If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   On this very special episode of Dumbass the Movie, Cindy Sheehan files to take on Pelosi and move to Washington DC. (Bonus: already endorsed by Ted McGinley)   (sfgate.com) divider line 247
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

5395 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2008 at 2:15 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-26 03:46:11 AM
Anagrammer: Can you believe all these evil conspirators who lied about Iraqi WMDs?

And yet not one. Not even a plant. What does that mean to you?
 
2008-04-26 03:46:20 AM
 
2008-04-26 03:47:16 AM
OK, not rebuilding New Orleans is not a WAR crime. But it is still a crime against the USA not to rebuild the awesome and historic city of New Orleans. That we are spending a trillion on the occupation in Iraq while New Orleans is languishing is a crime CORRELATED to the war in Iraq. That I mispoke by including New Orleans in the list of war crimes might indicate that I am NOT just copying "moveon.org talking points"?
 
2008-04-26 03:48:27 AM
Anagrammer: Can you believe all these evil conspirators who lied about Iraqi WMDs?

TL;DR, but upon skimming I don't see all of those people calling for an invasion and subsequent nation building. But I guess in bizzaro land that was the only possible solution, eh?
 
2008-04-26 03:50:10 AM
Kevin72: But it is still a crime against the USA not to rebuild the awesome and historic city of New Orleans.

newsimg.bbc.co.uk

What a hellhole! Nothing has been rebuilt!
 
2008-04-26 03:52:05 AM
Anagrammer said it better than I could ever hope to. TALKING POINTS, TALKING POINTS, (spittle)DIRTY REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS!!!
 
2008-04-26 03:53:43 AM
Shaggy_C: Kevin72: But it is still a crime against the USA not to rebuild the awesome and historic city of New Orleans.



What a hellhole! Nothing has been rebuilt!


It has been rebuilt in spite of the federal government. It needs to be rebuilt with the help of the feds.
 
2008-04-26 03:54:39 AM
Remove all Republicans: First off: no, an invasion of Iran is not necessary, and NOBODY, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA is calling for that. That is a fear-mongering pipe-dream that hippies keep slapping on protest signs and the Democrats keep exploiting to their advantage. We haven't the manpower or the cash to invade Iran anyway unless it were a DIRE emergency. That entire concept is a ridiculous strawman. I am for using special operations raids, increased intelligence targetting, and air strikes to diminish their ability to fark around in Iraq, and the removal of their capacity to produce nuclear materials.

And while I haven't myself seen the evidence for the case against Iran's nuclear facilities, I am more inclined to trust my own government than the Iranians. Additionally, how did we find out that the Iranians were working on "nuclear power"? They didn't tell us. They didn't mention anything about it. They kept it secret until the U.S. released satellite photos of their nuclear facilities. Then they CONTINUED to deny it for MONTHS. Doesn't sound very innocent to me.

Additionally, the Iranians were according to the controversial NIE released about a year ago, actually attempting to build nuclear weapons up until 2003. In later 2003 they shifted the way they talked about it from being about weapons manufacture, to being about civilian power. Now what could have happened in 2003....

This is not soothing to me however as the only difference in manufacturing between a program to make uranium for nukes, and a program to make it for power production is how long it sits in the centrifuges. It's literally all the same up until you decide how many days to whirl the uranium in the centrifuges to optimize potency.

So even if the current administration in Iran has actually decided to forgo nuclear weapons, I do not trust that entire regime and regimes to come with them. Look at their rhetoric, look at their history, look at their overt motives. A nuclear Iran is something to bite your nails about.
 
2008-04-26 03:57:20 AM
Kevin72: OK, not rebuilding New Orleans is not a WAR crime. But it is still a crime against the USA not to rebuild the awesome and historic city of New Orleans. That we are spending a trillion on the occupation in Iraq while New Orleans is languishing is a crime CORRELATED to the war in Iraq. That I mispoke by including New Orleans in the list of war crimes might indicate that I am NOT just copying "moveon.org talking points"?

What your 'moveon' points represent is the same argument we hear every time this gets brought up, the problem with your argument and honestly most of the far lefts (and far right) is that they begin from the standpoint that the opposition is not only wrong but EVIL. You can't have an intelligent conversation with an evil person, you can't work with an evil person to achieve important goals and most importantly you can never ever compromise with an evil person to further your own goals. So what we have are two sides that not only refuse to listen to the other sides points but also refuse to classify the other side as anything other than demon spawn from the 4th level of Dante's Inferno.
Here is an interesting story from a law school mediation class, thirty lawyers were paired off and put in separate rooms, and told to arm wrestle, the 10 lawyers who scored the most points would win the exercise (and them being lawyers they all wanted to win). Who do you think won? The lawyers who tried as hard as they could to make sure that they didn't let the other lawyer score a point or the lawyers who worked together to score as many points as possible for each other? Our political system has become far too much like an arm wresting match between opponents who not only want to win but want to be sure the other side loses, resulting in nothing happening, like the lawyers who couldn't work together and ultimately lost.
Step back, take a breath and realize that the people on the other side are not (necessarily) evil but just disagree with you and you won't be as angry and WE might accomplish something as a nation.

/philosophy rant off
 
2008-04-26 03:57:34 AM
Thunderpipes: Interestingly enough, to impeach a president, you need more than just made up lies and anti-American anger. Bush has not done anything illegal.


Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the FISA act a law?
 
2008-04-26 03:58:23 AM

What a hellhole! Nothing has been rebuilt!


That picture is the French Quarter, unharmed by the levee failure. Those are tourists you are showing. The citizen's quarters eg the homes of the people who used to live there are not rebuilt. As evidenced by the population remaining about halved. Of course, so many of those displaced and not returned people were people of color, so should they like count as 3/5 of a citizen for census purposes?
 
2008-04-26 03:58:25 AM
Here's my take on the situation:

1) Bush is an idiot. That's a gimme but it's also irrelevant.
2) Someone dropped the intel ball or falsified evidence.
3) Bush, Cheney, or one of the cabinet members put forth a proposal for the war.
4) Everyone jumped on it (it's kinda their thing as neocons).
5) Everyone was so trigger happy that no one thought to plan out anything past the "shock and awe" stage, so we're still there and still have no real strategy.

Someone screwed up...probably many someones. We can't hang this all on Bush even though he's supposed to be the figurehead. With so much shadiness in general floating around in his cabinet, singling him out to take the rap would be futile.

As much as I'd love to see everyone responsible brought to justice, it will never happen. We'll never know if it was bad intel, corrupt politicians, bribes, ineptitude, or a combination of the 4. To start an investigation now would be too little, too late. It would also be a useless waste of time and money, as nothing would ever come of it anyway. The best thing we can do is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to keep chickenhawk "good ol' boys" out of office from now on. It's unbelievably sad that they will get away with it, but it's a fact of life.

On the Sheehan matter - go for it. We all have the right to run for any office we want, whether we are popular or not.
 
2008-04-26 04:00:54 AM
Remove all Republicans: It has been rebuilt in spite of the federal government. It needs to be rebuilt with the help of the feds.

And those billions of dollars in housing aid went to what, exactly?
 
2008-04-26 04:01:43 AM
1derful: Thunderpipes: Interestingly enough, to impeach a president, you need more than just made up lies and anti-American anger. Bush has not done anything illegal.


Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the FISA act a law?


Yeah but if we don't allow the president to break the law, THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN!!!

Let's also the destruction of documents and the "we're going to ignore the subpoenas to testify now because executive privilege envelops everything" fun.
 
2008-04-26 04:02:20 AM
Kevin72: That picture is the French Quarter, unharmed by the levee failure. Those are tourists you are showing. The citizen's quarters eg the homes of the people who used to live there are not rebuilt. As evidenced by the population remaining about halved. Of course, so many of those displaced and not returned people were people of color, so should they like count as 3/5 of a citizen for census purposes?

dunamai.com
 
2008-04-26 04:02:26 AM
Shaggy_C: Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

-Hans Blix, 2003

Lies, damn lies, and Republican talking points.


Read the rest of that article. The part you posted is a reference to access to MOST of the requested sites. The immediately following paragraphs state the restrictions to surveillance the Iraqi government demanded. If you read further down in the article, it gets worse.
 
2008-04-26 04:02:28 AM
InferiousX: You know, I wanted to chide Sheehan but after reading the article, I'm not so inclined to disagree with her.

Too me, that fact that the Democrats will not impeach this administration is an absolute travesty. They are basically saying "It will be a lot of work that we don't really feel like doing." To me, this is the equivalent of finding out that someone in your household was murdered and the cops and detectives saying "Man, it will take forever to find out who did this. And we'd have to stop issuing as many traffic tickets. Sorry but this is a no go."

Why can't the Dems just hire some kind of independant council to investigate the Bush Admin? A Kenneth Starr for the Democrats? What am I missing here? Or in the words of Bill Maher:

"Can the Democrats please just grow one ball? Just one...."



I AM WITH YOU 100% on this post.

I suspect many people in this thread that ARE chiding Sheehan did not read TFA.
 
2008-04-26 04:02:28 AM
Shaggy_C: Remove all Republicans: It has been rebuilt in spite of the federal government. It needs to be rebuilt with the help of the feds.

And those billions of dollars in housing aid went to what, exactly?


Congress passed that aid. What had the President to REALLY those people?
 
2008-04-26 04:05:19 AM
The problem is everyone gave Cindy Sheehan far too much attention before they realized what she is. A sad unbalanced woman in serious need of mental health care.
 
2008-04-26 04:06:32 AM
Remove all Republicans: Shaggy_C: Remove all Republicans: It has been rebuilt in spite of the federal government. It needs to be rebuilt with the help of the feds.

And those billions of dollars in housing aid went to what, exactly?

Congress passed that aid. What had the President to REALLY those people?


At some point you just have to put the crack pipe down and admit that Shaggy has you on this one. Guess what? Congress is in charge of the money. Why do you think presidents have to submit budges to them?
 
2008-04-26 04:07:59 AM
SemperLieSuckah: Read the rest of that article. The part you posted is a reference to access to MOST of the requested sites. The immediately following paragraphs state the restrictions to surveillance the Iraqi government demanded. If you read further down in the article, it gets worse.

Umm, no. It says that there was a disagreement about flying planes and helicopters over civilian areas unaccompanied - which the report says was resolved without incident.

Face it, you drank the kool aid. Either act like a man and admit you were wrong or continue to defend the indefensible. One of those options garners you respect. The other? Not so much.
 
2008-04-26 04:08:56 AM
Remove all Republicans: Congress passed that aid. What had the President to REALLY those people?

Congress didn't get us out of Iraq. What had the President to REALLY those people?
 
2008-04-26 04:09:29 AM
New Orleans was built in a freaking flood area. It will flood again. And again. And again.

Rebuilding that place is farking stupid. It's not a major part of American history, it's just a bunch of bars and old whore houses. It's just been romanticized by tourism. If it weren't for Mardi Gras, New Orleans would be about as noteworthy as Little Rock.

//personal opinion.
 
2008-04-26 04:11:46 AM
Remove all Republicans:

Look, you can keep playing the "Hillary is really a Republican" crap if you guys want, but that hurts your guy in the general.

She's one of the founding members to the DLC, whose policy was to actively purge liberal support from the Democrats. During it's reign in the DNC the Dems became more pro-corporate, more socially conservative, and increasingly hostile to progressives. Jesus farking Christ, prior to the 2006 elections there were Republicans who were more liberal than most Democrats currently are. Add in to that her entire campaign has been run like Bush has run his presidency, her early political ties, as well as a number of her public stances (anti-free speech, pro-war, etc) and you'd be hard pressed not to consider her trying to run under the 'Republican lite' banner.

Hillary votes almost exactly like Obama and their policies are amazingly similar.

Small differences in policy can mean massive differences in both the implementation and its effectiveness in general. Motivations* are also key in determining things like character and integrity.

*: In other words, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons will still make you an assbag.

Anagrammer:

Can you believe all these evil conspirators who lied about Iraqi WMDs?

2004 called. It wants its list of debunked and intellectually bankrupt talking points back.
 
2008-04-26 04:12:19 AM
SemperLieSuckah: Rebuilding that place is farking stupid. It's not a major part of American history, it's just a bunch of bars and old whore houses.

Sounds like most of the damn Un-American old West, actually. Can we give back the lands we got from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo too?
 
2008-04-26 04:13:47 AM
Sheehan is so farking nuts she would be lucky to last one whole term without having to resign after farking something up, getting caught in a scandal, or having Cynthia McKinney-style blowouts. I am a liberal through and through but sometimes I feel like I have just as many problems with the extreme left as I do with the extreme right. In some ways the extreme left is worse because they make more moderate lefties look bad. Conservatives can get away with wackos like Falwell and Robertson, but if a Rev. Wright speaks up, it suddenly makes all liberals look crazy.
 
2008-04-26 04:13:49 AM
I'd hit Cindy in a pinch, but in all actuality her knees are a little bit to pointy for my taste.
 
2008-04-26 04:14:29 AM
SemperLieSuckah: Remove all Republicans: First off: no, an invasion of Iran is not necessary, and NOBODY, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA is calling for that. That is a fear-mongering pipe-dream that hippies keep slapping on protest signs and the Democrats keep exploiting to their advantage. We haven't the manpower or the cash to invade Iran anyway unless it were a DIRE emergency. That entire concept is a ridiculous strawman. I am for using special operations raids, increased intelligence targetting, and air strikes to diminish their ability to fark around in Iraq, and the removal of their capacity to produce nuclear materials.

And while I haven't myself seen the evidence for the case against Iran's nuclear facilities, I am more inclined to trust my own government than the Iranians. Additionally, how did we find out that the Iranians were working on "nuclear power"? They didn't tell us. They didn't mention anything about it. They kept it secret until the U.S. released satellite photos of their nuclear facilities. Then they CONTINUED to deny it for MONTHS. Doesn't sound very innocent to me.

Additionally, the Iranians were according to the controversial NIE released about a year ago, actually attempting to build nuclear weapons up until 2003. In later 2003 they shifted the way they talked about it from being about weapons manufacture, to being about civilian power. Now what could have happened in 2003....

This is not soothing to me however as the only difference in manufacturing between a program to make uranium for nukes, and a program to make it for power production is how long it sits in the centrifuges. It's literally all the same up until you decide how many days to whirl the uranium in the centrifuges to optimize potency.

So even if the current administration in Iran has actually decided to forgo nuclear weapons, I do not trust that entire regime and regimes to come with them. Look at their rhetoric, look at their history, look at their overt motives. A nuclear Iran is something to bite your nails about.


You just keep getting dumber and dumber. Is Iran REQUIRED to tell us they are building nuclear weapons? Didn't think so. They are a sovereign country and can do whatever the hell they please. If worse comes to worst, we can just nuke them and you don't think there are people in Iran who are worried about the US nuking them?
 
2008-04-26 04:15:42 AM
So the courts have ruled that Bush broke laws? I would like some citations if you will. I find it odd that Bush has broken all these laws liberals claim, yet they have not had him charged with anything. Weird indeed.

I also find it amusing that liberals think we went into Iraq for one reason, WMD. I seem to remember listening to speech after speech about all the other reasons, humanitarian, continued attacks on coalition (not just US) aircraft, continued violations of UN resolutions, the continued mass murder, rapes, tortures going on against the Iraqi people, openly supporting and financing terrorism (Think what he did for Palistinian suicide bomber's familes). I mean, WMD was just a portion, do all libs forget this?
 
2008-04-26 04:17:21 AM
Shaggy_C: Umm, no. It says that there was a disagreement about flying planes and helicopters over civilian areas unaccompanied - which the report says was resolved without incident.

Face it, you drank the kool aid. Either act like a man and admit you were wrong or continue to defend the indefensible. One of those options garners you respect. The other? Not so much.



Really...


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.


hmm, and reading on...



I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



This is turning into spam... so I suggest you stfu and go back and actually read the article.

i65.photobucket.com
 
2008-04-26 04:18:46 AM
You go, guys! You go piss all over that horrible, attention-whore gold star mother! You awesome patriots are making America proud!

Morans.
 
2008-04-26 04:18:56 AM
80smetaler: You just keep getting dumber and dumber. Is Iran REQUIRED to tell us they are building nuclear weapons? Didn't think so. They are a sovereign country and can do whatever the hell they please. If worse comes to worst, we can just nuke them and you don't think there are people in Iran who are worried about the US nuking them?

You're wayyy out of your element, Donnie.
 
2008-04-26 04:24:43 AM
SemperLieSuckah: This is turning into spam... so I suggest you stfu and go back and actually read the article.

Let's break down your 'evidence', shall we?

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable...Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.


So...Did it ever leave the lab? Sounds like proof to me!

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

So there is doubt that it ever existed? Sounds like proof to me!

Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Ah, chambers that COULD theoretically be used on missiles that exceed a dictated range...Sounds like proof to me!
I'm waiting for the smoking gun here, but I have a feeling it doesn't exist. I know you're a soldier, and you really want to believe your sacrifice was for a worthwhile cause...but Bush wasn't that cause. You fought for America. America was lied to. Sorry.
 
2008-04-26 04:25:13 AM
Shaggy_C: Yeah, most people dislike him. But what percentage of people think he should be impeached? I'll tell you: 39% according to an InsiderAdvantage poll in 2007. 55% oppose. I guarantee you the vast majority of the people who cry for impeachment are already liberals, so they'll vote for Obama regardless. Now answer me this: why piss off the other 55% more than necessary? The unaffiliated win elections.

I think the reason most people aren't for impeaching Bush is the media circus that resulted from Clinton's impeachment. It was over a trivial point, a private act, and the overreaction to it from both the Republicans and MSM resulted in the entire world laughing its ass off. Since the required investigation and trial for it would likely take longer than Bush would be in office, as well as the lack of an effective majority to guarantee at least some chance of success, it probably isn't considered worth the political and partisan firestorm that would result.
 
2008-04-26 04:26:56 AM
Voxton: You go, guys! You go piss all over that horrible, attention-whore gold star mother! You awesome patriots are making America proud!

Morans.


Her son was a patriot. She is just a disgusting pig. Her son would be ashamed he was being used like this. And make no mistake, that is what this is about, attention whoring. She can disagree with things without being a complete and utter ass.
 
2008-04-26 04:27:22 AM
Murkanen: it probably isn't considered worth the political and partisan firestorm that would result.

Exactly. They need to win over Republicans, not drive them away.
 
2008-04-26 04:27:33 AM
Thunderpipes:

So the courts have ruled that Bush broke laws?

You can't possibly be this ignorant.
 
2008-04-26 04:29:22 AM
Thunderpipes: So the courts have ruled that Bush broke laws? I would like some citations if you will. I find it odd that Bush has broken all these laws liberals claim, yet they have not had him charged with anything. Weird indeed.

I also find it amusing that liberals think we went into Iraq for one reason, WMD. I seem to remember listening to speech after speech about all the other reasons, humanitarian, continued attacks on coalition (not just US) aircraft, continued violations of UN resolutions, the continued mass murder, rapes, tortures going on against the Iraqi people, openly supporting and financing terrorism (Think what he did for Palistinian suicide bomber's familes). I mean, WMD was just a portion, do all libs forget this?


Wow, you're actually dumber than semperwhateva. Yes, dumbass. The reason we were told we went to war was because of Iraq building WMD's....WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION was pounded into our heads. Remember when we found the rolling weapon factory(a pickup truck)? Well it didn't have any wmd's, nor did Iraq. Oh I guess it was to save Iraqis from Saddam....we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam, not to mention the fact that more Americans have been sent to their death in Iraq than died in 9/11 which, had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Just give it up.
 
2008-04-26 04:29:27 AM
Shaggy_C: SemperLieSuckah: This is turning into spam... so I suggest you stfu and go back and actually read the article.

Let's break down your 'evidence', shall we?

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable...Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.


So...Did it ever leave the lab? Sounds like proof to me!

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

So there is doubt that it ever existed? Sounds like proof to me!

Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Ah, chambers that COULD theoretically be used on missiles that exceed a dictated range...Sounds like proof to me!
I'm waiting for the smoking gun here, but I have a feeling it doesn't exist. I know you're a soldier, and you really want to believe your sacrifice was for a worthwhile cause...but Bush wasn't that cause. You fought for America. America was lied to. Sorry.


You might want to stop making a fool out of yourself. You realize, it was Iraq's duty to come forward and answer these questions. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the inspectors. If it never left the lab, Iraq was duty bound to prove it. They refused to cooperate.
 
2008-04-26 04:30:04 AM
Shaggy_C: No, now you're just shirking back into denial.

What Blix is saying is that they were finding paperwork that indicated that there should have been more than they found. However, they found no physical traces of it. Almost as if it had been... moved. Perhaps hidden somewhere. The weapons inspectors were inspectors, not psychics. They were limited to the areas they knew to look, they couldn't just get on line and sweep across Iraq.

This is likely why they wanted U2 overflights. It would appear incredibly obvious that Saddam Hussein was hiding something.
 
2008-04-26 04:32:31 AM
80smetaler: Thunderpipes: So the courts have ruled that Bush broke laws? I would like some citations if you will. I find it odd that Bush has broken all these laws liberals claim, yet they have not had him charged with anything. Weird indeed.

I also find it amusing that liberals think we went into Iraq for one reason, WMD. I seem to remember listening to speech after speech about all the other reasons, humanitarian, continued attacks on coalition (not just US) aircraft, continued violations of UN resolutions, the continued mass murder, rapes, tortures going on against the Iraqi people, openly supporting and financing terrorism (Think what he did for Palistinian suicide bomber's familes). I mean, WMD was just a portion, do all libs forget this?

Wow, you're actually dumber than semperwhateva. Yes, dumbass. The reason we were told we went to war was because of Iraq building WMD's....WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION was pounded into our heads. Remember when we found the rolling weapon factory(a pickup truck)? Well it didn't have any wmd's, nor did Iraq. Oh I guess it was to save Iraqis from Saddam....we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam, not to mention the fact that more Americans have been sent to their death in Iraq than died in 9/11 which, had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Just give it up.


Hehe, stupid liberals are so fun. It was one of the reasons, one of many. This is fact, go read about it. I also would like your sources on how many innocent Iraqis we have killed. I have nothing to give up. You are a bitter, angry liberal Bush hater who has no real arguments but "WMD" and you refuse to see facts. So, how many innocent Iraqis did Saddam kill, and how many have US forces killed?
 
2008-04-26 04:32:52 AM
Thunderpipes: If it never left the lab, Iraq was duty bound to prove it. They refused to cooperate.

Prove you never beat your wife.
 
2008-04-26 04:35:05 AM
Sheehan vs Pelosi, Hillary vs Obama ... I love watching the Democratic party collapse upon itself. Operation Chaos is working as planned. Hasta la victoria siempre!
 
2008-04-26 04:36:21 AM
ah3133: Hasta la victoria siempre!

(Oh) No estás informado, no sabes que pasa,
viendo la tele desde tu puta casa.
Enfermos del morbo por el dolor ajeno,
cuanto más sangriento y absurdo más ameno.
Quién se asoma al mundo por esa pantalla
Solo cuenta muertos, no entiende nada.
Los responsables de tantas matanzas
comercian con hambre para vender armas.
 
2008-04-26 04:36:47 AM
Shaggy_C: Thunderpipes: If it never left the lab, Iraq was duty bound to prove it. They refused to cooperate.

Prove you never beat your wife.


Easy, I have never been married. Any other idiotic statements from you? Once again, dodge the point, I love liberals, so fun to poke at.
 
2008-04-26 04:39:21 AM
Thunderpipes: Easy, I have never been married.

Prove it. I'm going to need to see records for every day you have been alive to ensure that you have never been married.

Look, the point is this: it's called a negative proof.

Please, stop making yourself look foolish.
 
2008-04-26 04:41:32 AM
Shaggy_C: Thunderpipes: Easy, I have never been married.

Prove it. I'm going to need to see records for every day you have been alive to ensure that you have never been married.

Look, the point is this: it's called a negative proof.

Please, stop making yourself look foolish.


A better analogy than the ones being batted back and forth would be if you wanted him to prove he didn't beat his wife. However you have in your hand an affidavit from his wife that she was being beaten, and his wife is mysteriously no where to be found...
 
2008-04-26 04:43:35 AM
SemperLieSuckah: A better analogy

Look, everyone! The dictionary definition of obfuscation!
 
2008-04-26 04:46:41 AM
Shaggy_C: SemperLieSuckah: A better analogy

Look, everyone! The dictionary definition of obfuscation!


Look everyone, the dictionary definition of avoidance. You've been shown wrong. Own it.


Face it, you drank the kool aid. Either act like a man and admit you were wrong or continue to defend the indefensible. One of those options garners you respect. The other? Not so much.
 
2008-04-26 04:46:46 AM
Thunderpipes: Easy, I have never been married

Prove you have never been married. And then you didn't beat your wife to death and hide her.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report