Moron Bush flapping his moron gums again

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Oddly enough, I can't find anything in the new crawls about Bush threatening to nuke Iran in his speech...can you point me to that source?

kthxbye

"Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table......"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-1.html

Also, try some searches that involve the term "tactical nuke". Apparently we don't have a problem with using those any more.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, more rhetoric and insult... since you don't have FACT to back up your bullshit claim of "war profits for his buddies" since if that WAS the case, Bush would already have been impeached and on his way out of office.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=A19C4E73B64D4C03B313A3A743078046&siteid=reut07

Yes, everyone is aware that defense companies make more money when there's a war... I'm speaking to the bullshit claims that the purpose of the war was to increase "war profits to his buddies".

I wouldn't say it was Bush's purpose. It's just a predictable collateral benefit to the actual reasons for the war.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, more rhetoric and insult... since you don't have FACT to back up your bullshit claim of "war profits for his buddies" since if that WAS the case, Bush would already have been impeached and on his way out of office.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=A19C4E73B64D4C03B313A3A743078046&siteid=reut07

Yes, everyone is aware that defense companies make more money when there's a war... I'm speaking to the bullshit claims that the purpose of the war was to increase "war profits to his buddies".

Right, the purpose was the WMDs - no, strike that. The purpose was because SH helped the 9/11 hijackers - no, strike that. It was Iraqi pilotless drones that could hit the US in 45 minutes -no, strike that. It was to bring peace and prosperity to the people of Iraq - no, that hasn't happened.

But the defense contractors DID get rich.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, everyone is aware that defense companies make more money when there's a war... I'm speaking to the bullshit claims that the purpose of the war was to increase "war profits to his buddies".

Right, the purpose was the WMDs - no, strike that. The purpose was because SH helped the 9/11 hijackers - no, strike that. It was Iraqi pilotless drones that could hit the US in 45 minutes -no, strike that. It was to bring peace and prosperity to the people of Iraq - no, that hasn't happened.

But the defense contractors DID get rich.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

So all you have to do is PROVE it and you'll be the Dem's poster boy for the next decade....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So all you have to do is PROVE it and you'll be the Dem's poster boy for the next decade....

What Kallend said, follow the money. Look at his major donors and what they've received.
Banks-bankruptcy laws changed.
Energy-plenty of subsidies and fossil fuel friendly policies.
Defense contractors-see above
Wall Street-Bush came up short on that one when he couldn't get Wall Street brought into the bureaucracy managing Social Security.

But again, that doesn't have much to do with the thread or the reasons for war. This does though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

[mnealtx 0]

*yawn*

Again...prove it's deliberate (as the bullshit claims try to infer) and you'll be the Dem's hero. Y'all keep saying how Bush is so much of an idiot...must be embarrassing to not have caught him out yet, huh?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, everyone is aware that defense companies make more money when there's a war... I'm speaking to the bullshit claims that the purpose of the war was to increase "war profits to his buddies".

Right, the purpose was the WMDs - no, strike that. The purpose was because SH helped the 9/11 hijackers - no, strike that. It was Iraqi pilotless drones that could hit the US in 45 minutes -no, strike that. It was to bring peace and prosperity to the people of Iraq - no, that hasn't happened.

But the defense contractors DID get rich.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

So all you have to do is PROVE it and you'll be the Dem's poster boy for the next decade....

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. More often than not smoke IS accompanied by fire.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. More often than not smoke IS accompanied by fire.

See my post, immediately above. You'll be a national hero!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

*yawn*

Again...prove it's deliberate (as the bullshit claims try to infer) and you'll be the Dem's hero. Y'all keep saying how Bush is so much of an idiot...must be embarrassing to not have caught him out yet, huh?

It's really very simple.
Look at what the document calls for.
Look at who wrote it.
Look at the PNAC letters and statements.
Look at who signed them.
Look at who worked for Bush's first term (the one that got us into the war).
Look at Bush's foreign policy in the region both then and now.
Cross reference, that's the easy part. Hell, they don't even deny that they're trying to transform the region.
But you have to "look" and think. That part is up to you.

Also, Bush's role in all this in the beginning was pretty much that of a tool. He didn't set the policy.

[mnealtx 0]

All this "proof" and still no impeachments....don't y'all feel silly yet?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

All this "proof" and still no impeachments....don't y'all feel silly yet?

Silly? No. A little sad while watching someone run away from valid and even debatable information and be satisfied to embrace mockery as an argument? Yes.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. More often than not smoke IS accompanied by fire.

See my post, immediately above. You'll be a national hero!!

I bet you think OJ was innocent too.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

All this "proof" and still no impeachments....don't y'all feel silly yet?

Silly? No. A little sad while watching someone run away from valid and even debatable information and be satisfied to embrace mockery as an argument? Yes.

If the information was valid, there would be plenty of evidence for impeachment. Evidently it's not as valid as some would prefer.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. More often than not smoke IS accompanied by fire.

See my post, immediately above. You'll be a national hero!!

I bet you think OJ was innocent too.

Again, see immediately above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ExAFO 0]

"Sphincter."

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If the information was valid, there would be plenty of evidence for impeachment. Evidently it's not as valid as some would prefer.

Apparently, we get the leaders we deserve.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Oddly enough, I can't find anything in the new crawls about Bush threatening to nuke Iran in his speech...can you point me to that source?

"Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved......"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-1.html

Fixed it for you.

Have you ever played poker?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

"Q Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?

THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved......"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060418-1.html

Fixed it for you.

Have you ever played poker?

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Yea, that's the whole quote. And saying that you'd like to solve it diplomatically does not change the fact that he left the nuclear option on the table.
I think I also recall some talk of wanting to solve the Iraq issue diplomatically too.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Yea, that's the whole quote. And saying that you'd like to solve it diplomatically does not change the fact that he left the nuclear option on the table.

If you're trying to negotiate from a position of strength, is it smart to take your trump card off the table?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

If you're trying to negotiate from a position of strength, is it smart to take your trump card off the table?

Probably not. But I was just answering your question on who was more likely to use the nukes. Looks like it's either the US or Israel. That said, I'm not sure where we, those nuke non-proliferation warriors, stand on the tactical nuke development. Apparently we cut the funding to the development back in 2005. Not sure what that actually meant for production. I also don't know how any tactical nukes that may be in Israel's arsenal might come into play.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"Sphincter."

that's a funny word

so is "ointment"
also "bungalow"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

It's Hillary agreeing with Bush on Iran. Better get used to WW3 if she becomes President.

Be real, the world at least was able to stomache us when Bill was pres, it won't be different when Hillary is pres.

Well in that case we should be attacking Iran within a few weeks of her administration if you believe her husbands positions are the same as hers.

Here's Bill Clinton flapping his moron gums. Just insert Iran everytime he says Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

Quote

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Come on Kallend, they run out of gas and resort to that kinda stuff..... is this your first rodeo?

Is that similar to "you're the ones that don't want children to have health insurance" ?

Uh, case/point. Yes I am, but how does that really play into this? Furthermore, you only want responsible 5-year olds having insurance, so your paraphrasaztion is obviously and typically exadgerated.

Just proving the point that "your side" is equally as insulting and exaggerative...as your reply proves yet again, unless you can show me where someone actually said what you like to infer over and over and over again...

>>>>>Just proving the point that "your side" is equally as insulting and exaggerative...as your reply proves yet again, unless you can show me where someone actually said what you like to infer over and over and over again...


Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo….. Mike, the issues. Hang on, I will now answer these posts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Crozby - thanks for the info.

Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points...

I wrote:

Is that in reference to the Kwajalein comment? Sure, headin to work soon, but tonight I will post. In the meantime, Google, "Waterbabies" (babies born with no bone structure) and you will get a headstart on that, or wait and I will tonight. In the meantime, just keep believing we do no harm and that dissent was good then but not now, just like labor orgs. Mike, you ARE a true American, if only I could aspire to that. I will post later tonight.

>>>>>>Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points..

Don’t blow a vein….. On second thought……

As I wrote yesterday, you must have just skim-read it, as you are a great reader; that’s all I can do to explain you not reading that I would reply with more about this territory that the US exploited to test killing devices to thwart a pathetic USSR. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm

1973
AEC draft report, not publicly released, concludes that Bravo fallout may have contaminated as many as 18 atolls and islands, including Kwajalein and Majuro.

It appears that all of the radiation-related deaths on Kwajalein resulted from fallout from bombs dropped over the Marshall Islands, Bikini’s, etc. That entire region, including the Kwajalein atoll were devastated by the country that brought us liberty and freedom. Is it like we didn’t know what would happen? I mean we used Hiroshima as our first petri dish, then used a bomb some 1,000 times as lethal and were surprised when the fallout caused leukemia, cancer and other deaths? Please Mike.

1976
July - The U.S. Congress approves $20 million and military logistic support for a nuclear cleanup of Enewetak Atoll. A Brookhaven National Laboratory report on Rongelap shows that 20 of 29, or 69 percent of the Rongelap children who were under 10 years old in 1954 have developed thyroid tumors. The people of Utrik, whose original exposure in 1954 of 14 rads of radiation was less than one-twelfth that of Rongelap, suddenly show a higher rate of thyroid cancer than the Rongelap people, indicating the long latency period before health problems develop from low level radiation exposure.

1994
July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. "

As I said, petri dish, just like Hiroshima.

Look at the bottom of the site I gave you and you’ll see the chronology of 67 bomb tests from 1946 to 1958.…. I wonder why they don’t teach this stuff in school?

http://robert-barclay.com/Preface.htm

Do you know that jellyfish babies are babies born with no bones in their bodies? Sometimes they look transparent, inside-out. They happen because radioactive elements like cesium-137 and strontium-90—which once introduced into land or sea will not go away for hundreds of years—get into foods like crabs and coconuts and breadfruits and bananas and are absorbed into the human body as though they were calcium and potassium.
Do you know that malignant transformation of human cells as a result of radiation exposure might take twenty or more years to occur? You might think you are headed for
a comfortable old age, and then your thyroid goes haywire telling your body to sprout deadly tumors. Sometimes it does not take so long. Sometimes you acquire leukemia, or some other cancer, or your children are born retarded or freakishly deformed.
Sometimes, if you are a woman, you give live birth to a jellyfish baby, or an octopus baby, an apple baby, a turtle baby, what some Marshallese women call monster babies.

Here they call them, “jellyfish babies.” It’s the same thing, radiation causes babies to be born with no bone structure or otherwise deformed. Why is the right so tentative to admit what happened then and there?

One day I’ll become a true patriotic American like you Mike and I will understand that this liberal propaganda is just hype. OH, BTW, Japanese-American internment is just BS too.

[mnealtx 0]

And you try to show that they knew all this (from reports that wouldn't come out for 27 years AFTER the fact) going into the Bikinis to do the testing and that it was malicious intent? *THAT* is what I'm calling bullshit on, your rhetoric, not the fact that the nuclear tests caused damage.

Until the day you become a realist and quit trying to lay all the world's problems at the feet of a single political party, I'll call bullshit every time you try it.

Nice ad-hom on the 'true patriotic American' jab, sucks when you can't play the ball and have to resort to playing the player.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706