Gane
Jr. Member
Karma: +4/-0
Posts: 54
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2008, 07:49:02 AM » |
|
Speaking of trusting the Pentagon sources, there is a great documentary on PBS that shows the huge rifts between CIA and Pentagon over what should be done in Iraq and how the war in Afghanistan should be fought. Cheney sided with Rumsfeld and the Pentagon because their intel gave the impression that Iraq was a threat, while CIA only wanted to focus on Afghanistan because they had no intel showing Iraq to be a threat to the US.
I've only seen the documentary on around 2 or 3 in the morning EST so I'm not sure the name of it, but it is interesting and seemed fairly unbiased.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2008, 05:08:45 PM » |
|
All I have staring me in the face Ron, is your cronic underestimation of what our Government is capable of.
Is it because you wont be able to "deal" with the ramifications of the truth? What? I say this because I've noted from past posts that you believe that our Government craps roses....Well Ron, let me be the last to tell you....you are sorely mistaken and tragically mis-informed ......on a multitude of issues.
Unless you are prepared to show the IPP report is made from thin air none of your last post has meaning. We have had five long years of lies from our media, Democrats and liberals. It's time to fess up and admit that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2008, 05:20:29 PM » |
|
Even accepting Saddam's indirect support of terrorist activities..... .... would be an incredible admission for Democrats, liberals and selected media outlets. Also, it would be completely different from the lies they have spoken, printed, believed and repeated over the last five years. .... does this justify America's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Saddam's guilt does not change the fact that this was a reckless war that aggravated the world community and motivated future terrorists.
This argument is light-years away from what we "knew" about Saddam's terrorist connections just a few months ago. Your above points are debateable at best. None of it refutes the IPP report detailing Saddam's ties to international terrorists organizations to include those with known members of al-Qaeda. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2008, 06:08:20 PM » |
|
Even accepting Saddam's indirect support of terrorist activities..... .... would be an incredible admission for Democrats, liberals and selected media outlets. Also, it would be completely different from the lies they have spoken, printed, believed and repeated over the last five years. I don't think ANYone has said Suddam never requested the services of any terrorist organization. The issue here was whether the terrorist organization was Al Quida, and if so, did he have the means to give them a nuclear weapon. It wasn't and he didn't. .... does this justify America's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Saddam's guilt does not change the fact that this was a reckless war that aggravated the world community and motivated future terrorists.
This argument is light-years away from what we "knew" about Saddam's terrorist connections just a few months ago. Your above points are debateable at best. None of it refutes the IPP report detailing Saddam's ties to international terrorists organizations to include those with known members of al-Qaeda. But NOT Al Quida specifically. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2008, 06:10:23 PM » |
|
I don't think anyone's gonna be surprised that Hussein funded terrorist organizations...
According to Democrats, liberals and selected media outlets this would be incredible news and they should be stunned to find out about Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda affiliated organizations. It would mean they have had it completely wrong for five long years and owe Bush quite an apology for the false accusations that have been made against him. It's time they fess up and admit that. but you'd be convieniently ignorant to roll over the fact that we've done it in the past and continue to do it now...
This is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not ignoring our past dealings with Saddam, why are you ignoring Saddam's direct ties to al-Qaeda terrorist organizations. We have been told for many years they existed only in Bush' lies. Remember? The same could be said about Saudi Arabian and Pakistani terrorist orginizations. No doubt all these groups shared very similar goals... yet detail is only paid to the similarities between Hussein and Al Quida? How convienient. I guess the similar goals between Musharraf (a US "ally") and whatever group succeeded in killing Bhutto are not good enough to make a stink about?
Either way, as the article goes on it becomes more concerned with the relationship of different terrorist organizations and has very little on Iraq's direct dealing with Al Quida, which as the report already states, were virtually independent of each other.
The Saudi Arabian and Pakistani governments have not declared war against the US and killed 3,000 American citizens on 9/11. Musharraf is not funding the al-Qaeda terrorist in his country. His Government isn't running terrorists training camps within their country, holding terrorist "conferences" and passing out illegal passports to known terrorists. His embassies aren't full of weapons to be used in terrorist attacks. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot be used as an analogy to al-Qaeda. Also, what I find strange about this whole thing is that if the Bush Administration was right this whole time... why aren't they shouting it from the roof tops? I refuse to believe that Bush would let his entire legacy (Iraq, basically) pass by because of laziness.
Why? He refuses to talk about every other lie told about him. From "stealing an election" to "outing a covert CIA agent" Bush has steadily refused to respond to these hoaxes. I believe it's a mistake and one of his greatest weaknesses. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2008, 06:20:36 PM » |
|
Speaking of trusting the Pentagon sources, there is a great documentary on PBS that shows the huge rifts between CIA and Pentagon over what should be done in Iraq and how the war in Afghanistan should be fought. Cheney sided with Rumsfeld and the Pentagon because their intel gave the impression that Iraq was a threat, while CIA only wanted to focus on Afghanistan because they had no intel showing Iraq to be a threat to the US.
I've only seen the documentary on around 2 or 3 in the morning EST so I'm not sure the name of it, but it is interesting and seemed fairly unbiased.
You don't say! Differences between the elected officials in Government, the Pentagon and the CIA. Astonishing!! Of course you realize this isn't the first time that's ever happened. Now, about Saddam's ties to known al-Qaeda terrorist organizations ....... any comments about that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2008, 06:32:01 PM » |
|
I don't think ANYone has said Suddam never requested the services of any terrorist organization. The issue here was whether the terrorist organization was Al Quida, and if so, did he have the means to give them a nuclear weapon.
It wasn't and he didn't.
You know that isn't true. Saddam had ties to international terrorist organizations including those he knew were affiliates of al-Qaeda. He had every intention of resuming WMD activities and continuing with those I have detailed here numerous times. You know, or should know by now, what Saddam's intentions were once UN sanctions were lifted. We now know he had direct ties or funded and armed al-Qaeda terrorist organizations in the Philipines, Africa and Egypt. These facts are indisputable and yet still have no bearing on your opinions. But NOT Al Quida specifically.
Yes Abraxas, he had specific links to al-Qaeda terrorist organizations in Egypt, Africa and the Phillipines. The IPP reports states these facts quite clearly. How could you have possibly missed that unless it's intentional? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2008, 09:33:37 PM » |
|
According to Democrats, liberals and selected media outlets this would be incredible news and they should be stunned to find out about Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda affiliated organizations. It would mean they have had it completely wrong for five long years and owe Bush quite an apology for the false accusations that have been made against him. It's time they fess up and admit that. No, Suddam did NOT have ties to Al Quida. Didn't you read your own report? He had ties to people that either later became part of Al Quida or with people that were members of several groups, one of which may have been Al Quida. Suddam NEVER worked with Al Quida directly. Again, I'll quote it for you: ""Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.""This is irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not ignoring our past dealings with Saddam, why are you ignoring Saddam's direct ties to al-Qaeda terrorist organizations. We have been told for many years they existed only in Bush' lies. Remember? I'm not even talking about Suddam here. I'm talking about Latin America, mostly. And again... SUDDAM WAS NEVER DIRECTLY TIED TO AL QUIDA. Again, for those in the back: ""Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust.""The Saudi Arabian and Pakistani governments have not declared war against the US and killed 3,000 American citizens on 9/11. Musharraf is not funding the al-Qaeda terrorist in his country. His Government isn't running terrorists training camps within their country, holding terrorist "conferences" and passing out illegal passports to known terrorists. His embassies aren't full of weapons to be used in terrorist attacks.
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan cannot be used as an analogy to al-Qaeda. The comparison I was drawing was NOT between Al Quida and Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but rather IRAQ and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - all countries that blatantly fund, organize and even shelter terrorist orginizations. If Iraq's ties to terrorism are legitimate reasons for invasion and occupation, and we ARE running a war on terrorism, where is the hard line approach to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? In the intrest of being fair, at the least, shouldn't we sever ties with these countries in question? Why? He refuses to talk about every other lie told about him. From "stealing an election" to "outing a covert CIA agent" Bush has steadily refused to respond to these hoaxes. I believe it's a mistake and one of his greatest weaknesses. Well, the election of 2000 and Plamegate will be nothing but footnotes in Bush's legacy... but Iraq will be the centerpiece. Don't you think he'd be doing everything he could to protect himself, especially if the truth is on his side for once? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2008, 03:36:30 AM » |
|
No, Suddam did NOT have ties to Al Quida. Didn't you read your own report?
You must have missed the part about funding, training and arming al-Qaeda terrorists in Africa, Egypt and the Phillipines. You also missed the part about Saddam's having a policy of state sponsored terrorism as a declared foreign policy. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." Well, the election of 2000 and Plamegate will be nothing but footnotes in Bush's legacy... but Iraq will be the centerpiece. Don't you think he'd be doing everything he could to protect himself, especially if the truth is on his side for once?
The 2000 elections and Plamegame were but two of the lies made up about Bush. You don't still believe that nonsense do you? You don't still believe the Texas ANG hoax, the lies about firing US attorneys, the lies about Bush going after Administration critics, the lies about stealing Iraq's oil, the lies about tons of "stolen" explosives under US noses, the lies about 600,000 dead Iraqi's ... etc etc. All of these were deliberate lies told by people who knew they were lying and the Bush Administration never fought back against them. Why is that so difficult for you to see and understand? You seem to think because he lets history expose these lies for what they are that must mean they are true. Bush is willing to let history determine his legacy. I believe it's a big mistake as the people who will write his history believe these lies and much more. Lies from liberals must be confronted. Bush has failed to do that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2008, 04:41:44 AM » |
|
More from the IPP report. This is word for word from Volume I, II. State Relationships with Terrorist GroupsUnder Saddam, the Iraqi regime used its paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam
training camps to train terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq. In 1999, the
top ten graduates of each Fedayeen Saddam class were specifically chosen for assignment
to London, from there to be ready to conduct operations anywhere in
Europe.
Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism. The existence
of a memorandum (Extract 10) from the lIS to Saddam, written a decade
before OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, provides detailed evidence of that support.
Several of the organizations listed in this memorandum were designated as international
terrorist organizations by the US Department of State.
Extract 10
We list herein the organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and
have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and
who also have the expertise to carry out assignments indicated in the above
directive [the cited directive has not been discovered yet]....
Islamic Jihad Organization [Egyptian Islamic Jihad]
In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic
Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:
- It was established in 1979.
- Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari' a law and establish Islamic
rule.
- It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It
carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination
of Sadat.
- We have previously met with the organization's representative and
we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the
Egyptian regime.EIJ was founded by OBL's pal Al-Zawahiri. Does that name sound familiar? Al-Zawahiri is a physician and the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). This organization opposes the secular Egyptian Government and seeks its overthrow through violent means. In approximately 1998, the EIJ led by Al-Zawahiri merged with Al Qaeda. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htm |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2008, 09:24:55 AM » |
|
You must have missed the part about funding, training and arming al-Qaeda terrorists in Africa, Egypt and the Phillipines.
You also missed the part about Saddam's having a policy of state sponsored terrorism as a declared foreign policy. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not.
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
"Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision." Actually, that just says Suddam supported groups that worked with Al Quida - groups that all may have had the same goals in Africa... but none of them say he directly supported Al Quida. In fact, they didn't really even trust each other. The 2000 elections and Plamegame were but two of the lies made up about Bush. You don't still believe that nonsense do you?
You don't still believe the Texas ANG hoax, the lies about firing US attorneys, the lies about Bush going after Administration critics, the lies about stealing Iraq's oil, the lies about tons of "stolen" explosives under US noses, the lies about 600,000 dead Iraqi's ... etc etc. I never said I did, but tiny details like this won't make or break the way history judges President Bush. That's what I said. What *I* believe is irrelevent. All of these were deliberate lies told by people who knew they were lying and the Bush Administration never fought back against them. Why is that so difficult for you to see and understand? You seem to think because he lets history expose these lies for what they are that must mean they are true.
Bush is willing to let history determine his legacy. I believe it's a big mistake as the people who will write his history believe these lies and much more.
Lies from liberals must be confronted. Bush has failed to do that. Because Iraq is Bush's legacy. Everything else is insugnificant. You'd think he'd at least want to get the story straight on that, don't you? More from the IPP report. This is word for word from Volume I, II. State Relationships with Terrorist GroupsUnder Saddam, the Iraqi regime used its paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam
training camps to train terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq. In 1999, the
top ten graduates of each Fedayeen Saddam class were specifically chosen for assignment
to London, from there to be ready to conduct operations anywhere in
Europe.
Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism. The existence
of a memorandum (Extract 10) from the lIS to Saddam, written a decade
before OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, provides detailed evidence of that support.
Several of the organizations listed in this memorandum were designated as international
terrorist organizations by the US Department of State.
Extract 10
We list herein the organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and
have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and
who also have the expertise to carry out assignments indicated in the above
directive [the cited directive has not been discovered yet]....
Islamic Jihad Organization [Egyptian Islamic Jihad]
In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic
Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:
- It was established in 1979.
- Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari' a law and establish Islamic
rule.
- It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It
carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination
of Sadat.
- We have previously met with the organization's representative and
we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the
Egyptian regime.EIJ was founded by OBL's pal Al-Zawahiri. Does that name sound familiar? Al-Zawahiri is a physician and the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). This organization opposes the secular Egyptian Government and seeks its overthrow through violent means. In approximately 1998, the EIJ led by Al-Zawahiri merged with Al Qaeda. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teralzawahiri.htmSo Hussein still never worked directly with Al Quida? That's what *I* said and what the IPP report has said... but what you fail to understand. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2008, 01:29:29 PM » |
|
Saddam funded and armed terrorist organizations he knew were al-Qaeda affiliates. One of them is run by OBL's brother-in-law. No amount of spinning or claims of "insignificance" will ever change that. It is many on the left who cannot appreciate the magnitude of this revelation. I have been reading and listening to lefties say Bush lied about Saddam's known links to international terrorist organizations for years now (Same goes for WMD's and the "war for oil"). This is so important because for years we have been told the exact opposite by Democrats, liberals and media outlets. Bush tried to tell everyone that Saddam did indeed have close working relationships with many international terrorits, including known al-Qaeda affiliates, and virtually every liberal in the country called him a liar. They still do even after this report. Why should he tell us what's going on? He gets called a liar for his troubles. He's pressing on with what he believes is right and letting history decide his legacy. Facts like these will not be forgotten. "In another instance, the new Pentagon study makes reference to captured documents detailing the Iraqi relationship with Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law... In a memo from Ambassador Salah Samarmad to the Secondary Policy Directorate of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, we learn that the Iraqi regime had been funding and equipping Abu Sayyaf, which had been responsible for a series of high-profile kidnappings. The Iraqi operative informs Baghdad that such support had been suspended. "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them." That support would resume soon enough, and shortly before the war a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat named Hisham Hussein would be expelled from the Philippines after his cell phone number appeared on an Abu Sayyaf cell phone used to detonate a bomb.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp?pg=1 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2008, 01:46:42 PM » |
|
Saddam funded and armed terrorist organizations he knew were al-Qaeda affiliates. One of them is run by OBL's brother-in-law. No amount of spinning or claims of "insignificance" will ever change that. It is many on the left who cannot appreciate the magnitude of this revelation. I have been reading and listening to lefties say Bush lied about Saddam's known links to international terrorist organizations for years now (Same goes for WMD's and the "war for oil"). This is so important because for years we have been told the exact opposite by Democrats, liberals and media outlets. Bush tried to tell everyone that Saddam did indeed have close working relationships with many international terrorits, including known al-Qaeda affiliates, and virtually every liberal in the country called him a liar. They still do even after this report. Why should he tell us what's going on? He gets called a liar for his troubles. He's pressing on with what he believes is right and letting history decide his legacy. Facts like these will not be forgotten. "In another instance, the new Pentagon study makes reference to captured documents detailing the Iraqi relationship with Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law... In a memo from Ambassador Salah Samarmad to the Secondary Policy Directorate of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry, we learn that the Iraqi regime had been funding and equipping Abu Sayyaf, which had been responsible for a series of high-profile kidnappings. The Iraqi operative informs Baghdad that such support had been suspended. "The kidnappers were formerly (from the previous year) receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we (IIS) are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them." That support would resume soon enough, and shortly before the war a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat named Hisham Hussein would be expelled from the Philippines after his cell phone number appeared on an Abu Sayyaf cell phone used to detonate a bomb.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp?pg=1Hi, Ron! How are You?  So...what's it like in 2003? Is it like I remember it? Is "Hey Ya!" by Outkast still a number one hit on the charts? "Yeah! Shake it like a Poloroid pit-cha!" Are the neo-cons still running the White House? Say Hi to Rummy for me! Hey, lemme catch you up! Wild news from 2007! They stopped making Poloroid film! And here in 2008, the Democrats control Congress and there is a black man that might be president! OMG!!! Bush is about as popular as Carter. You remember 1980, right? It's amazing isn't it? Jeez, progress. By the way! They caught Saddam Husein and killed him, and things still suck in Iraq. WHO KNEW!!! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 01:49:50 PM by Irwin »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2008, 02:47:41 PM » |
|
Hi, Ron! How are You? So...what's it like in 2003? Is it like I remember it? Is "Hey Ya!" by Outkast still a number one hit on the charts? "Yeah! Shake it like a Poloroid pit-cha!" Are the neo-cons still running the White House? Say Hi to Rummy for me! Hey, lemme catch you up! Wild news from 2007! They stopped making Poloroid film! And here in 2008, the Democrats control Congress and there is a black man that might be president! OMG!!! Bush is about as popular as Carter. You remember 1980, right? It's amazing isn't it? Jeez, progress. By the way! They caught Saddam Husein and killed him, and things still suck in Iraq. WHO KNEW!!! Not sure what this has to do with the topic. Nice rant though. It may give you some comfort to know I understand why you have to believe this stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2008, 03:01:26 PM » |
|
Hi, Ron! How are You? So...what's it like in 2003? Is it like I remember it? Is "Hey Ya!" by Outkast still a number one hit on the charts? "Yeah! Shake it like a Poloroid pit-cha!" Are the neo-cons still running the White House? Say Hi to Rummy for me! Hey, lemme catch you up! Wild news from 2007! They stopped making Poloroid film! And here in 2008, the Democrats control Congress and there is a black man that might be president! OMG!!! Bush is about as popular as Carter. You remember 1980, right? It's amazing isn't it? Jeez, progress. By the way! They caught Saddam Husein and killed him, and things still suck in Iraq. WHO KNEW!!! Not sure what this has to do with the topic. Nice rant though. It may give you some comfort to know I understand why you have to believe this stuff. Yeah, I have to believe it is 2008 and the only way I can believe you are still desperately trying to make the case that the invasion was a good idea, is that you suffered from a brain injury in 2003, which keeps you in that year, when all of the horseshit you keep flogging wasn't utterly disproven and debunked. It is so laughable the way you pretend you are so knowledgeable and everyone else is crazy, with the smug arrogance of the neo-cons in 2003. Newsflash: It is not just liberals who think the war was a stupid catastrophy anymore. But you go ahead, looney tune, don't let me interrupt. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
