• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 09:23:20 PM
Eisenhour was Army Chief of Staff at the time.  Truman was President.  You are the knucklehead tthat said Eisenhour set it up.

Show me where I supposedly said he “set it up?” I said he was involved in setting it up, obviously. Why wouldn’t he be?! ::)

Quote from: Nucky Nolan on December 09, 2018, 09:13:01 PM
It sounds like we have a new DSM classification. Where's Dr. Onan when you need him?
Lol if only Tootsie could ever be so lucky. She’ll only get a brief mention in the obits after going completely psycho on some poor cop trying to tell her to move the 1990 caprice classic she’s living in because it’s in a no parking zone I reckon. 

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 09, 2018, 12:23:15 PM
At best, and I reach to even ascribe such to you, this demonstrates ONLY that there is not monolithic agreement amongst the global elites as to which is the most expedient path forward to their full Luciferian agenda.

You have such an encyclopedic memory for anything inaccurate or "woo woo" from the conspiracy theorist side, yet I wonder if you recall when Bush instructed our ambassador April Glasspie to tell Saddam that the US had "no opinion" on Iraq's redress of grievances of Kuwait for slant-drilling into Iraqi oil reserves?

http://truthmegasite.com/iraq-invades-kuwait-beginning-the-gulf-war/

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, “We have no opinion on…conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” She reiterated this position several times, and added, “Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction.” A week before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Baker’s spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that “the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait’s aid if it were attacked.” (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in [1]).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country.” The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, “Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise.” (quoted in [1]).

April Gillespie said the the U.S. had no opinion on the border dispute which meant that the U.S. wasn’t taking sides.”  Kelly said that the U.S. had no defense agreement with Kuwait which is a true statement. Diplomats fuck  up.   How does any of this implicate Bush in a plot to start a war.  Even The New York Daily News didn’t make that leap.  Can you site one periodical or journal published contemporaneously or since that made that claim.  Most were Bush bashers and would have readily made such a claim if there was even a hint of that being the case?  Exactly what did Bush have to gain by starting a war.  If conquest for the purpose of grabbing Iraq’s oil was the aim, why didn’t he go all the way to Bagdad and unseat Sadam? 

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
April Gillespie said the the U.S. had “no opinion on the border dispute which meant that the U.S. wasn’t taking sides.”  Kelly said that the U.S. had no defense agreement with Kuwait which is a true statement. Diplomats funk up.   How does any of this implicate Bush in a plot to start a war.  The New York Daily News didn’t make that leap.



Required reading for you, pinhead.  ;)

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 09, 2018, 09:37:22 PM


Required reading for you, pinhead.  ;)

Since you all are so fond of quoting Wikipedia:


"Family of Secrets contends that the first President Bush became an intelligence agent in his teenage years and was later at the center of a plot to assassinate Kennedy that included his father, Prescott Bush, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, CIA Director Allen Dulles, Cuban and Russian exiles and emigrants, and various Texas oilmen.[1] It asserts that Bob Woodward of The Washington Post was an intelligence agent who conspired with John Dean to remove President Richard Nixon from office for opposing the oil depletion allowance.[1]

The book received scathing reviews.[4] Writing in the Los Angeles Times, media critic Tim Rutten called the book a "dispiriting tome" that was an example of "paranoid literature." He said that Baker "recklessly impugns, in the most disgusting possible way, the reputations not simply of men and women now dead, but of the living," Rutten said that though George H.W. Bush was not likely to sue for libel, using a "tissue of innuendo, illogical inference, circumstance and guilt by tenuous association -- as Baker does in this book -- to indict rhetorically anyone, let alone a former chief executive, of an infamous murder is a reprehensible calumny."[1]"

Russ Baker is one of the conpiracy theorists wo has gotten rich exploiting the gullible that I mentioned.   

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 09, 2018, 09:27:48 PM
Show me where I supposedly said he “set it up?” I said he was involved in setting it up, obviously. Why wouldn’t he be?! ::)


"Well, sure! Ike was military intel all the way. He founded the post-war intel community and then warned us about it when it started going rogue. Remember? :D"


Are you going to argue that set up and founded have totally different meanings?  Of course you are--you are shameless dissembler and obdurate. 

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 10:34:19 PM

"Well, sure! Ike was military intel all the way. He founded the post-war intel community and then warned us about it when it started going rogue. Remember? :D"


Are you going to argue that set up and founded have totally different meanings?  Of course you are--you are shameless dissembler and obdurate.

Founded doesn’t mean founder. It’s a subtle distinction that’s probably lost on an unthinking, koolaid drinking dork like yourself. Keep rooting for your team though, pops.  ;D

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 10:00:53 PM
Since you all are so fond of quoting Wikipedia:


"Family of Secrets contends that the first President Bush became an intelligence agent in his teenage years and was later at the center of a plot to assassinate Kennedy that included his father, Prescott Bush, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, CIA Director Allen Dulles, Cuban and Russian exiles and emigrants, and various Texas oilmen.[1] It asserts that Bob Woodward of The Washington Post was an intelligence agent who conspired with John Dean to remove President Richard Nixon from office for opposing the oil depletion allowance.[1]

The book received scathing reviews.[4] Writing in the Los Angeles Times, media critic Tim Rutten called the book a "dispiriting tome" that was an example of "paranoid literature." He said that Baker "recklessly impugns, in the most disgusting possible way, the reputations not simply of men and women now dead, but of the living," Rutten said that though George H.W. Bush was not likely to sue for libel, using a "tissue of innuendo, illogical inference, circumstance and guilt by tenuous association -- as Baker does in this book -- to indict rhetorically anyone, let alone a former chief executive, of an infamous murder is a reprehensible calumny."[1]"

Russ Baker is one of the conpiracy theorists wo has gotten rich exploiting the gullible that I mentioned.

Oooh! Scathing reviews from the mainstream media...the LA Times no less.  ;D

Yeah, they’ve shown themselves to be highly reliable, haven’t they? Like I said earlier, just go back to sleep, you pathetic boomer. It’s really too bad your sub wasn’t turned into a watery tomb.  :D

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 09, 2018, 10:50:32 PM
Founded doesn’t mean founder. It’s a subtle distinction that’s probably lost on an unthinking, koolaid drinking dork like yourself. Keep rooting for your team though, pops.  ;D


WTF?  Founded doesn't mean founder?  A founder has founded something or he wouldn't be a founder.  The only "subtle" distinction here is that one is a noun and one is a verb:

founder noun (1)
found·​er | \ˈfau̇n-dər  \
Definition of founder (Entry 1 of 4)
: one that founds or establishes
the founder of a company
the founder of psychoanalysis



Kidnostad3

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 09, 2018, 10:53:27 PM
Oooh! Scathing reviews from the mainstream media...the LA Times no less.  ;D

Yeah, they’ve shown themselves to be highly reliable, haven’t they? Like I said earlier, just go back to sleep, you pathetic boomer. It’s really too bad your sub wasn’t turned into a watery tomb.  :D

They surer than shit were not fans of Bush and they jumped on every opportunity to wire brush him.  You and Meteron really get nutty when someone questions your articles of faith.  Did you react like this when someone told you that there was no Santa Clause?

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 11:13:37 PM

WTF?  Founded doesn't mean founder?  A founder has founded something or he wouldn't be a founder.  The only "subtle" distinction here is that one is a noun and one is a verb:

founder noun (1)
found·​er | \ˈfau̇n-dər  \
Definition of founder (Entry 1 of 4)
: one that founds or establishes
the founder of a company
the founder of psychoanalysis

Yeah, it wasn’t founded by just one person. Google really isn’t your friend, is it? :(

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 11:36:29 PM
They surer than shit were not fans of Bush and they jumped on every opportunity to wire brush him.  You and Meteron really get nutty when someone questions your articles of faith.  Did you react like this when someone told you that there was no Santa Clause?

You’re the one holding up the fucking LA Times as the bastion of truth here, shithead. ::)

BTW, you’re the one who believes in fairy tales like Santa, the official 9/11 story and that GHW Bush was a great president. LOL! ;D

ZaZa

Trump's best body Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is a gentle man worthy of Trump's protection.

'The thing is done:' Khashoggi killing tape indicates hit squad was briefing Riyadh â€" report.
https://www.rt.com/news/446032-khashoggi-transcript-last-words/

..quote/
The full transcript of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi's murder in a Saudi consulate in Turkey reportedly shows
that one of the assassins was briefing someone on the phone as the journalist's dismembering progressed.
According to a CNN report citing a source who has reviewed the full transcript of the audio recording translated from Arabic,
a man, identified as Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, a former Saudi diplomat and intelligence official,
made at least three phone calls to someone who was apparently a superior.

"Tell yours, the thing is done, it's done," Mutreb allegedly said as Khashoggi drew his last breath at the hands of a 15-men hit team.
"I can't breathe," Khashoggi cried.
The plea was followed by muffled noises and several voices talking overhead, but nothing more could be discerned, according to the source.

The transcript then meticulously describes the sounds that followed.
"Scream. Scream. Gasping, Saw. Cutting," it reads, only confirming the previous reports that the journalist was suffocated and then cut into pieces.
/..end of quote/

Dr. MD MD

It’s the establishment Republicans like kid that really worry me more than the Democrats because they really don’t get why Trump got elected and see him in the same light as someone like GHW Bush. In other words, they’re so out of touch that they could easily hand the election over to the Dems with their horseshit by refusing to acknowledge what was wrong with Republicans before Trump and thus shooting themselves in the foot.


WeinerInHand

Quote from: Gd5150 on December 09, 2018, 07:03:23 PM

We haven’t seen a meltdown like this since the days of pudophile. Stand up for tinyschlubs!



...and he "loves" children.


Kidnostad3

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 09, 2018, 11:51:41 PM
Yeah, it wasn’t founded by just one person. Google really isn’t your friend, is it? :(


Atta boy.  If you can't wow'em with wisdom, try to baffle'em with bullshit.  Go back to your original statement. 

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 10, 2018, 01:02:32 AM
It’s the establishment Republicans like kid that really worry me more than the Democrats because they really don’t get why Trump got elected and see him in the same light as someone like GHW Bush. In other words, they’re so out of touch that they could easily hand the election over to the Dems with their horseshit by refusing to acknowledge what was wrong with Republicans before Trump and thus shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm a registered independent.  I have criticized Republicans many times on these boards and I just recently reiterated my belief that the two party system sucks and that I would like to see a viable third party emerge.  George H.W. Bush is not BEALZABUB and you are talking through your ass again. 

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 08:35:07 PM
Exactly who are you responding to?

To YOU, green boi!

QuoteOnly the first quote in your screed was from a post of mine.

Bullshit LIE!

QuoteIt had nothing to do with points of light. The rest is from someone else’s.  You are the one doing the conflating.

So this is not YOUR full post?

Quote
Kidnostad3

Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Reply #78880 on: December 07, 2018, 08:08:00 PM »
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 07, 2018, 07:02:54 PM
Globalism, nationalism...whatevs! As long as I can root for my team. You’re either with us or against us. Hurr durr! ;D

I'm a hard core, rock ribbed nationalist and patriot but I'm not on your side.  This all started with G.H.W Bush's "There is a New World Order Speech"  I remember listening to that speech when It was given not long after the Wall came down.  Of course there was going to be a new world order the Soviet Union had just gone tits up.  When the speech was made nobody but nobody took it to mean he was trying to sell globalism but only that it was a statement of the obvious .  That crock of shit was invented years later by a wingnut conspiracy theorist like the ones who's every word you take as gospel and it is saps like you who popularized it on the Internet.  Wild ass claims that play to one's sense of victimhood and need to feel holier than thou are the stock in trade of the guru's you follow so ardently.  Unlike you, most people understand that and apply their intelligence, life experience and common sense in evaluating what they say.  You are obviously handicapped in that respect.

That was the actual post I replied to,

QuoteI was referring to the fact one of the two world superpowers on the planet had ceased to be, the various countries that made up the Soviet Soviet Block had become independent the Berlin Wall had come down and the East and West Germany were in the process of being reunified.  That was a huge and very obvious  reshuffling of the world order.

You can't even keep up with your own disinformation here. I refuse to waste time correcting an outright LIAR, and this is who and what you are.

Again, YOUR words - no conflation, no misquote = YOUR WORDS:

Quote
Kidnostad3

Re: President Donald J. Trump
« Reply #78880 on: December 07, 2018, 08:08:00 PM »
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on December 07, 2018, 07:02:54 PM
Globalism, nationalism...whatevs! As long as I can root for my team. You’re either with us or against us. Hurr durr! ;D

I'm a hard core, rock ribbed nationalist and patriot but I'm not on your side.  This all started with G.H.W Bush's "There is a New World Order Speech"  I remember listening to that speech when It was given not long after the Wall came down.  Of course there was going to be a new world order the Soviet Union had just gone tits up.  When the speech was made nobody but nobody took it to mean he was trying to sell globalism but only that it was a statement of the obvious .  That crock of shit was invented years later by a wingnut conspiracy theorist like the ones who's every word you take as gospel and it is saps like you who popularized it on the Internet.  Wild ass claims that play to one's sense of victimhood and need to feel holier than thou are the stock in trade of the guru's you follow so ardently.  Unlike you, most people understand that and apply their intelligence, life experience and common sense in evaluating what they say.  You are obviously handicapped in that respect.

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 08:48:37 PM
My point was that Eisenhour had nothing to do with setting up the CIA as MD. MD. claimed.   I said I was working from memory but you are definitely a Wikipedia wonder.
I understand why supportive citations vex you, I really do.

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 09:35:49 PM
April Gillespie said the the U.S. had no opinion on the border dispute which meant that the U.S. wasn’t taking sides.”

And yet we DID "take sides", didn't we?

That was US slant drilling tech we sold Kuwait, and when they misused it we sided with them and LIED through our ambassador to Iraq.

Deal with REALITY!

QuoteKelly said that the U.S. had no defense agreement with Kuwait which is a true statement. Diplomats fuck  up.

Wow.

Just fucking WOW.

Let's rename you Kid False Flag, because you'll make excuses for ANYTHING we do!

QuoteHow does any of this implicate Bush in a plot to start a war.  Even The New York Daily News didn’t make that leap.  Can you site one periodical or journal published contemporaneously or since that made that claim.

You mean I have to tap dance through articles to meet your bullshit appeal to false consensus through the press for the facts to remain facts?

FUCK YOU!

Obvious strawman operation is obvious strawman operation.

You really are a transparent shill for the deep state.

QuoteMost were Bush bashers and would have readily made such a claim if there was even a hint of that being the case?

Oh you want BOTH sides of the road - of couse. You ask me to cite articles from a media that you neatly indict as being against Bush.

So how does that work? 

QuoteExactly what did Bush have to gain by starting a war.

1. Precedent. (see our post 911 invasion)

2. Profits. (always)

3. Payback. (no love lost between Sodem and Sr.)

QuoteIf conquest for the purpose of grabbing Iraq’s oil was the aim, why didn’t he go all the way to Bagdad and unseat Sadam?

Because his deep state "allies" called him back.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html


Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, By George Bush Sr.
Print
Memoryhole
April 19, 2003
On 21 September 2002, The Memory Hole posted an extract from an essay by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, in which they explain why they didn't have the military push into Iraq and topple Saddam during Gulf War 1. Although there are differences between the Iraq situations in 1991 and 2002-3, Bush's key points apply to both. But a funny thing happened. Fairly recently, Time pulled the essay off of their site. It used to be at this link, which now gives a 404 error. If you go to the table of contents for the issue in which the essay appeared (2 March 1998), "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" is conspicuously absent.

Because of this erasure, we're posting the entire essay below the portion we originally excerpted. Below that, you'll find a copy of the actual page from the magazine, courtesy of Bruce Koball and Boing Boing.

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. I've been told that the same passage appears on page 489 of Bush and Scowcroft's book, A World Transformed (Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).


Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 10:00:53 PM

The book received scathing reviews.[4] Writing in the Los Angeles Times, media critic Tim Rutten called the book a "dispiriting tome" that was an example of "paranoid literature."

Congratulations, you are now citing a 'book review' from a hard left fake news disseminator as your source for authoritative analysis.

We KNOW who you are now. :(

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 09, 2018, 11:13:37 PM

WTF?  Founded doesn't mean founder?  A founder has founded something or he wouldn't be a founder.  The only "subtle" distinction here is that one is a noun and one is a verb:

founder noun (1)
found·​er | \ˈfau̇n-dər  \
Definition of founder (Entry 1 of 4)
: one that founds or establishes
the founder of a company
the founder of psychoanalysis

IDIOTA!

Are you so fucking BRAIN DEAD that you can only conceive of ONE person being involved in the "founding" ????


Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 10, 2018, 09:36:53 AM

Atta boy.  If you can't wow'em with wisdom, try to baffle'em with bullshit.  Go back to your original statement.

YOU just got your ASS handed to you AGAIN!

FUCK OFF LYING DEEP STATE SHILL!

>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 10, 2018, 09:47:09 AM
I'm a registered independent.  I have criticized Republicans many times on these boards and I just recently reiterated my belief that the two party system sucks and that I would like to see a viable third party emerge.  George H.W. Bush is not BEALZABUB and you are talking through your ass again.

So you don't admit the Skull and Bones Society is a Satanic fraternity?

YOU are a complete and total shill for the Luciferian agenda!

DIAF motherfucker!

>:( >:( >:( >:(

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 10, 2018, 11:16:40 AM
So you don't admit the Skull and Bones Society is a Satanic fraternity?

YOU are a complete and total shill for the Luciferian agenda!

DIAF motherfucker!

>:( >:( >:( >:(

Why did you go on about Bush's "1000 Points of Light" speech that he made 01/20/1990" when I was clearly referring to his "New World Order" Speech of 09/11/1990.  You are obviously confusing the two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_points_of_light

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics )

There could thousands of people who were stake holders and could have had some involvement in standing up the CIA.   Wikipedia says it was Harry Truman that "founded" the CIA. I defy you to show me something authoritative that says  Eisenhower founded the FBI. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman


As often happens when those of you who have never heard a conspiracy theory you didn't like, when they are challenged you wallpaper the board with totally subjective claptrap and then declare victory.   I'll leave your Luciferian conspiracy and other such theories for God to sort out because only he knows and you and MD. MD. are sappy emotional basket cases who are incapable of objective analysis.

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 10, 2018, 12:32:04 PM
Why did you go on about Bush's "1000 Points of Light" speech that he made 01/20/1990" when I was clearly referring to his "New World Order" Speech of 09/11/1990.  You are obviously confusing the two.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_points_of_light

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics )

"Two"?

You think there were only "two"???

http://canadianliberty.com/?p=16876

President George H. W. Bush, State of the Union, 29 January 1991:

What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankindâ€"peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. . .
The end of the cold war has been a victory for all humanity. A year and a half ago, in Germany, I said that our goal was a Europe whole and free. Tonight, Germany is united. Europe has become whole and free, and America’s leadership was instrumental . . .
The world can, therefore, seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order, where brutality will go unrewarded and aggression will meet collective resistance. . . . 2
Maxwell Air Force Base War College in Montgomery, Alabama on 13 April 1991:

I wanted to speak . . . about the new world taking shape around us, about the prospects for a new world order now within our reach. . . . The new world order really is a tool for addressing a new world of possibilities. . . . 3
Announcement on 16 January 1991 of allied military action in the Persian Gulf:

We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world orderâ€"a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successfulâ€"and we will beâ€"we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders. . . . 4
Address before a joint session of Congress on 11 September 1990:

Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun.
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objectiveâ€"a new world orderâ€"can emerge: a new eraâ€"freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor.
Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak[!]. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. . .
Once again, Americans have stepped forward . . . At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. . . . 5
Fundraiser for gubernatorial candidate Pete Wilson in San Francisco on 19 September 1990:

Ours is a generation to finally see the emergence of promising, exciting new world order which we’ve sought for generations. And we are witness to the first demonstration of this new partnership for peace: a united world response to Iraq’s aggressive ambition. . . . 6There could thousands of people who were stake holders and could have had some involvement in standing up the CIA.   Wikipedia says it was Harry Truman that "founded" the CIA. I defy you to show me something authoritative that says  Eisenhower founded the FBI. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman


QuoteAs often happens when those of you who have never heard a conspiracy theory you didn't like when you are challenged you wallpaper the board with highly subjective claptrap and then declare victory.   I'll leave your Luciferian conspiracy and other such theories for God to sort out because only he knows.

I am stunned that you are actually a deep state shill, - stunned!

Pouring truth on you is like water off a duck's back.

Fuck you very much for siding with Satan and DIAF, etc.


Kidnostad3

Again, I said nothing about 1000 points of light and Eisenhower was not the founder of the CIA. 

As for my being a shill for the Satanist, you bet.  I've got a hat just like George's and have business cards with that same demonic symbol on them. 

Metron2267

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on December 10, 2018, 12:51:30 PM
Again, I said nothing about 1000 points of light and Eisenhower was not the founder of the CIA.

Did I SAY that you claimed Eisenhower founded the CIA?

No.

In fact I posted supportive data indicating it predated his Presidency.

Stop with the bullshit strawman crap!

QuoteAs for my being a shill for the Satanist, you bet.  I've got a hat just like George's and have business cards with that same demonic symbol on them.

How did I manage to intuit your freemasonry background, garsh wotta surprise!

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod