Bush's Guard Record

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Still, Bush pulled the trigger. The burden of proof is upon him. The world wants to know why we went to war, and right now the reasons given were not true. Yes, the madman has been overthrown, but evicting a dictator wasn't the reason given to the world. Powell was very dramatic and held up that little fake vial and said there were "TONS" of this over there ready to be used and they had the operations to reproduce it over and over at a quick pace.

We didn't need the proof in 91, he was someplace he wasn't supposed to be. But since we made the first move this time, our White House is therefore responsible for proving why their actions were correct.

True, SH could have made life easier for himself if he behaved and went along with inspectors - but that was just his nationalistic pride that drowned out his rational thought. I'm not unhappy he isn't in control anymore - in the long run it may be better and safer for us because of that. However, you just can't take out every leader you don't like and doesn't work with you.

If GW had made the same claims about NK, I don't think many in the world would doubt him. But the purden of proof would be upon him again if he was to send troops across the DMZ.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Jib 0]

Quote

Well I guess evryone lied about WMD's then:

Quote

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

No, Ron. Didn't you read what Kallend said:

Quote

Or being translated from Bush-speak, Clinton's experience with bad intel should have been a warning to the Bushites to be wary of their sources.

It only applies to "Bushites."

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[Ron 10]

Quote

Still, Bush pulled the trigger. The burden of proof is upon him

He had proof...The same proof that made the UN, Congress, Clinton, Burger, Gore, the UK intel agency...ect all think SH still had WMD.

You think you have more information than was given the President?

You think you would have made a better choice?

Quote

True, SH could have made life easier for himself if he behaved and went along with inspectors

Very true. He didn't not comply with the inspections. He DID have weapons that were not allowed by the sanctions against him, he sponsored terroism...ect.

The world is safer without him.

Quote

Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith. It was forwarded to the intelligence panel last month in response to bipartisan questions put to him by the Committee’s top Republican and Democratic members, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, respectively. The memo’s contents reflected years of reporting compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies from various sources.

According to Hayes, fifty individual items (which he infers must be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, since the bulk of materials seized from Iraqi files have yet to be analyzed) establish that Saddam Hussein collaborated extensively with bin Laden and his ilk in, for example, the following ways:

• Top Iraqi intelligence officials and other trusted representatives of Saddam Hussein met repeatedly with bin Laden and his subordinates. Since Saddam personally insisted that the relationship between the two be kept secret, the contents of their conversations have apparently not yet been discovered. It is a safe bet, though, that operational cooperation was among the topics discussed.

• According to the memo, U.S. intelligence received reports that Iraq provided safe havens, money, weapons and fraudulent Iraqi and Syrian passports to al Qaeda. It also provided training in the manufacture and use of sophisticated explosives. In that connection, bin Laden reportedly specifically requested that “[Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed,] Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker – especially skilled in making car bombs – remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.”

• A Malaysia-based Iraqi national, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, reportedly secured a job at the airport in Kuala Lumpur thanks to help from Iraq’s embassy in Malasia. He subsequently facilitated the movement of two of the September 11 hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi, through passport control and customs en route to an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. The memo notes that “One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.”

• “Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for [Chemical and Biological Weapons] CBW-related training beginning in December 2000. Iraqi intelligence was ‘encouraged’ after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.”

• The memo indicates that there were as many as four meetings between the alleged mastermind of the September 11th hijackings, Mohamed Atta, and the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani. “During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service [IIS] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.”

In short, thanks to a much-maligned Pentagon effort to perform an independent review of existing intelligence on Iraq — undertaken at Secretary Feith’s initiative — it is simply not possible any longer to claim that there is “no evidence” of links between Saddam and al Qaeda. It behooves most especially those who have access to the full classified memo, like Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, to stop misleading the public on this point for transparently partisan purposes.

The Feith memo should be helpful in one other way, as well. It underscores the validity of the “drain the swamps” strategy President Bush has been pursuing from day one in the war on terror — and the unsuitability to be Commander-in-Chief of those, like General Wesley Clark, who disagree, as he derisively put it Sunday, that “these old states are central to the problem of terrorism.”

SH had WMD's he never told the inspectors what he did with them, he dodged every attempt to make him come clean.

It is not like SH was an innocent man. He was quilty and out on parole. He violated almost every bit of his release.

Countries like France that were also violating the restrictions were against us go into Iraq.

If you had a criminal that was out on parole, and he broke his parole...what would you do to him, nothing?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

You think you have more information than was given the President?

The burden of proof is not on me. However, I can demand an answer.

I'm not the one that went on TV and in front of the world claiming they had solid proof. They claimed they knew exactly where the WMD were. They claimed TONS of chemicals. They never claimed "we might know where they are at, and I heard from my neighbors next door neighbor's cousin that they have a TON of chemicals." Where did all of that go in six weeks? If we were planning a war I would think the DOD would have been watching where the enemy armaments were and if they were being readied.

Now either they had piss-poor sources that gave them such strong, positve intel; they really screwed up in the pre-war times and blinked while someone moved a TON of chemical weapons...or they were never there in the first place and we knew that.

I don't care who said what on either side. We were guaranteed they knew exactly where the weapons were. Show us proof. Hmmm...Maybe Bush is saving that proof for October.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

The linkage of the Iraq vendetta war to 9/11 and Al Qaeda is bogus and just meant to confuse the ignorant. Terrorism is UP since the Iraq invasion.

The DIRECT link may be bogus, however it is dishonest of you to deny any link between Al Queda, terrorism against the US and its allies, and Iraq. It is documented that Iraq, at a minimum, provided safe harbor to known Al Queda operatives.

-
Jim

So did Florida.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The burden of proof is not on me. However, I can demand an answer.

True.

Quote

I'm not the one that went on TV and in front of the world claiming they had solid proof. They claimed they knew exactly where the WMD were. They claimed TONS of chemicals

This would not be the first bit of intel that was found out later to be incorrect.

Quote

Where did all of that go in six weeks?

Intel takes much longer than 6 weeks to get the raw data, analize it, catalog it, organize it, interpret it, and get it to someone who cares.

As for where it is:
1. Syria.
2. Buried (Remember we found several new jest buried...Iraq is one big sandbox.)
3. Destroyed. It is quite possible that some if it was destroyed on porpose, or by accident.
4. Lost. Hell the Us has lost track of Nuclear material...I have no doubt that some of SH stash has been lost/stolen/sold...ect.

Quote

Now either they had piss-poor sources that gave them such strong, positve intel; they really screwed up in the pre-war times and blinked while someone moved a TON of chemical weapons...or they were never there in the first place and we knew that.

why would we have to know that it was never there? Thats just the battle cry of the left. You want to make Bush out to be a war monger.

Ever think that maybe it was bad intel that everyone thought was valid? Or maybe he did have some, but moved it?

I think it's both fuzzy intel and moved to be honest.

Quote

I don't care who said what on either side

You should since it shows that the intel the President acted on was good enough to fool: Gore, Berger, Kerry, almost all of Congress, the UN, the UK, the UAE, ect.

You take on it is even though Bush, Kerry, Gore, Berger, the US Congress, Intel agencies from around the world...Ect all thought that it was credible, but only Bush is at fault.

Thats just silly.

Congress to include Kerry voted for the war.
The UN voted to allow force.

There was plenty of evidence to show he had WMD....Almost everyone agreed.

Now the rats jump ship in hindsight.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jib 0]

Quote

It is documented that Iraq, at a minimum, provided safe harbor to known Al Queda operatives.

So did Florida.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

This would not be the first bit of intel that was found out later to be incorrect.

Fuzzy intel on special ops, etc...I can understand. However this is the data that was used to start an unprovoked war. Personally, if I was about to send a thousand troops to their death and realize that countless innocent civilians would lose their life because of that decision.....I would make sure it wasn't fuzzy intel. But that's just me being logical.

Quote

Where did all of that go in six weeks?

Intel takes much longer than 6 weeks to get the raw data, analize it, catalog it, organize it, interpret it, and get it to someone who cares.

Which probably should have been done before Powell went public to the world with the info. This way when SH realized we knew what/where he had his stuff, we could watch him move it out. Last I heard, sensitve material has to go thru channels before it is released to the public...so they should have had that process in place already. Since this was TONS of material, that meant many lives could be at risk - that seems like a high priority matter that wouldn't get shuffled around by some clerks as they filed it. Also, this was the smoking gun the world wanted, another reason this should have been looked over even more since they should have known it would have been scrutinized if it was wrong and fingers would be pointed.

Quote

why would we have to know that it was never there? Thats just the battle cry of the left. You want to make Bush out to be a war monger.

Bush does that well enough on his own without my help. As a reminder, I am not on the left, nor does my voter registartion card say anything but "independant" so you can't group me in with those people. Bush lost my trust and belief that he was a competent leader.

We need to know if the WMD were never there before the war. This way the sources can be traced and we can find out why it was fuzzy intel....or if it was just a lie from the Bush admin that wanted a war so they could get that seat on OPEC and have something to campaign about. I'm sure there are close to a thousand famillies out there that want to know if their children died for a lie or the truth.

Congress voted on action in Iraq because they were promised by their president that the intel was true, strong and good which showed a clear threat to our interests. Bush is the one that pushed for war and to invade and he sold everyone on a bill of goods that wasn't that good.

There were people, like Key, that claimed there was no reason to invade.

Now, if we had gone to Baghdad in 91 you wouldn't hear me asking for an explanation at all.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[livendive 8]

Quote

So why is Clinton attacking an aspirin factory due to bad intelligence okay, but Bush going into Iraq due to bad intelligence is bad?

You know, I seem to remember hearing two sides of this story, and nobody ever convinced me one way or the other as to whether that was really just an innocent little aspirin factory. Oh well, that's beside the point. For these purposes I'll assume the Republicans were correct that it was a bad hit.

How many Americans died in the aspirin factory strike? For that matter, how many innocent Iraqi's died in the aspirin factory strike? Now how many Americans and innocent Iraqi's have died as a result of Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Well I guess evryone lied about WMD's then:

Quote

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

No, Ron. Didn't you read what Kallend said:

Quote

Or being translated from Bush-speak, Clinton's experience with bad intel should have been a warning to the Bushites to be wary of their sources.

It only applies to "Bushites."

Well, Bush is expected to practice what he preaches. It was Bush, not a Dem., that said:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn.


Now had a Democrat said that --- oh, silly of me, none of them are that inarticulate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Fuzzy intel on special ops, etc...I can understand

So you can understand bad intel in one area, but not another? That makes no sense at all.

Bad intel is bad intel no matter who it is for, or what it is.

Quote

However this is the data that was used to start an unprovoked war.

Actually it was the data used to invoke a UN resolution.

Quote

Personally, if I was about to send a thousand troops to their death and realize that countless innocent civilians would lose their life because of that decision.....I would make sure it wasn't fuzzy intel. But that's just me being logical.

No, thats hindsight and being overly compassionate.
It is easy to be right about a situation after it has happend.

Quote

Which probably should have been done before Powell went public to the world with the info

The intel that Powell used was older than 6 weeks...Some of it may have been recent, but there was a history of SH having WMD's.

Quote

This way when SH realized we knew what/where he had his stuff, we could watch him move it out.

Uh, he has been playing "hide the WMD" longer than you have cared about WMD's. He was good at it.
And I bet that he had WMD's and that he hide some, lost some, and sold or gave away some.

Are you claiming that he never had WMD's? If he had them, and he has not shown us what he did with them...Then where are they?

Quote

Last I heard, sensitve material has to go thru channels before it is released to the public...so they should have had that process in place already.

You think the CIA, FBI, NSA..ect have good processes in place? Nope, in fact they suck.

Quote

Since this was TONS of material, that meant many lives could be at risk - that seems like a high priority matter that wouldn't get shuffled around by some clerks as they filed it.

Ever see the movie "Men in Black"?

One of the best lines was something along the lines of, "The Earth is in danger from aliens everyday. The average person just does not know about it."

If you see a Nuke for the first time it is a big deal. If you are around them everyday...They can become boring.

The intel folks see shit everyday that would curl you up like a little girl and start you crying. You just don't know about it.

Quote

Also, this was the smoking gun the world wanted, another reason this should have been looked over even more since they should have known it would have been scrutinized if it was wrong and fingers would be pointed.

The only "proof" would be to find them. We were not really allowed to waltz around looking for them.

Quote

Bush lost my trust and belief that he was a competent leader.

And Kerry lost mine when he admitted to commiting war crimes and by not being able to stick to one side of a subject.

Quote

We need to know if the WMD were never there before the war

We knew they were there before the war...He used WMD's 10 times since 1983 according to Clintons NSA Berger. The only question is what did he do with them?

WMD's don't just dissolve into thin air.

Quote

This way the sources can be traced and we can find out why it was fuzzy intel....or if it was just a lie from the Bush admin that wanted a war so they could get that seat on OPEC and have something to campaign about. I'm sure there are close to a thousand famillies out there that want to know if their children died for a lie or the truth.

I agree we need to find out what was the truth and who knew what.

Quote

Congress voted on action in Iraq because they were promised by their president that the intel was true, strong and good which showed a clear threat to our interests. Bush is the one that pushed for war and to invade and he sold everyone on a bill of goods that wasn't that good.

Congress voted to go to war becasue they were convinced by the evidence....The same evidence that Bush used to make his choice.

Why is Bush at fault, but not Congress? Why is Bush at fault, even when both Gore and Kerry also thought SH had WMD's?

Quote

There were people, like Key, that claimed there was no reason to invade.

I assume you mean Kerry...

Quote

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

It looks to me like Kerry said we needed to disarm SH...It also seems like he thought the risk of WMD's was real....Add in that he voted to use force...How do you get he saw no reason to invade? Because he said later after it was clear that Dean, as a Anti-war canidate, was beating Kerry at the polls?

Hindsight is normally 20/20.

And this thread is about how Kerrys folks seem to be missing the mark on Bush's service.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[goofyjumper 0]

---------------------------------------------
The world is safer without him.
__________________________________________-
Ok well what about "hi I am Kim Jung Song, and I have weapons!...........hello hello hello!"

Oh I get it, I don't look like a terrorist!

Maybe if I metion the word Allah! then someone will pay attention to me.

You wouldn't believe how many evil leaders there are out there. but because they have nothing to offer us (like oil) then we will just tell them we don't have time!

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Fuzzy intel on special ops, etc...I can understand

So you can understand bad intel in one area, but not another? That makes no sense at all.

Quote

There are cetain levels of importance to data. Even if the DOD, CIA, MIB, are immune to the horrors of the world, this data was the #1 reason to go to war. This was the proof, this was the intel. If you are about to commit many, many lives to your war on a piece of data....you may want to make sure it is current, validated and true.

Quote

Personally, if I was about to send a thousand troops to their death and realize that countless innocent civilians would lose their life because of that decision.....I would make sure it wasn't fuzzy intel. But that's just me being logical.

No, thats hindsight and being overly compassionate.
It is easy to be right about a situation after it has happend.

No, it isn't hindsight. How many wars have resulted in zero death or no distruction? Exactly, none. When you are going to war you KNOW people on both sides will die and with the errors our technical weapons still have, innocent people were going to die as well. One death is too many....one death from bad data or possible oil greed? Well, thats about a low as you can go for a country that preaches fair treatment for all humans.

Quote

The intel that Powell used was older than 6 weeks...Some of it may have been recent, but there was a history of SH having WMD's.

Yes, it is well known that SH used WMD in the 80s and launched quite a few Scuds at us in 91. However, last I heard there was no solid proof since the first Gulf War. If you are going to war, you should have very current data. But again, that is just me.

Quote

Uh, he has been playing "hide the WMD" longer than you have cared about WMD's. He was good at it.
And I bet that he had WMD's and that he hide some, lost some, and sold or gave away some.

Irrelevant. Powell went on tv and said they knew EXACTLY where they were at and that he had TONS. So, even if he had sold off or lost some, I'm thinking there would still be a few tons around.

Quote

Are you claiming that he never had WMD's? If he had them, and he has not shown us what he did with them...Then where are they?

The history books show us that he used WMDs in the past (ie, several decades ago). I don't think that was up for argument. I don't know, where are they? Let's ask Powell: "We know exactly where they are." Hmmmm...maybe he should share that info to shut up everyone.

Quote

The only "proof" would be to find them. We were not really allowed to waltz around looking for them.

Well, since we have the entire country now and we know EXACTLY where they are at, lets see that proof now.

Quote

And Kerry lost mine when he admitted to commiting war crimes and by not being able to stick to one side of a subject.

We were talking about WMD, not Kerry. Never once in this have i said anything about Kerry. Stick to the topic.

Quote

We need to know if the WMD were never there before the war

We knew they were there before the war...He used WMD's 10 times since 1983 according to Clintons NSA Berger. The only question is what did he do with them?

So, what he did in the 80s is reason to invade him over 20 years later? Wow, guess we move a bit slow. Maybe we should look at all the other current world leaders that pissed us off recently and find crimes they did 20 years ago and go after them as well. So, at this time table we should be invading North Korea in about 2024?

Quote

WMD's don't just dissolve into thin air.

But we were told they knew exactly where they were.

Quote

There were people, like Key, that claimed there was no reason to invade.

I assume you mean Kerry...

No, I meant Kay. Then there was Blix as well.

Quote

And this thread is about how Kerrys folks seem to be missing the mark on Bush's service.

Again, I don't support Kerry. I just don't support Bush. I am not a democrat nor republican.

I just want the truth, no politics, no spin. The GW administration pushed hard for this war and gave us one hell of a strong line that they knew they had WMD.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[rhino 0]

Quote

However this is the data that was used to start an unprovoked war.

You are incorrect.. A UN resolution was passed. Many in fact.. Sadham was in violation on many different facets.

Rhino

[Ron 10]

Quote

The world is safer without him.

Ok well what about "hi I am Kim Jung Song, and I have weapons!...........hello hello hello!"

Oh I get it, I don't look like a terrorist!

Maybe if I metion the word Allah! then someone will pay attention to me.

You wouldn't believe how many evil leaders there are out there. but because they have nothing to offer us (like oil) then we will just tell them we don't have time!

Do you doubt the world is safer without SH?

As for Lil Kim....Well he is for the most part contained. He has made his wish to trade very clear. He knows he cannot win a nuclear war with 6 warheads.

He is a danger, but not a loose cannon.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

this data was the #1 reason to go to war. This was the proof, this was the intel. If you are about to commit many, many lives to your war on a piece of data....you may want to make sure it is current, validated and true.

It was the number one reason, but it was not the only reason.

You seem to forget the UN violations.

Quote

No, it isn't hindsight. How many wars have resulted in zero death or no distruction? Exactly, none. When you are going to war you KNOW people on both sides will die and with the errors our technical weapons still have, innocent people were going to die as well

Thats why wars are not fun or nice...But at times they are still needed.

Quote

One death is too many

BS.
I'd rather kill 10,000 guys that kill women, children unarmed men and puppies than one innocent person....But to say one death is to many is obtuse.

Quote

Yes, it is well known that SH used WMD in the 80s and launched quite a few Scuds at us in 91. However, last I heard there was no solid proof since the first Gulf War. If you are going to war, you should have very current data. But again, that is just me.

Where do you think they went? You think he had "Harrold the Great" make them just dissapear?

The UN told him to get rid of them, destroy his ability to make more...And it was clear he did everything he could to avoid doing that.

He gave one of the greatist song and dance routines seen ever about what he did with them.

He never answered the question...He was in violation.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And Kerry lost mine when he admitted to commiting war crimes and by not being able to stick to one side of a subject.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were talking about WMD, not Kerry. Never once in this have i said anything about Kerry. Stick to the topic.

You brought up Bush being a bad leader and last I checked this thread was about Bush's Guard record (And how it seems CBS made up some stuff to report), not WMD's or Bush's leadership...So if you try to stick to the topic I will also.

Quote

So, what he did in the 80s is reason to invade him over 20 years later? Wow, guess we move a bit slow. Maybe we should look at all the other current world leaders that pissed us off recently and find crimes they did 20 years ago and go after them as well. So, at this time table we should be invading North Korea in about 2024?

I'll type this slow so you can let it sink in: He was in violation of the UN's resolutions and had been for over a decade. How many more decades do you want to wait? Would you rather have waited till he actually used WMD's on us first?

Clinton should have handled it.

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There were people, like Key, that claimed there was no reason to invade.

I assume you mean Kerry...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I meant Kay. Then there was Blix as well.

Then my bad on assuming you ment Kerry...I didn't have any info on a Key...

Quote

just want the truth, no politics, no spin. The GW administration pushed hard for this war and gave us one hell of a strong line that they knew they had WMD.

I wnat the truth as well. However, I also am willing to give George the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise.

We KNEW SH had WMD's. He was suppposed to give them up, and prove to us he did. He didn't do that in 12+ years. The UN should have handled it years ago.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jib 0]

Quote

Ok well what about "hi I am Kim Jung Song, and I have weapons!...........hello hello hello!"

Oh I get it, I don't look like a terrorist!

Maybe if I metion the word Allah! then someone will pay attention to me.

You wouldn't believe how many evil leaders there are out there. but because they have nothing to offer us (like oil) then we will just tell them we don't have time!

Yes, I think it would be a very good idea to piss on China's lawn. Are you kidding??

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt