and all the shit they have to deal with every. fucking. day., if some of them lose their tempers and say things that aren’t carefully calibrated to kiss your privileged, hypersensitive asses, well, is that actually surprising? You lose your minds when black people just complain verbally about being kicked. Imagine how tough it would be for you to keep your cool if someone was actually doing something to you instead of just talking.

        Finally, yes, I know this is pointless. You want to be offended to fluff your fragile egos, and you want black people to please shut the fuck up and stop harshing your mellow. I hate to break it to you, but as long as people are being murdered by the state, given draconian sentences for crimes that in many cases they haven’t even committed, and being held in poverty and privation and a constant state of fear, those of us who actually give a shit about our fellow citizens are going, at the very least, to make some noise about it.

        In the meantime, if you can’t be bothered to do your duty as an American to protect your fellow Americans with the considerable power at your disposal, at least shut the fuck up and stop making an ass of yourself.

        Regards,
        Your fellow privileged white guy”

        Israel expands West Bank settlement subsidiesCabinet approves funding for dozens of illegal settlements just days after resumption of talks with Palestinians.

      • Bronwyn1

        Wow!! Well said! I would like to kiss the author of that on the lips. That is one attuned individual!

        Change Vietnam to Israel in this phrase from Martin Luther King Jr.’s 2/25/1967 speach, The Casualties Of The War in Vietnam, and it fits.

        “But the physical casualties of the war in Vietnam are not alone catastrophes. The casualties of principles and values are equally disastrous and injurious. Indeed, they are ultimately more harmful because they are self perpetuating. If the casualties of principle are not healed, the physical casualties will continue to mount.”

      • congero

        Wow! Profound! Thanks for that! I just found out what was wrong with my computer that crashed on me. I picked up a virus. Coincidence? No! ;-)). Great post!

      • Bronwyn1

        Maybe that’s why I gave myself a thumbs up. Lol, I just noticed. Must have been when I checked to see who did or it was meant for you, too funny. I see our faithful friend, Montanabudda has given our posts a thumbs up, very nice. I’m not posting over until we get some explanations. I might open my profile, although I hate taking the chance of getting creepy followers.

        Hey, I don’t know but back when I was a regular poster at mm I constantly had problems w/viruses, so my son downloaded on my puter, from his ‘Trendmicro’ anti virus thingy, ha, looks like a key chain, that plugs into you puter slot. And I’ve never had another problem.

        I just checked and you can get them from QVC, Trendmicro, anti-virus 2014 Lifetime it can be used on 6 different pcs and you only have to use it once per device. Item # E226295 $79.00 or 3 value payments $26.55 (no interest) check it out. We are very pleased with it. Not bad for lifetime security. Plus those 6 other devices can be anyones, friends, family etc.

      • Bronwyn1

        It was really hard for me not to reply to JB’s “Paranoid Schizophrenic” and ” has Hama’s (sic) done anything you don’t fully support?”, comments. I don’t want to get in an endless back and forth with him. Your post was great, as usual, but if I were to post to JB I would only add an update on death tolls and emphasize the imbalance of the entire situation.

        Update, from Aug, 6, 2014, from CNN World, ‘Why Are So Many Civilians Dying In Hamas-Israel War’ by Ashley Fantz.
        (In part because if I add the link it won’t post)

        “The Palestinian death toll in Gaza stands at more than 1,800, with nearly 10,000 wounded, Gaza’s Health ministry said Sunday. More than 300 children have died, the ministry has reported, as the United Nations repeatedly raises concern about the high number of deaths in Gaza.”
        (compare that to- cont.)
        ” On the Israeli side, 64 Israeli soldiers and three civilians have died since fighting began more than three weeks ago.”

        “Why are the death tolls lopsided. Why so many deaths in Gaza?”
        (The article then gives in detail five reasons, in part-)

        “While Hamas has shown it self to be a formidable guerrilla army, Israel’s military dawarfs the resources available to the militant Islamic organization, which controls Gaza.”
        “Hamas does not have the sophisticated weaponry and technology that Israel possesses. Consider Israel’s Iron Dome system, which intercepts and blocks incoming rockets. The Israeli military has said that it has depleted most of Gaza’s rocket supply and Israeli Defense Forces says more than 3,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel.”
        Read: How does the Iron Dome work it gives examples of just how powerful Israel is in this battle.
        “Unlike Gaza, Israel has bomb shelters and an advanced warning system to let it’s population know when and where rockets are coming from.”

        “Civilian casualties in Gaza have been to high,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steven Warren said in Washington on Thursday. “It is clear the Israelis need to do more.”
        ‘The nature of the battlefield’
        “More than 1.8 million people live in Gaza which is 139 square miles in total land area. That makes for very cramped living. When airstrikes happen, where shells land, having more people in a small area often means higher death tolls.”
        “And even if Palestinians recieve and had warnings to change locations before an airstrike hits, it’s likely they’ll have nowhere safe to run. There are no bomb shelters or warning sirens in Gaza. And it’s practically impossible to leave. There’s a barrier fence around the perimeter of Gaza. Israel controls all air access to Gaza and land access along the border. Egypt controls access on the southern border and that crossing is also closed.” (I repeat that where do they go?)

        “United Nations schools in Gaza – with clear U.N. markings – have been turned into shelters during conflict, and for awhile they were considered safe. But strikes have recently hit several of those locations, killing and injuring many, including women and children.”
        Read: U.N. shelters in Gaza hit; 16 dead
        you can google the entire article. And forgive me Cee, if you have already covered this in your thoroughness.

        I just might ask JB if he knows anything about ‘Project Fiche’ The West Bank Human Rights Defenders.

      • congero

        Great post , you are so right and you did update the info… I think you pretty much covered it. Thank you.

        PS: Thanks for the anti-virus info. I will check into it. ;-))

      • congero

        Sure that’s why he sold arms to them.

      • Jim Bean

        And all that is different from Obama’s plan to fund and arm unknown Syrian rebels, exactly how?

      • congero

        Your question doesn’t even make any sense. Think before you post next time and you’ll look less ignorant and stop contradicting yourself. 1st Reagan wasn’t afraid to call a terrorist a terrorist and now Obama is just like Reagan nullifying your original bogus point. Maybe, just wait and O’liely will tell you what to think. You’re too funny clown.

      • Jim Bean

        I thought, “Congero is criticizing Reagan for funding rebels as if he (Congero) is unaware that Obama is advocating similar funding of rebels right now for the similar reasons.” Where did I slip up?

      • congero

        Too funny clown . You remember when “We had leadership that wasn’t afraid to call a terrorist a terrorist.” lol. Those were your words. No Reagan called them patriots but they were actually terrorist. He said he wouldn’t deal with the terrorist state of Iran and then had to admit he was selling arms to a so-called terrorist state. Reagan armed and funded the Taliban that came and attacked us on 9/11. You can’t make up your mind you phony Fox spewing hypocrite because you can’t think for yourself. 1st Obama is criticized for not arming and bombing and now he is just like Reagan. lol. Mazote? The arming of fascist that killed women,children and old men behind congress’ back. No comparison and all the things I pasted that you didn’t read obviously that show the differences. Where you slipped up was by being as simple minded as you are. You can’t help it though because you are a right wing authoritarian parrot. Where is your Republican house? Why aren’t they coming back to debate this? No because just like you they would rather drop this on Obama so that they can then criticize and attack him for which ever way this thing turns out. You and your so-called conservatives are cowards playing a dangerous game.

    • congero

      BS. Ronald Reagan sold arms to terrorist,funded the murderers called the Contras and violated the Boland Amendment . He funded the murderous regimes in Latin America, namely El Salvador,Nicaragua, and Honduras and trained ,armed and funded what later became Al-Qaeda who returned the favor by killing over 3,000 on 9/11/2001 in
      New York city.

      • Bronwyn1

        Ronald Reagan’s own daughter, Patti Davis, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times in 1989 referred to the war in Nicaragua as “my fathers war” asked if she went to Nicaragua to research her second novel ‘Deadfall’ a spy thriller that takes aim at the war in Nicaragua, she said it would have been too dangerous. “The CIA created, armed, and financed the Contras. My father backed them with everything he had. It was my father’s war, and almost everyone in Nicaragua has lost somebody as a result of it. I couldn’t go down there, being his daughter, and expect not to feel those people’s wrath.”

        Her book ‘Deadfall’ is about a young California couple who try to make a documentary film about the ravages of the Nicaraguan war, CIA spies, stolen film, evidence of American’s illegal involvement in the war…..

        Davis also said “I could have picked Guatemala or Allendes Chile. We’ve gone into a number of countries and participated in an overflow. I chose Nicaragua because it was current and because the situation bothered me tremendously. ” “There are Guatemalan children walking along on one leg, who are blind and maimed because of this.” She said “Nicaragua will never be the same . When I started writing this book, I thought we might be in a full fledged war by the time it came out.”

        That interview was in 1989. The tragic results of her father’s horrific actions, have been far reaching. But even his own daughter could admit to that. We will never see that kind of honesty from Liz Cheney regarding her father’s war.

      • congero

        Hi Ms. Bronwyn, I’ve been trying to find your post . Especially the one where you replied to the video of the “space traders”. I want you to know I haven’t been ignoring you and I’ve seen this in my disqus but couldn’t find it here until now. I thank you for your up votes and this recent post is spot on and exactly supports the point I was attempting to make. I don’t have much time to post today but I was glad to find this to say thank you and to say hi. ;-))

      • Bronwyn1

        Oops, I added a link (the other site we were on) in my reply to you so now there is a hold on it. Hope it posts. Hope you had a great day, my friend!

      • Bronwyn1

        Thanks, my friend, for explaining that. I figured you wanted to reply to the jerk while his posts were fresh. You really took some effort and time in doing so. I always learn something from your posts. He could too if he would only read them. But I came to the conclusion a long time ago that JB Bigot is an oppressed (authoritarian mind set) coward obstinately determined not to learn. He is terrified of excepting the fact that all that wonkery his heroes have fed him is pure propaganda, misinformation, crap so he chooses to double down on the stupidity. And that is what stops me from getting into any useless wankery with him. He knows you know your stuff, he knows you are right, and he never has anything of substance to counter argue with!

        I was a bit concerned I may have offended you in my two replies to you, on the other thread regarding ‘Space Traders’. But I hoped if that was or ever is the case you would feel free to tell me and not fear of hurting our friendship. Always give me your opinion if you don’t agree with me. Unlike the jerk I want to learn. I want my eyes and mind open to various opinions. So I do still want to hear your reply to those posts on that subject we were on, at the other site.

      • congero

        Thank you Ms. Bronwyn. Yes , I’ve spent too much time with that bigot JB. He is one of the things that is wrong with this country. Ignorant,shallow ,racist and proud of it.
        I’ve always enjoyed your post and I’ve leaned so much from you. I’ve seen the videos you mentioned and while disagreeing with alot of the black nationalism(I am a proletarian internationalist)the facts and accomplishments they detail are so true and need to be heard. I am finding that my replies to these bigots seems to be causing trouble with my computers. Coincidence? Either way it’s not worth it anymore. So my posting will be a lot less. Thank you for all your kind words and thought and know that I think of you the same. Wishing you well and piece of mind. Your friend always.

  • Everything she said is true. Why do y’all think her statements are absurd?

  • Grand1

    I predict that Michelle Bachmann will become a televangelist and predict the end of the world…once a week.