TO ***** supporters: KNOW BEFORE YOU VOTE!

[BmoreBrawler]

Time for a reality check.

***** will not remove our troops from Iraq. His plan is to remove all "combat" troops, while leaving approximately 50,000 troops to fill President Bush's permanent bases. The stated excuse is that these troops are needed to "fight terror". If fighting terror is a cause worth fighting for, why bring anyone back from Iraq at all?

This plan is lock-step with John McCain's assertion that we could stay 100 years in Iraq, and thats OK as long our soldiers are not dying. Permanent occupation of the type that admittedly led to the ********* attacks of 9-11(see 9-11 Commission report) is not a problem for the Bush/Cheney/Hillary/***** insiders crowd.

So why would ***** MISLEAD if not outright LIE to you on the most important issue of this campaign?

First lets take a look at the location of the permanent bases:

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/iraq-base-map.jpg

Now the primary oil pipelines in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...ra_map_416.gif

DID THEY EVER FIT TOGETHER??!?!!??!

Face the facts.

The plan to invade Iraq was concocted during the Clinton administration and weekly bombing took place.

The Bush administration was interested in removing Saddam upon entering the White House.

9-11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, according to numerous CIA sources.

*If Bush was so worried about terrorism, why does he refuse to protect our southern border?*

Bush went into Iraq with the intention of permanent occupation, as seen by the construction of the permanent bases network.

ANY mainstream media promoted candidate- Hillary, *****, McCain, Romney, Huckabee- will collude with President Bush by furthering BILL CLINTON'S plans for the region.

nuff said. I'm not trying to change who you vote for, just to make sure that you don't vote under any false pretenses.

"*****'s" plan, in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWnuMF4M6o



From Barack *****'s “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”:

-Armed forces should be redeployed...elsewhere in the region, to serve as an over-the-horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure allies of the United States of the commitment of the United States to remain engaged in the region to, and to position troops to strike directly at al-Qaeda.




*****/Clinton exposed by REAL ********s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSJdv75AzNQ

[Mozza]

I think a key point to remember here is that McCain will in all likelihood take an equally, if not more, aggressive stance to Iran which does not bode well for anybody. A war with Iran is less likely under *****.

[Sin City]

funny how you provide no source to all your claims..
you know that's not what he means and can't prove it so you just rant off.
thread dismissed.

[Addison]

Time for a reality check.

***** will not remove our troops from Iraq. His plan is to remove all "combat" troops, while leaving approximately 50,000 troops to fill President Bush's permanent bases. The stated excuse is that these troops are needed to "fight terror". If fighting terror is a cause worth fighting for, why bring anyone back from Iraq at all?

This plan is lock-step with John McCain's assertion that we could stay 100 years in Iraq, and thats OK as long our soldiers are not dying. Permanent occupation of the type that admittedly led to the ********* attacks of 9-11(see 9-11 Commission report) is not a problem for the Bush/Cheney/Hillary/***** insiders crowd.

So why would ***** MISLEAD if not outright LIE to you on the most important issue of this campaign?

First lets take a look at the location of the permanent bases:

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/iraq-base-map.jpg

Now the primary oil pipelines in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...ra_map_416.gif

DID THEY EVER FIT TOGETHER??!?!!??!

Face the facts.

The plan to invade Iraq was concocted during the Clinton administration and weekly bombing took place.

The Bush administration was interested in removing Saddam upon entering the White House.

9-11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, according to numerous CIA sources.

*If Bush was so worried about terrorism, why does he refuse to protect our southern border?*

Bush went into Iraq with the intention of permanent occupation, as seen by the construction of the permanent bases network.

ANY mainstream media promoted candidate- Hillary, *****, McCain, Romney, Huckabee- will collude with President Bush by furthering BILL CLINTON'S plans for the region.

nuff said. I'm not trying to change who you vote for, just to make sure that you don't vote under any false pretenses.

"*****'s" plan, in his own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWnuMF4M6o



From Barack *****'s “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”:

-Armed forces should be redeployed...elsewhere in the region, to serve as an over-the-horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure allies of the United States of the commitment of the United States to remain engaged in the region to, and to position troops to strike directly at al-Qaeda.




*****/Clinton exposed by REAL ********s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSJdv75AzNQ

That explains a few things. Interesting.

[Scottie2Hottie]

if you ask me, we should be more worried about ****in pakistan than iran.

[HotSizzle]

good stuff, say no to *****.

[BmoreBrawler]

funny how you provide no source to all your claims..
you know that's not what he means and can't prove it so you just rant off.
thread dismissed.

Did you check the bottom and read my direct quote from *****-written legislation?

If you want sources to specific things, tell me so I can find them for you.

[Welter_Skelter]

If the USA is so ****ing worried about running out of OIL.. that they have to invade sovereign nations under the pretense of fighting terrorisim.. When there is terrorism all over the world.. Not just the OIL rich Middle east..

Then I ask this... Being among the Scientifc and Technology leaders in the world.. As well as the "major threat" of Man Made Carbon.. Couldnt they just come up with new method of fuel??? Or perhaps dig up one of those NON Fossil Fuel Burning engines that they OWN that Patents to but have buried in some warehouse becasue it was "Not econmicaly viable" at the time.. And sort all this out like the civallised people they claim to be????

just wondering..

[BmoreBrawler]

If the USA is so ****ing worried about running out of OIL.. that they have to invade sovereign nations under the pretense of fighting terrorisim.. When there is terrorism all over the world.. Not just the OIL rich Middle east..

Then I ask this... Being among the Scientifc and Technology leaders in the world.. As well as the "major threat" :rollseyes: of Man Made Carbon.. Couldnt they just come up with new method of fuel??? Or perhaps dig up one of those NON Fossil Fuel Burning engines that they OWN that Patents to but have buried in some warehouse becasue it was "Not econmicaly viable" at the time.. And sort all this out like the civallised people they claim to be????

just wondering..

I'm not so sure OIL was the only reason, other reasons probably include a path towards one world government I just have a hard time believing that the people orchestrating this invasion are patriotic and want cheap oil for Americans.

As far as alternative fuels though, I dont think its that easy. If South Korea, a nation with unsurpassed technological advances cant come up with it, I'm not so sure the USA can.

[Welter_Skelter]

I'm not so sure OIL was the only reason, other reasons probably include a path towards one world government I just have a hard time believing that the people orchestrating this invasion are patriotic and want cheap oil for Americans.

As far as alternative fuels though, I dont think its that easy. If South Korea, a nation with unsurpassed technological advances cant come up with it, I'm not so sure the USA can.

AHH yes the ever loving New World Order...

I just want to add.. I would Lie and Murder for Billions and Billions of $$$$$$