You are correct in your analysis, but not in its genesis; I'm not talking in a religious context here, with regard to Lieberman, at all.
In other news, snails can't juggle. Four years of Reeps believing their own press releases is going to be very, very amusing.
I thought the hippies died off a long time ago. I am sick of this crap, you liberals should be ashamed of yourself. If not for our great leader who is fighting the war on terror in THEIR backyard do it for the families of 9/11. Y'all make me sick im outta here, i cant believe yall are part of my country. Peace
Nope, they reduced their mj intake, moved their Peace signs from the living room wall to the hallway, got jobs and had kids. If this isn't a description of a stereotypical Bush voter, I don't know what is. The backyard we're fighting in is called IRAQ. The place that has no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The place that has no links with Al-Qaeda, the same Al-Qaeda that killed the members of the 9/11 families. The leader of Al-Qaeda just made a video tape, 3 years after 9/11, and sent it to us to express his views on our elections. He should be the target. He is A#1 bad guy, for lack of better words. Yet he's free, healthy, energetic, able to make home videos...while we're shooting Iraqis. I don't know why I'm even bothering to write this though since the words are invisible to you, right?
This, from the DLC, is a large part of why I hate the Democratic Party. "Trust gaps." ******** off and die. What, besides becoming the Republican position, areyou going to do about the "trust gap" on "moral values?" Submit a moral position that says "Well, we agree with your position on gay marriage, but let 'em at least FEEL welcome in your state?" No, 11 states made it clear what they want; you have to spend the next 2/4 years either telling them they were wrong, and WHY they were wrong, or you need to become the Republican Party on this issue. The DLC use of **************** like "trust gaps," particulalry so quickly after the election, when real discussion and analysis is needed, belies a belief many here have, that this is just a slight course adjustment for everyone on the way to the rest of their lives; only folks here, with the wealth to even access the 'Net, say stupid sh!t like that, not unlike the punditry on the so-called "left" that spout whatever and then join members of the so-called "right" in the same gated communities, for the most part monetarily immune to the policies of any President, and thus able to perceive elections so blithely. It's offensive, and most importantly, self-serving: for DLC, McCain-esque, "center-out" supporters and politicos, the most important thing is the propping up of the institution through keeping the debate in a gridlocked center, one that from their POV serves them best, and, perversely humanlely, serves the greatest number of people (thinking "realistically") that can be served... In fact, the very way we've conceived our nation, in all its facets, at the very moment you are reading this, is the only thing you can promote when you tow the DLC, American Conservative gridlocked center-out line. Look around you, and outside your personal circumstances. Is this the best we can do? By supporting the above frameworks, that is what you are saying, and in my opinion that is a ********ing disgrace.
....and baby if you're working now out in Bakersfield at some honky tonk...they call the Wagon Wheel.....
That's not true. The reports says otherwise. There was a relationship between Saddam and AQ. Saddam helped AQ with its WMD work after Clinton attacked AQ in Suddan. The report says that there was no relationship between Saddam and 9/11.
If by "Iraq" you mean the geographic entity, then yeah, you're right. But if by "Iraq" you mean, the political entity controlled by Saddam, you're wrong. The AQ guys were in the Kurdish area, and Bush opted not to hit Zaqwari when he had the chance, because that would have undermined the case for the Stupid Pointless* War. *I don't consider "to help us win elections" to be a valid reason for a war.
They didn't? Perhaps you should read the report before you speak so definitively. 9/11 Commission Report p 61:"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Sudanese extremist ally of Bin Laden] brokered an agreement that Bin laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam ... In 2001, with Bin laden's help they [Kurdish extremists] reformed into an organization called Ansar Al-Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar Al islam against the Kurdish enemy. p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.(55)" Page 66: “In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.” Page 66: “According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.” Page 128: On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.
Take note of the last paragraph special dave. I'll even paste it for you, "on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”. Yes that's right. Richard Clarke, who you love to quote when he says nasty things about Condoleza, says your full of BS. Full of it up to your eyeballs. I hoped that after the election, after you're done spinning for your man, you'd be willing to pay attention but maybe not. Maybe you really beleive your own lies. Read it again if you like: "weapons development" and they ain't talkin about BB guns.
summary: plots and actions against Kurds summary: Bin Laden wants to set up camp in Iraq, but no evidence to show that Saddam said 'yes' summary: delegations happened between Iraq and Al-Qaeda to no discernible outcome. summary: Bin Laden decides to live in Afghanistan and not Iraq even after getting an invitation summary: Al-Qaeda allied with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah (note: NO Iraq); Al-Qaeda agrees to not interfere with Saddam and willing to help out with weapons development --- Okay, so we have established some sort of dialogue and cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Let's review: Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Iraqi government is in league with terrorists. The two big reasons that force us into war, right? The facts: - Still NO Weapons of Mass Destruction - Still NO evidence that Iraq was a terrorist state and/or in league with terrorists. Nearly all of it is 'dialogue'. In fact, some of the points blatantly have no definitive implications toward the US at all. And are we now to invade every country that has had some sort of dialogue with terrorist factions at some governmental level? Seriously. If your answer is 'yes', then we need to attack almost every country in the Middle East outside of Kuwait.
Point of correction, Iraq was in league with terrorists, just not the ones we're currently worried about. In any case, the idea that Iraq presented a serious enough threat that we had to invade while their extremist "we will bury America" Islamic neighbours are allowed to get nukes is truly astonishing.
Compared to what actual weapons of mass destruction can do, yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. Iran sure as hell wasn't going to give any WMD technology to someone in league with Iraq. Sudan doesn't have any WMD, because some of their dissidents are still alive, and they have to genocide them the good old fashioned way, one by one, village by village. Sure, it shows dedication to the cause, but if they had an easier way, they'd use it. And, I'm pretty god-damned sure Hezbollah doesn't have WMD, since Tel Aviv is still on the map. Come on, guys. Think this through a little bit, will you?
I love it. You're easily the best poster on this whole board. " Blah blah blah...war, violence....you guys are all idiots...blah blah... PEACE! "