This is an UNOFFICIAL link site and message board for english speaking “open” discussions on the New Apostolic Church (NAC). We want this to be a neutral site for all opinions and hope that all participants recognize and respect opposing view points and are above profanity and personal attacks.

Unlike the official site, where everything is in oneness, over here various participants have strong opinions which may not agree with the official NAC party line, be warned. Open discussion means “within the confines of any rules that the Founder and Admins have deemed necessary to promote the stated purpose of this board”.

Thank you

"The NAC is a business owned by a select few men who managed to replace the carrot, with god"

~ Finch ~

Online Bible : NKJV Easy Reference : Bible Passage Lookup / Word Search

Find that word! Dictionary / Thesaurus Want to check your spelling? SpellCheck

Interesting Documents : NACBoard@faithweb

kbb's esnips site : NAC Publications, CAC Historical Documents and more

Official Site : NAC USA/Canada/Mexico NAC S Africa : NACCape NACSEA

NAC International : NAK.org NAC UK & Ireland : NACukie.org NAC Australia : newapostolic.org.au

Administrators' e-mail : Ken :kenlitzke@yahoo.com

Brenda : brenda_lk1@yahoo.com Rich : calamity01@gmail.com

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

War based on lies??

Author	Comment
robk1982	War based on lies??		Lead	[-]
Posts: 495 06/13/2007 14:02	Tags : None The following quotes were all spoken by Democrats during Clinton's time as President. Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 *Quote:* "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Madeline Albright, Feb. 1, 1998 *Quote:* We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction Sandy Berger, Feb. 18, 1998 *Quote:* He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983 Madeline Albright, Nov. 10, 1999 *Quote:* Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998 *Quote:* Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
DJG0770	please	#1		[-]
Posts: 1341 06/13/2007 14:26	Robk, please stop. There's really no room for this discussion here amongst us educated folk. After all, we don't want facts to get in the way of the liberal mantra.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
LACNAC	Re: War based on lies??	#2		[-]
Posts: 1598 06/14/2007 10:42 Forum Moderator	You well know these statements were made before the "truth" was discovered and now that the "truth" is known, and we continue to engage in a war, it is a war based on lies. Actually, I think what this ultimately shows is that both parties are full of crap and speak out of both sides of their mouths (and rears as well). "But (to quote Dennis Miller), that's just my opinion..."
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
DJG0770	read more than just the newspapers please	#3		[-]
Posts: 1341 06/14/2007 12:38	The following is the complete text of the House Joint Resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq. HJ 114 RH Union Calendar No. 451 107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 [Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 2, 2002 Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations October 7, 2002 Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed [Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic] [Strike out the preamble and insert the part printed in italic] [For text and preamble of introduced joint resolution, see copy of joint resolution as introduced on October 2, 2002] JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'; Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451 107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 [Report No. 107-721] JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Consultant to Erinnyes	Re: War based on lies??	#4		[-]
Posts: 2832 06/16/2007 12:08 SheepleChaser	*Quote:* You well know these statements were made before the "truth" was discovered and now that the "truth" is known, and we continue to engage in a war, it is a war based on lies. Humm.... Guess we better just fill all those mass graves of Saddam's back in..... C2E
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	Never Mind the Facts	#5		[-]
Posts: 2994 06/16/2007 12:29 Bleeding Heart	Hi, Neocons, I'm dealing with a family crisis at the moment so am not gonna have time to get involved in a lengthy discussion -- one that really shouldn't be necessary given the enormous amount of evidence that we were deliberately lied into a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives. So, here's my contribution -- a summary of just a few of the deliberate lies told by this Administration to deceive and confuse the American people, who, unfortunately, seem to be easily deceived and confused. Sad to say, the American people bought it hook, line and sinker, and called people like me unpatriotic for questioning the status quo. That lies like, "The President saw the same evidence as Congress did," are still floating around six years later is just incredible, and speaks to the power and detrimental influence of lie-based media like Limbaugh & Co. And, by the way, the Clinton Administration did believe Saddam might be building these weapons but there is a major difference: The intelligence was not conclusive and they were not going to go to war based on inconclusive and possibly faulty intelligence. Years later, the intelligence was even LESS conclusive, and yet Bush manipulated it to justify an invasion. That is the difference. ******************************** Bush Misled America about the Threat from Iraq Why did we invade Iraq? Was it because, as the White House claimed, Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America. Or did Bush mislead the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating this threat. Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime, says Ron Suskind. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.** This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney: * Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged. Bush was warned by Tyler Drumheller of the CIA to take that statement out of the State of the Union Address, but he left it in, to deliberately mislead the American people. * Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true. * Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. * Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. * Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. * Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. Saddam Hussein had allowed the United Nations inspectors in. They were on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing, and when they requested more time, Bush said no. He then lied to the American people and the world that Saddam was resisting the inspections. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. * Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements, Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 and Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371. Resources * Timeline of Iraq Lies by Jodin Morey * Senate Intelligence Committee Reports from September 8, 2006 o "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare to Prewar Assessments" (PDF 6.9 MB) o "The Use by the Intelligence COmmunity of Intelligence Provided by the Iraqi National Congress" (PDF 9.3 MB) o "Key Judgments" from Rockefeller website o CBS News Report * "IraqOnTheRecord" - database of 237 lies by administration officials about Iraq, compiled by Congressman Henry Waxman. * 'CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES: Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A High Crime' by Elizabeth de la Vega * "Ex-CIA official: Bush administration misused Iraq intelligence", statements by Paul R. Pillar, CNN, 2/10/06 * "Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance" by Jeff Cohen * "Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel" 11/23/05, by Murray Waas * Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States - Title 18, Chapter 19, Section 371 * Fraud and False Statements - Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 * Disarm Saddam Hussein, the White House's own summary of lies about Iraq. * "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons Report on Iraq Contradicts Bush Administration Claims" By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers, 10/7/04 Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of all of the deliberate lies that were told to the American public in the leadup to the war. There's the Downing Street Memo, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," and a whole lot of other evidence out there for anyone who cares to learn the truth about this shameful episode in our history.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
DJG0770	We need an uptick in traffic - so here goes...	#6		[-]
Posts: 1341 06/22/2007 15:34	"Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination." President Harry S. Truman
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Knot Lost	Re: Never Mind the Facts	#7		[-]
Posts: 718 07/04/2007 13:06	neocon : abbreviation for neo-conservative in the U.S. political sense. *Quote:* "Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the 'American grain.' It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan." My goodness gracious, Katherine jumps on her anti-Bush soapbox again with her Liberal bias, unsubstantiated, media fed, "lies". Since the media is 95% liberal-biased, I'm sure there are plenty of articles that support you sentiments. That does not make them facts. Articles that report, "he said, she said" stories do not necessarily report facts. Very briefly, (because I have a busy summer going on) I have found some less bias "facts" for you. I really like the liberal media's description of the mobile Hydrogen producing labs. Enjoy: * Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Facts about the speech * Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - * Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda weekly standard article #1 weekly standard article #2 worldnetdaily news article * Lie #3 - Congress Knew - * Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes worldnetdaily #2 What and when did congress know? * Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction Iraq_Weapons Freerepublic site * Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Hydrogen production Even the very Liberal slanted CBS news didn't buy that one, until it served them better to do so. Mobile labs A more liberal report More mobile lab proof From Free Republic news The liberal papers and networks will provide you with plenty of ammo for your anti-Bush cannon, so carry on. Today being the day we celebrate our Independence, I hope you enjoy your day! V..
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	Continue to Never Mind the Facts	#8		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/05/2007 13:41 Bleeding Heart	The liberal media? You mean that collection of news agencies dominated by the large corporations that led the drumbeat to war back in late '02 and '03, complete with super-sized graphics and theme songs? You mean people like Chris Matthews, who enthusiastically espoused, "We're all necons now!" after the fall of Baghdad? And who went on to crow on mainstream television: *Quote:* Were proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, whos physical, whos not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy whos president. Women like a guy whos president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. Its simple. You mean The New York Times, which buried the story about the illegal waranteless domestic wiretapping of American citizens for over a year at the behest of the Bush Administration? Or do you mean the 94% of a.m. radio that is dominated by conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al? Oh, yes, there's your liberal media at work! Here's more from your liberal media, written by a real, all-out liberal. BTW, The Weekly Standard, spearheaded by Bill "Project for a New American Century/New Pearl Harbor" Kristol (son of Straussian disciple Irvin Kristol)? Free Republic, led by people like "Godless" Ann Coulter? These sources are so much more reliable than the White House's own words, or the Republican-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence's own findings, , or the statements of a Bush-Administration CIA official, all of which are cited above (contrary to your assertion that all of those sources are from the supposedly "liberal" media). It's amazing to me that 28% of Americans still support the Bush Administration, and even more amazing that a large percentage of that 28% seems to be found in the ranks of current and former NACs, who claim to be Christians even as they desperately seek to defend an illegal war and occupation that has cost tens of thousands of lives and compromised American principles and the respect for and safety of all Americans. Then again, being indoctrinated to believe that "blind faith" in church authorities is required is a powerful message that seeps into all facets of life, not just the spiritual...
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
kbb	Legal war	#9		[-]
Posts: 1629 07/05/2007 15:59 Official Prophet	Something of an oxymoron. Probably the winner makes it 'right' as they write the history. I dare say, simplistically, WWII was the last war for an ideal, as opposed to profit or other less altruistic reasons (legal or not). The right and the left are idiots. Partisan politics, while providing some balance, generally hamstring the (federal) government for making meaningful change for the people of the country. later kbb
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
deserted	His time haas come	#10		[-]
Posts: 61 07/05/2007 17:25	The media may be 95% liberally inclined but when words by one of the most conservative people of the last half century are used to point out the problem, I tend to agree. The words - "I didn't vote for him but he is my president and I hope he does a good job." The speaker - John Wayne, 1960, on the election of John Kennedy. When I look at the Federal budget deficit, the loss of individual liberties (Patriot Act) and much more I can only add the following regarding this president --"and he isn't doing it." http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=8dd25465-1b2b-49e5-81ff-003005828d82&f=00&fg=copy
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Knot Lost	Re: Continue to Never Mind the Facts	#11		[-]
Posts: 718 07/05/2007 17:30	Katherine, is this the conservative media you are professing that dominates the U. S.? The Media *Quote:* It's amazing to me that 28% of Americans still support the Bush Administration, and even more amazing that a large percentage of that 28% seems to be found in the ranks of current and former NACs Some basic math: 28% of 300 million = 84 million. Do you really think that a large portion of them are current or former NAC? I'm not even going to remark on your feeble attempt to link "blind faith" to this discussion. You can jump on your soapbox all you want and bash Bush all over the place. I'm not a real big GW fan myself. There certainly is plenty of things he has done wrong. Your ideas about an "illegal" war though are opinion, opinion based on loads of liberal junk. BTW what did you think of the extravagant hydrogen production trailer? I'm not spending any more time on these unanswerable questions of political garbage. Have a wonderful day. V..
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	And Keep On Ignoring Them...	#12		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/05/2007 23:14 Bleeding Heart	KL asks: *Quote:* Katherine, is this the conservative media you are professing that dominates the U. S.? No. It's the corporate media I'm talking about. I look at the reality of what is covered in the American press and how it's covered, some concrete examples of which I've cited above. Further, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the corporate-owned media (GE, Disney, Time Warner, Murdoch) doesn't rock the boat of those who butter its bread... *Quote:* Some basic math: 28% of 300 million = 84 million. Do you really think that a large portion of them are current or former NAC? Wow, someone really is lacking a sense of humor and deliberate hyperbole. My point was that Bush's base is made up of avowed Christians; mostly, the dominionist/fundamentalist kind. And there's a whole lot of irony in self-professed Christians supporting someone who has perpetrated the things Mr. Bush has. *Quote:* I'm not even going to remark on your feeble attempt to link "blind faith" to this discussion. Now, where have I heard that tone before? *Quote:* You can jump on your soapbox all you want and bash Bush all over the place. I'm not a real big GW fan myself. There certainly is plenty of things he has done wrong. Your ideas about an "illegal" war though are opinion, opinion based on loads of liberal junk. Oh, certainly. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee just throws out "loads of liberal junk" for the hell of it, as do folks like Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, who stated Iraq was on the table from the first Cabinet meeting of the Bush Administration; Tyler Drumheller, a 26-year veteran and former Chief of Covert Operations at the CIA who witnessed the Bush Administration cherry pick intelligence that fit its aims of an invasion, even when the intelligence was known to be questionable or faulty; Paul Craig Roberts, Economic Advisor to President Reagan whose comments about the illegal nature of the Iraq War are linked in my last post, and Colin Powell, Bush's former Secretary of State (more on his statements below). But never mind all that... don't let these pesky facts get in the way, even when they're backed by people who worked on the inside and supported this administration and the Republican administrations preceding it... *Quote:* BTW what did you think of the extravagant hydrogen production trailer? You mean that trailer that was claimed as a weapons lab by "Curveball"? and provided the basis for Secretary Powell's speech to the UN? Regarding Curveball's claims, I think the same as Bush I's Chief Weapons Inspector and Bush II's Special Advisor for Strategy regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Programs, David Kay. And former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who stated that the information on the mobile weapons labs was "deliberately misleading." And Powell's Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, who stated, *Quote:* "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council." Now, that's a whole slew of folks who have a vested interest in peddling "liberal junk"! *Quote:* I'm not spending any more time on these unanswerable questions of political garbage. Have a wonderful day. To the contrary, they are answerable and have been answered by some of the very people involved in launching this debacle in the first place. Thanks for your well wishes, V. Same to you.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	Re: Legal war	#13		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/05/2007 23:40 Bleeding Heart	*Quote:* I dare say, simplistically, WWII was the last war for an ideal, as opposed to profit or other less altruistic reasons (legal or not). That's why there was so much turmoil during Vietnam -- those who had lived through WWII couldn't understand how their children could not support the Vietnam war. After all, WWII was thought of as being a "good war," if such a thing is possible! I tend to agree with you, kbb. Too bad America has squandered so much of the good will and high regard that we earned during that period of time. deserted: I heard that quote recently, too. You are right: After a certain line is crossed and trust has been utterly breached, it becomes impossible to continue on as Mr. Wayne stated after Kennedy won over Nixon.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Knot Lost	Re: And Keep On Ignoring Them...	#14		[-]
Posts: 718 07/06/2007 01:35	*Quote:* You mean that trailer that was claimed as a weapons lab by "Curveball"? and provided the basis for Secretary Powell's speech to the UN? No, I'm talking about this one: Mobile labs Do you really think that is a hydrogen production trailer for weather balloons?!? You are the same about Bush and his administration as Bertie and Myule are about the NAC, except opposite. They think the NAC can do no wrong and you think Bush can do no right. They could find a whole hanger full of anthrax and you and your liberal media would find a way to spin it into ant spray. Just close your eyes and keep believing. There's no place like home....There's no place like home.....There's no place like home... Re-enlistments2007 Re-enlistments2005 Re-enlistments2006 God Bless them all! V..
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	God Bless Them Indeed!	#15		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/06/2007 12:06 Bleeding Heart	*Quote:* Do you really think that is a hydrogen production trailer for weather balloons?!? You are the same about Bush and his administration as Bertie and Myule are about the NAC, except opposite. No, actually, I'm like the United States Defense Intelligence Agency's engineers, who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. As to those renlistments, God spare them all from the death seen by almost 4000 of them and traumatic injuries seen by over 20,000... Funny how I don't see a listing of the thousands of soldiers being sent on third and fourth tours of duty (the most any soldier in Vietnam served was 2), some being sent back even with serious injuries. Must be that "liberal media" doing its work again! Hey, Knot Lost -- I've got an idea! Since you are so gung ho on justifying this war, and since the military is sending people in their 30s, 40s and even 50s over to Iraq to serve 3 and even 4 tours of duty, why not take this opportunity to put some action behind your beliefs? You support this war and they sure need help fighting it! If you don't feel up to it (those, like Bush and Cheney, who scream loudest in support of wars usually don't), then I'm sure that you'll be encouraging your kids to sign on the dotted line just as soon as they are of age (if they aren't already)! Or do you and yours, in the words of George Bush regarding Vietnam, "have other priorities than going to war"? I wonder if you'd be able to finagle 5 deferrals like Dick Cheney did?
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	As to Holding Them Accountable	#16		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/06/2007 12:18 Bleeding Heart	Knot Lost: You accuse me of not seeing anything positive in Bush. Actually, I do. He has behaved in such a way that 72% of the American people have finally seen through him, and thank God for that. He's done some other positive things, too, like making Ronald Reagan look like a Mensa man and turning Richard Nixon into a choir boy! Believe it or not, most Americans like me who now stand opposed to Bush did "get behind" him after 9/11, as deserted's John Wayne quote illustrates. The rest of the world stood with him/us, too. He squandered that good will through his actions over the past five years and the only one responsible for that is him. You see, unlike what I was taught about absolute authority in the NAC, leaders must be held accountable. Thankfully, it seems the American people are starting to wake up and do this, too. And that is extremely positive.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Consultant to Erinnyes	but then again...	#17		[-]
Posts: 2832 07/06/2007 12:50 SheepleChaser	*Quote:* You accuse me of not seeing anything positive in Bush. Actually, I do. He has behaved in such a way that 72% of the American people have finally seen through him, and thank God for that. At least his approval rating is still higher than the Democratic controlled do nothing Congress... or the Senate...
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	Enough is Enough	#18		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/06/2007 12:51 Bleeding Heart	Knot Lost: I've provided you with ample information from the very people and agencies who supported this war at the outset that refute the claims made by the Bush Administration. The one press source I used yesterday (MSNBC) was a transcript of Colin Powell's remarks -- a direct accounting of what he himself said on the subject, not what a "liberal" reporter said he said. All to no avail. I guess Free Republic has a better handle on the truth about the Iraq War than the architects of the war themselves do. Ratherh than responding to the facts presented, all I ever get back from you are accusations about "liberal junk" from the "liberal media" in spite of the fact that what I've laid out in the past couple of days comes from people in the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II Administrations who are anything but liberal. Oh, well. Enough is enough. I'm in good company with the nearly 72% of the American people who have woken up, learned the facts about this war, want an end to it, and want those responsible for deliberately misleading us into it held accountable.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Katherine	Absolutely!	#19		[-]
Posts: 2994 07/06/2007 12:54 Bleeding Heart	*Quote:* At least his approval rating is still higher than the Democratic controlled do nothing Congress... or the Senate... Absolutely, C2E! They are do-nothings who are failing, miserably, in their "checks and balances" job of holding the executive branch accountable and ending this war, which is the main reason that they were sent to Washington by the electorate in the last election. I couldn't agree more.
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post
Knot Lost	Re: Enough is Enough	#20		[-]
Posts: 718 07/06/2007 13:30	Ok Katherine, I read the transcript and don't see anywhere that Mr. Powell refutes the Bush Administration. Maybe you could point that out to me? I got work to do now but I'll finish later! BTW look at the first posting on this thread and then look at my posts. I've never supported the war or tried to justify it. V..
My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post

Quick Reply

This is NOT an official New Apostolic Church website! For official news or
information regarding the church, please contact:

**The New Apostolic Church * 404 Glen Cove Ave, Sea Cliff, NY 11579 * 516-609-9300**

e-mail Peter Johanning, Media Secretary of the New Apostolic Church : peter.johanning@nak.org