Malkin needs to be tested for rabies

[gabosaurus]

Her alleged "column" today was hilarious. Malkin keeps trying to be as hateful as Coulter, with poor results.
As always, the Rude Pundit weighs in with a response to Malkin's lunacy:


Michelle Malkin, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "Cave drawings of woolly mammoths fucking done by a retarded Neanderthal"), writes what is, esssentially, a mini-Turner Diaries of batshit post-9/11 anti-Muslim paranoia. In her "John Doe Manifesto," Malkin professes to speak for those anonymous everypeople whose sphincters clench each time they pass someone praying to Mecca. It's a how-to guide to justify every redneck pig-running action around the country.

Malkin declares that "I am John Doe," your neighbor, your fellow traveler, your boss. And John Doe, man, he's bugfuck nutzoid since the Big Day: "I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight." And your neighbor likes a certain actor: "I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run." James Woods, man, is there anything he can't do?

See, John Doe's got his guard up, all the goddamn time, because Uncle Fuckin' Sam wants him to be: "I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity." John Does's worried that crazed Muslims are a-gonna take over the United States: "I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools...I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces."

Yeah, man, John Doe's getting his bug-eye on, checkin' shit out, makin' sure Uhmerka stays safe. "I will put my family's safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism," Malkin as Doe writes. "I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated." Damn, motherfucker's takin' a stand.

And, yet, strangely, you could turn this fucker around, replace Islamofascist or whatever, as well as a couple of other words, and it could be a "manifesto" for how to deal with the Bush administration. Christ, to live as Malkin wants us to would not be unlike using radiation therapy to cure a sinus infection, to use a bazooka to swat a fly.

[stephanie]

[QUOTE=gobosaurus;32181]Her alleged "column" today was hilarious. Malkin keeps trying to be as hateful as Coulter, with poor results.
As always, the Rude Pundit weighs in with a response to Malkin's lunacy:


Michelle Malkin, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "Cave drawings of woolly mammoths fucking done by a retarded Neanderthal"), writes what is, essentially, a mini-Turner Diaries of batshit post-9/11 anti-Muslim paranoia. In her "John Doe Manifesto," Malkin professes to speak for those anonymous everypeople whose sphincters clench each time they pass someone praying to Mecca. It's a how-to guide to justify every redneck pig-running action around the country.QUOTE]



If anybody is hateful here, it's you and the person who wrote this.

[stephanie]

The John Doe Manifesto

By Michelle Malkin · March 28, 2007 11:20 AM
Check out our Spartacus-inspired PSA in support of the citizen John Does threatened by CAIR and the litigious imams for reporting suspicious behavior:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/jdscreenshot.jpg


(Thanks to the cast and crew: Uncle Jimbo, Robert Spencer, Erick Stakelbeck, and Bryan Preston.)

My column this week also covers the new John Doe movement and lays down the John Doe manifesto:

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”

I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Pass it on.

http://michellemalkin.com/

[Nukeman]

The John Doe Manifesto

By Michelle Malkin · March 28, 2007 11:20 AM
Check out our Spartacus-inspired PSA in support of the citizen John Does threatened by CAIR and the litigious imams for reporting suspicious behavior:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/jdscreenshot.jpg


(Thanks to the cast and crew: Uncle Jimbo, Robert Spencer, Erick Stakelbeck, and Bryan Preston.)

My column this week also covers the new John Doe movement and lays down the John Doe manifesto:

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”

I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Pass it on.

http://michellemalkin.com/

Amazing how different the two articles, are but than again Gabby's isn't really an article just a bunch of hate speach.....:salute:

[glockmail]

Amazing how different the two articles, are but than again Gabby's isn't really an article just a bunch of hate speach.....:salute: Steph nails it again. Good job. :salute:

[Little-Acorn]

Excellent Malkin article. No wonder little gabby hates it, and spews so much bile in response.

[avatar4321]

Her alleged "column" today was hilarious. Malkin keeps trying to be as hateful as Coulter, with poor results.
As always, the Rude Pundit weighs in with a response to Malkin's lunacy:


Michelle Malkin, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "Cave drawings of woolly mammoths fucking done by a retarded Neanderthal"), writes what is, esssentially, a mini-Turner Diaries of batshit post-9/11 anti-Muslim paranoia. In her "John Doe Manifesto," Malkin professes to speak for those anonymous everypeople whose sphincters clench each time they pass someone praying to Mecca. It's a how-to guide to justify every redneck pig-running action around the country.

Malkin declares that "I am John Doe," your neighbor, your fellow traveler, your boss. And John Doe, man, he's bugfuck nutzoid since the Big Day: "I will never forget the example of the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight." And your neighbor likes a certain actor: "I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run." James Woods, man, is there anything he can't do?

See, John Doe's got his guard up, all the goddamn time, because Uncle Fuckin' Sam wants him to be: "I will act when homeland security officials ask me to "report suspicious activity." John Does's worried that crazed Muslims are a-gonna take over the United States: "I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools...I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces."

Yeah, man, John Doe's getting his bug-eye on, checkin' shit out, makin' sure Uhmerka stays safe. "I will put my family's safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism," Malkin as Doe writes. "I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated." Damn, motherfucker's takin' a stand.

And, yet, strangely, you could turn this fucker around, replace Islamofascist or whatever, as well as a couple of other words, and it could be a "manifesto" for how to deal with the Bush administration. Christ, to live as Malkin wants us to would not be unlike using radiation therapy to cure a sinus infection, to use a bazooka to swat a fly.

I have to ask, is there something wrong with be vigiliante in watching and preventing enemies from attacking?

[Little-Acorn]

I have to ask, is there something wrong with be vigiliante in watching and preventing enemies from attacking?

No, there's just something wrong with people who object, such as little gabby. :slap:

[KarlMarx]

I've known people who lived under tyranny. It's amazing to see how their attitude contrasts with those who've lived in freedom all their lives.

I'd like to see the Shawn Penns, moveon.org types actually LIVE in a North Korea, Cuba or Iran without the special treatments afforded celebrities for propaganda purposes. After living a few days without food, freedom and other basic necessities, I wonder if they'd change their tune?

[Little-Acorn]

I've known people who lived under tyranny. It's amazing to see how their attitude contrasts with those who've lived in freedom all their lives.

I'd like to see the Shawn Penns, moveon.org types actually LIVE in a North Korea, Cuba or Iran without the special treatments afforded celebrities for propaganda purposes. After living a few days without food, freedom and other basic necessities, I wonder if they'd change their tune?

My guess is, they would just find a way to blame conservatives. Just as the local govt does.

[lily]

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

..........WOW.......and actual test run for 911 and they missed it?:cuckoo:

[stephanie]

..........WOW.......and actual test run for 911 and they missed it?:cuckoo:


:dunno: :lame2:

[lily]

Good Answer! :rolleyes: Is that how you get your post count so high?

[stephanie]

Good Answer! :rolleyes: Is that how you get your post count so high?

There was no answer to that idiot statement...:slap:

[Hugh Lincoln]

gabosaurus, please check all that apply:

* Have been outside San Francisco, not counting airports
* Have military service
* Have relative with military service
* Have friend with relative with friend who knew someone with military service
* Have walked in Harlem after dark
* Have worked a job, not including internship with Queer Eco-Terrorists United
* Have touched the hand of a person with job, not including slapping your Guatemalan maid

[Baron Von Esslingen]

gabosaurus, please check all that apply:

* Have been outside San Francisco, not counting airports
* Have military service
* Have relative with military service
* Have friend with relative with friend who knew someone with military service
* Have walked in Harlem after dark
* Have worked a job, not including internship with Queer Eco-Terrorists United
* Have touched the hand of a person with job, not including slapping your Guatemalan maid

I qualify on all of the above except actual military service and walking in Harlem after dark but then I used to walk in St Louis after dark which has Harlem beat on many accounts. And your point is...?

Oh, it's to slam gabosaurus because gabosaurus isn't buying into Malkin's alleged patriotic 'hagwash' and sucking Malkin's tit the way most rightwingers do. Parading your military credentials around in a country where the civilians run the show and trying to use them as a cudgel toward anyone not marching in lock step with an ever decreasing number of rightwing neocons doesn't wash. :poke:

[Gaffer]

I qualify on all of the above except actual military service and walking in Harlem after dark but then I used to walk in St Louis after dark which has Harlem beat on many accounts. And your point is...?

Oh, it's to slam gabosaurus because gabosaurus isn't buying into Malkin's alleged patriotic 'hagwash' and sucking Malkin's tit the way most rightwingers do. Parading your military credentials around in a country where the civilians run the show and trying to use them as a cudgel toward anyone not marching in lock step with an ever decreasing number of rightwing neocons doesn't wash. :poke:

It's a slam against jihadosaurus because she's raghead loving dhimmi. She would rather see herself and hundreds of others blown up than report suspicious arabs on an aircraft.

Two things are very clear. Malkin is consistantly right and jihadosurus is consistantly wrong.

I'm a John Doe too.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

It's a slam against jihadosaurus because she's raghead loving dhimmi. She would rather see herself and hundreds of others blown up than report suspicious arabs on an aircraft.

Two things are very clear. Malkin is consistantly right and jihadosurus is consistantly wrong.

I'm a John Doe too.

Bad ass words coming from a sanctimonious prick. I see righties all over this board whining about the lack of reasoned discussion and then you post tripe like this. I don't have to fight Gabosaurus' battles for her but your allegations are pure bullshit. Sacrificing one's civil rights out of fear may be the country you want to live in but it certainly isn't mine.

Two things are very clear: Malkin is consistently right but she's rarely correct and you can't seem to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with resorting to namecalling. You lost this argument. Try again next time.

[avatar4321]

Bad ass words coming from a sanctimonious prick. I see righties all over this board whining about the lack of reasoned discussion and then you post tripe like this. I don't have to fight Gabosaurus' battles for her but your allegations are pure bullshit. Sacrificing one's civil rights out of fear may be the country you want to live in but it certainly isn't mine.

Two things are very clear: Malkin is consistently right but she's rarely correct and you can't seem to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with resorting to namecalling. You lost this argument. Try again next time.

Well if that isn't a contradiction in two short paragraphs I dont know what is.

[stephanie]

Well if that isn't a contradiction in two short paragraphs I dont know what is.



No kidding...:laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

* Have been outside San Francisco, not counting airports
I have been all over the U.S., Australia, various places in Europe and England.

* Have military service
I feel I can serve society in more important ways
than military service.
* Have relative with military service
My maternal grandfather and great uncle both fought in World War II. My paternal grandfather was also in WWII. My dad's best man was injured while fighting in Viet Nam.
* Have friend with relative with friend who knew someone with military service
I love it when people with no sense of humor try to be funny. :laugh2:
* Have walked in Harlem after dark
I've been to Compton. I've been to other places that would make you crap in your pants. Since I see all people as people and not as potential enemies.
* Have worked a job, not including internship with Queer Eco-Terrorists United
I have a real job that requires education and intelligence. Try that for something different
* Have touched the hand of a person with job, not including slapping your Guatemalan maid
Conservative Republicans hire household help. Real people do their own work.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Well if that isn't a contradiction in two short paragraphs I dont know what is.

If you'd bother looking at his avatar title, you'd see it isn't a contradiction at all but rather what he calls HIMSELF. Get over it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

* Have touched the hand of a person with job, not including slapping your Guatemalan maid
Conservative Republicans hire household help. Real people do their own work.

OWNED!

[Hugh Lincoln]

* Have military service
I feel I can serve society in more important ways.

And for that, we are all grateful.

:clap:

[stephanie]

The left-wing blogosphere is up in arms over the John Doe movement and manifesto.

It's telling, isn't it, that HuffPo and company are outraged not at CAIR and the litigious imams--but at me:

Does Michelle Malkin believe the things she writes? Is she five? Is she living in a parallel universe where Afghanistan is occupying us? Can you sit down and type, "I will not submit to your will," to a hypothetical Arab teenager and not feel a little ... silly?
And that's where the cognitive dissonance of racism kicks in. If you're an Arab man, she can't believe you're not a jihadist. And since she's an Asian woman, we're surprised that she's such an idiot.


Love how they show their racist stripes flinging racism charges at others. And how they hide behind their hypotheticals while ignoring realities like this and this and this.

More typical reax from the 9/10 Left:

If your newspaper carries this hateful bitch - this self-loathing immigrant - contact the editorial board. We got Ann Coulter and Linda Bowles banished from the op-eds in this town - can we get the Star to come to their senses about this idiot child, too?
And from the deep-thinkers at Wonkette:

Michele Malkin is like a cheap Filipino cleaning lady (Dimestore literary simile :))but, alas, the worst kind, the self-loathing variety. Earth to Michele: you're not a country club, LNS Republican and despite all your inane columns, these folks will still look at you as the geisha who should be doing their laundry and fixing them a big bowl of noodles or giving them a rubdown after a long game of golf. I suspect if you had been a Jew in Auschwitz, you'd be the one throwing your bunkmates into the ovens. So give it up and go fuck a terror detainee you big stupid rightwing patsy.
The left-wing blogosphere is up in arms over the John Doe movement and manifesto.


The full story with this at her site..
http://michellemalkin.com/

[Baron Von Esslingen]

And one day someone on some other forum will reach down into DB and pull out something you have said to try and make brownie points somewhere else. It means nothing. Her posturing also means nothing. We've seen how spiteful she can be by posting the names and phone numbers of students who protested against her. She's a real prize right up there with Tranny Annie Coulter.

[stephanie]

And one day someone on some other forum will reach down into DB and pull out something you have said to try and make brownie points somewhere else. It means nothing. Her posturing also means nothing. We've seen how spiteful she can be by posting the names and phone numbers of students who protested against her. She's a real prize right up there with Tranny Annie Coulter.


I followed along with the address episode, she proved where they came from, yet your still spreading the untruth about it...

You seem good for that..:slap:


:cuckoo:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I followed along with the address episode, she proved where they came from, yet your still spreading the untruth about it...

That's what you are calling it? That's rich. I call it using her power and the press to incite her lunatic followers to issue death threats against people. I hope the students who filed suit against her for that shameful episode take her for every ill-gotten dollar she has. The fact that you still read that swill says everything about you.


You seem good for that..:slap:

As opposed to you being, what, good for nothing?


:cuckoo:

Same to you :cuckoo:

[stephanie]

That's what you are calling it? That's rich. I call it using her power and the press to incite her lunatic followers to issue death threats against people. I hope the students who filed suit against her for that shameful episode take her for every ill-gotten dollar she has. The fact that you still read that swill says everything about you.



As opposed to being, what, good for nothing?



Same to you :cuckoo:

Ok, I'll agree with you... you said, your good for nothing...:laugh2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You seem good for that..:slap:

You told ME that I was good for spreading untruth and I said YOU were good for nothing. Funny how your neocon mind either can't keep up with the language being spoken here or you just naturally twist things to conform to your beliefs. Now, who is spreading untruths? (The answer is YOU.)

[stephanie]

You told ME that I was good for spreading untruth and I said YOU were good for nothing. Funny how your neocon mind either can't keep up with the language being spoken here or you just naturally twist things to conform to your beliefs. Now, who is spreading untruths? (The answer is YOU.)


I was using reverse psychology...:laugh2:

You really should try lightening up, you might find you'd enjoy it...






http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/060786a0.gif

[Gaffer]

Malkin and Coulter write what the dems don't want to read. What is the dem response? Get the paper to stop printing their columns. Dem censorship in action. If they can't refute what these writers have to say they simply stop them from being published. How democratic.

[Gaffer]

Bad ass words coming from a sanctimonious prick. I see righties all over this board whining about the lack of reasoned discussion and then you post tripe like this. I don't have to fight Gabosaurus' battles for her but your allegations are pure bullshit. Sacrificing one's civil rights out of fear may be the country you want to live in but it certainly isn't mine.

Two things are very clear: Malkin is consistently right but she's rarely correct and you can't seem to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion with resorting to namecalling. You lost this argument. Try again next time.

Nice of you to step in and defend jihadosaurus. She has earned everything I say about her, in spades. And as for name calling, I have not called you any sort of name in any of the posts you have responded too.

No one said anything about sacrificing civil rights. It's all about reporting suspicious persons and being protected when doing so. Malkin is consistantly right and consistanly correct. Of course anything logical and sensible is not going to set well with you. Emotion and knee jerk response is all you understand. But you keep defending the jihadi, always nice to here from the dhimmi's.

[Abbey Marie]

Malkin is really getting under their skin, to the point that they are trying to censor her freedom of speech. The liberal hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. What libs don't seem to understand, is that Americans are not as dumb as they like to think. Much like the Swift Boat information against Kerry, the truth eventually surfaces, despite their attempts at censorship, and people respond accordingly.

And now we know how effective Michelle really is:) :laugh: .

[Gaffer]

Malkin is really getting under their skin, to the point that they are trying to censor her freedom of speech. The liberal hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. What libs don't seem to understand, is that Americans are not as dumb as they like to think. Much like the Swift Boat information against Kerry, the truth eventually surfaces, despite their attempts at censorship, and people respond accordingly.

And now we know how effective Michelle really is:) :laugh: .

Yep Michel is doing a great job. And the more she tells the facts and the truth the more they hate her. They want so bad to shut her down. I have her site at the top of my favorites list and read it daily.

[Abbey Marie]

Yep Michel is doing a great job. And the more she tells the facts and the truth the more they hate her. They want so bad to shut her down. I have her site at the top of my favorites list and read it daily.

Good idea. I think I will do the same. :salute:

[Hugh Lincoln]

And that's where the cognitive dissonance of racism kicks in. If you're an Arab man, she can't believe you're not a jihadist. And since she's an Asian woman, we're surprised that she's such an idiot.

Because if she were a white man, of course, idiocy would be expected.

But it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a Muslim man is a terrorist. White grandmothers from Iowa are not terrorists.

The real cognitive dissonance comes not from "racism" but a refusal to acknowledge clear racial patterns in behavior.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

And as for name calling, I have not called you any sort of name in any of the posts you have responded too.

Want to retract that lie now or do you want me to dig up the ones you have called me just in the last week? It appears you namecall so often that you cannot keep track of who you assault anymore. Want to try again?

[stephanie]

Want to retract that lie now or do you want me to dig up the ones you have called me just in the last week? It appears you name call so often that you cannot keep track of who you assault anymore. Want to try again?




.....:slap:

[Gaffer]

Want to retract that lie now or do you want me to dig up the ones you have called me just in the last week? It appears you namecall so often that you cannot keep track of who you assault anymore. Want to try again?

Yes bring up the posts where I called you a name. There are three posters here I do not hesitate to call names. But I don't call new posters names until they earn it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Yes bring up the posts where I called you a name. There are three posters here I do not hesitate to call names. But I don't call new posters names until they earn it.

Let's start with these (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=31738&postcount=76) two, (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=33933&postcount=24) shall we? Really, you are one conservative here that actually can discuss things and then you stoop to throw shit in. Maybe I misjudged you.

[stephanie]

Let's start with these (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=31738&postcount=76) two, (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=33933&postcount=24) shall we? Really, you are one conservative here that actually can discuss things and then you stoop to throw shit in. Maybe I misjudged you.

Oh brother......
tying to save your face.....

Keep digging........Your hopeless...
Your only goal after you get knocked down.........Is to try and do the same with others..
I was your first goalie..........
It made you feel special......But you didn't get enough....

People like you.........never do...

Even a little unmedicated redneck lik me can spot a so called higher educated asshatd like you...

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Oh brother......
tying to save your face.....

Keep digging........Your hopeless...
Your only goal after you get knocked down.........Is to try and do the same with others..
I was your first goalie..........
It made you feel special......But you didn't get enough....

People like you.........never do...

Even a little unmedicated redneck lik me can spot a so called higher educated asshatd like you...

it's "you're hopeless" and "asshat" :fu:

[stephanie]

it's "you're hopeless" and "asshat" :fu:

You know Baron........
In all my answer towards you........

I have never given you the finger...

I guess that's what your show of respect of a woman is all about...

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Respect? Call people a bunch of names, jump into the middle of other people's discussions, and try to flash your trash all over the place and then complain you're not getting any respect? Are all neocons this incomprehensive?

[stephanie]

Respect? Call people a bunch of names, jump into the middle of other people's discussions, and try to flash your trash all over the place and then complain you're not getting any respect? Are all neocons this incomprehensive?


:clap: :dance: :cheers2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Gaffer]

Let's start with these (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=31738&postcount=76) two, (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=33933&postcount=24) shall we? Really, you are one conservative here that actually can discuss things and then you stoop to throw shit in. Maybe I misjudged you.

Do you know what a dhimmi is? Your willing to cowtow to the islamists by running away from the fight in iraq. Your willing to "talk" to them and appease them. Your being a mouth piece for al queda and iran. All for political power. A power they intend to take away from you as soon as they can.

And you tow the lib line with your talking points. Get a Bush bash into every comment and follow the libs blindly. That makes you a useful idiot.

If you consider that on the level with calling you and asshat or something of that nature the so be it. I do consider you a dhimmi and a useful idiot. Until you prove otherwise.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Do you know what a dhimmi is? Your willing to cowtow to the islamists by running away from the fight in iraq. Your willing to "talk" to them and appease them. Your being a mouth piece for al queda and iran. All for political power. A power they intend to take away from you as soon as they can.

The fight in Iraq is a civil war that we are in the middle of. Giving weapons to one side that ultimately are used to murder the other side is what got our nuts in a wringer in the first place back when Ronnie Ray-Gun was the Idiot In Charge and he supplied weapons to a jihadist named Osama bin Laden in order to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. And you call ME a dhimmi. Let them stupid fucks kill each other and let the Arab League pick up the pieces in two or three decades when they get tired of blowing each other up. This isn't a war for us to win or lose because we do not have a horse in the race. It's a war for us to get chewed up in because both sieds are shooting at us waiting for us to wise up and get the fuck out of the way.

There is no kowtowing or acting subservient so your "dhimmi" charge is just a lot of rightwing bullshit. I don't like any of those bastards over there and the sooner they shoot each other up over their religious differences the better we all will be. Take your al-qaeda sympathy allegations and drive them up your ass preferably using an 18-wheeler as the driving force. It may knock some sense into you but it probably won't.


And you tow the lib line with your talking points. Get a Bush bash into every comment and follow the libs blindly. That makes you a useful idiot.

I follow no one blindly. Given that you are still part of the 32% that desperately clings to the failed occupational neocon philosophy that got us into a war without end, that "useful idiot" tag suits you much better. Your support of the failed policies that haven't brought us success in over four years proves that point. Shit, FDR beat both the Nazis and the Japanese in less time and Bush can't beat the Taliban and an insurgency in more than four years? Who is the idiot here? Not me.


If you consider that on the level with calling you and asshat or something of that nature the so be it. I do consider you a dhimmi and a useful idiot. Until you prove otherwise.

:lame2: I'll make sure that my further posts directed at you contain an equal number of personal shots reflecting my now diminished opinion of you. "Until you prove otherwise" indeed. (Translation: until I totally agree with your point of view.) That will never happen because you are on the wrong side of this matter. The difference is I could care less whether you wise up or not.

[glockmail]

Do you know what a dhimmi is? Your willing to cowtow to the islamists by running away from the fight in iraq. Your willing to "talk" to them and appease them. Your being a mouth piece for al queda and iran. All for political power. A power they intend to take away from you as soon as they can.

And you tow the lib line with your talking points. Get a Bush bash into every comment and follow the libs blindly. That makes you a useful idiot.

If you consider that on the level with calling you and asshat or something of that nature the so be it. I do consider you a dhimmi and a useful idiot. Until you prove otherwise. Give him hell, gaff! :laugh2:

[lily]

Originally Posted by Gaffer
Do you know what a dhimmi is? Your willing to cowtow to the islamists by running away from the fight in iraq. Your willing to "talk" to them and appease them. Your being a mouth piece for al queda and iran. All for political power. A power they intend to take away from you as soon as they can.


Baron........how many times have I told you to use that "power" only for good and how did gaffer figure out you had this super power?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Baron........how many times have I told you to use that "power" only for good and how did gaffer figure out you had this super power?

He still doesn't know. In fact he's clueless to what is actually going on over in Iraq. He's been getting all of his info from Newsmax and Fox Noise and it's all wrong. See following post.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Do you know what a dhimmi is? Your willing to cowtow to the islamists by running away from the fight in iraq. Your willing to "talk" to them and appease them. Your being a mouth piece for al queda and iran. All for political power. A power they intend to take away from you as soon as they can.

And you tow the lib line with your talking points. Get a Bush bash into every comment and follow the libs blindly. That makes you a useful idiot.

If you consider that on the level with calling you and asshat or something of that nature the so be it. I do consider you a dhimmi and a useful idiot. Until you prove otherwise.

Here's your proof, fucktard. Proof you are clueless. Proof that we are getting our asses chewed up in a civil war. Proof it's time to send our troops home. Proof that the Bushies are lying about what will happen if we leave now. Proof that you follow their lies like a dog follows a kid with a pork chop tied around his neck.


Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the United States' most formidable enemy in that country. But unlike Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization in Pakistan, U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts believe, the Iraqi branch poses little danger to the security of the U.S. homeland.

As the Democratic Congress continues to push for a military withdrawal, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly warned that bin Laden plans to turn Iraq into the capital of an Islamic caliphate and a staging ground for attacks on the United States. "If we fail there," Bush said in a February news conference, "the enemy will follow us here."

Attacking the United States clearly remains on bin Laden's agenda. But the likelihood that such an attack would be launched from Iraq, many experts contend, has sharply diminished over the past year as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has undergone dramatic changes. Once believed to include thousands of "foreign fighters," it is now an overwhelmingly Iraqi organization whose aims are likely to remain focused on the struggle against the Shiite majority in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said.

Although AQI's top leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, is thought to be Egyptian, most members "are Iraqis, both in terms of leaders and foot soldiers," said one counterterrorism official. He and other officials estimated that Iraqis make up 90 percent of AQI's several thousand fighters.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last week put the number of foreigners now arriving in Iraq to join the AQI-led Sunni insurgency at "perhaps several dozen a month" from neighboring Syria, most of them volunteers for suicide-bombing missions.

Little more than a year ago, AQI's back was against the wall, its efforts to recruit Iraqi Sunni nationalist and secular groups undermined by its violent tactics against civilians and the fundamentalist doctrine of its founder, Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Its attempt in January 2006 to draw other insurgent groups under the banner of a Shura, or consultative council, was largely unsuccessful.

"When Zarqawi was killed in June," a senior intelligence official said, "a lot of us thought that was going to be a real milestone in our progress against the group." Instead, he said, "al-Masri has succeeded in establishing his own leadership, keeping the operational tempo up and propelling sectarian violence to higher levels." From the February 2006 bombing of the golden dome of a Shiite shrine in Samarra through the huge bombings in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad in November, AQI steadily "pushed the sectarian violence into a new era," the official said.

As Shiite militias unleashed a wave of retaliatory kidnappings and killings, a number of Sunni insurgent groups appeared to change their mind about forming at least a marriage of convenience with AQI. Although some experts credit the U.S. military with recruiting Sunni tribal leaders to the government's side in recent months, the tribal forces have so far made little headway against the insurgency.

"In a year, AQI went from being a major insurgent group, but one of several, to basically being the dominant force in the Sunni insurgency," said terrorism consultant Evan F. Kohlmann. "It managed to convince a lot of large, influential Sunni groups to work together under its banner -- groups that I never would have imagined," Kohlmann said. In November, many of the groups joined AQI in declaring an Islamic State of Iraq.

AQI's new membership and the allied insurgents care far more about what happens within Iraq than they do about bin Laden's plans for an Islamic empire, government and outside experts said. That is likely to remain the case whether U.S. forces stay or leave, they added.

The Sunni extremist movement in Iraq owes its existence to the U.S. invasion, said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and Georgetown University professor. "There were no domestic jihadis in Iraq before we came there. Now there are. . . . But the threat they pose beyond Iraq is not so certain. There will be plenty of fighting to keep them there for years."

In congressional testimony late last month, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell indicated that, despite bin Laden's rhetoric, it isn't necessarily true that al-Qaeda sees its future in Iraq. "I wouldn't go so far as to say al-Qaeda would necessarily believe that," McConnell said. "They want to reestablish their base, and their objective could be in Afghanistan."

Asked by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) whether "al-Qaeda-type elements" would follow U.S. forces as they withdraw from Iraq into Kuwait, McConnell answered with one word: "Unlikely."

Zarqawi adopted the al-Qaeda name for his terrorist organization in 2004. But, under his leadership, AQI was frequently estranged from al-Qaeda, and its separation has increased since his death last year.

Yet bin Laden has continued to reap benefits from the Iraq war. After a lull following his ignominious retreat from Afghanistan in 2001, bin Laden appears to have regained his stature among Muslim extremists and bolstered his ability to draw recruits. "As people around the world sign up to fight jihad," the intelligence official said, "before they were always going to Iraq. Now we see more winding up in Pakistan."

As al-Qaeda recoups its numbers and organizational structure in the lawless and inaccessible territory along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, it is seen as having little need for major bases in western Iraq, where the flat desert topography is ill-suited for concealment from U.S. aerial surveillance.

Al-Qaeda has also learned tactical lessons from AQI, adopting the suicide-bombing and roadside-explosive techniques perfected in Iraq and putting them to use in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"That genie is already out of the bottle," Hoffman said. "The lesson of Iraq," he said, is that "a bunch of guys with garage-door openers and cordless phones can stymie the most advanced military in the history of mankind."

According to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq released in January, a "rapid withdrawal" of U.S. forces in Iraq could lead to intervention by neighboring countries and an attempt by AQI to "use parts of the country -- particularly Anbar province -- to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq."

But intelligence officials said they have been puzzled by the absence of such attacks since a 2005 bombing attributed to AQI in Amman, Jordan. "We've recently tried to wrestle with that," said one official. "Certainly, Zarqawi had an agenda outside Iraq, and Ayyub has publicly stated that he envisions one day attacking the U.S. . . . [But] I think what we determined was that they're so busy inside Iraq . . . they really are focused on internal things."

"It is very likely that the effects of the current jihad in Iraq will, like the earlier one in Afghanistan, be felt for years to come in the form of inspiration, skills and networking opportunities for a new generation of jihadis," said Paul Pillar, the CIA's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East and author of previous intelligence assessments on Iraq. "That does not mean that a U.S. withdrawal would make AQI more likely to attempt attacks against the United States."link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701373_pf.html)

[glockmail]

Here's your proof, .... But I thouth Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? :laugh2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You are correct. During Saddam's time there was no al-qaeda presence there. Once we invaded, ousted Saddam and turned over the government to the Shia majority, the Sunnis turned to al-qaeda to fight back. They are not interested in coming here, just in getting their share of Iraq's wealth. Now you are up to date.

[glockmail]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Saddam and bin Laden were butt buddies before 9/11.

[Gaffer]

Baron........how many times have I told you to use that "power" only for good and how did gaffer figure out you had this super power?

zawrcowi was in iraq recooping from wounds suffered in afganhistan when we invaded. The was a al queda training camp in the northern part of iraq that the kurds helped rangers take out at the start of the war.

Now as to what's going on in iraq. This is a key country with an infrastucture and a lot of oil. whether controled by iran or al queda it is still a great source of income and a training ground for terrorists. It also allows more control over the gulf. There is NO civil war. There is fighting between sunni's and shea. This fighting is continually stirred by al queda and iran to cause the failure of the government there. al queda wants a taliban type of state while iran wants a puppet government.

The iraqi's are starting to fight back against al queda, which is the cause of most of the recent casualties. Police and army recruitment there has sky rocketed. But a dhimmi like you would not be interested in that. It means success and we can bring the troops home in a reasonable time.

Newsmax and FOX are not sources of news for me. They are too busy with nichol smith and imus to bother with actual news. I get my news from the internet, iraqi bloggers, and reporters that are actually there. Your sources are wapo, cnn, wiki, and the lame stream media. No comparison when it comes to facts and truth.

[loosecannon]

But I thouth Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? :laugh2:

They aren't. The AQ in Iraq is a homegrown associated group.

AQ has no membership, no payroll, no headquarters, no elected leadership, no official mailing address.

The use of the word AQ in this case is just to provide a segue from the previous "line" we were fed for the first three years that we "weren't fighting Iraq, we were liberating them, we are fighting AQ in Iraq".

It was never very true. But it woulda been hard to say we were liberating them and at war with them in the same sentence.

[glockmail]

They aren't. The AQ in Iraq is a homegrown associated group.

AQ has no membership, no payroll, no headquarters, no elected leadership, no official mailing address.

The use of the word AQ in this case is just to provide a segue from the previous "line" we were fed for the first three years that we "weren't fighting Iraq, we were liberating them, we are fighting AQ in Iraq".

It was never very true. But it woulda been hard to say we were liberating them and at war with them in the same sentence.
Post 56.

[loosecannon]

zawrcowi was in iraq recooping from wounds suffered in afganhistan when we invaded. The was a al queda training camp in the northern part of iraq that the kurds helped rangers take out at the start of the war.

OK, I'll give you that much, altho Saddam had no control over the Kurdish dominated region.


Now as to what's going on in iraq. This is a key country with an infrastucture and a lot of oil. whether controled by iran or al queda

Absolutely nobody takes seriously any possibility that AQ will ever control Iraq. Not the pres, nor the pentagon, nobody.

But thanks for admitting that it is about oil.


it is still a great source of income and a training ground for terrorists.

No, It is a training ground for Iraqi militias and insurgents. There are almost NO foreign terrorists in Iraq.


There is NO civil war.

Well actually EVERYBODY from Gates to the pres has admitted that YES there IS a civil war, in fact that's the whole war.


There is fighting between sunni's and shea.

Shia, and THAT"s the civil war. Good!


This fighting is continually stirred by the US military presence, Saudi Arabia, and iran to secure partisan dominance (winners of civil war.

[lily]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Saddam and bin Laden were butt buddies before 9/11.

Please tell me that you don't vote. Anyone that is this mis-informed should take a test before being allowed to vote. Bin Laden's ultimate ambition is the creation of an Islamic theocracy.

Saddam, is secular dictator who wished to expand his own power, has tortured and killed Muslim clerics in his own country. These two men represent conflicting ambitions and conflicting ideologies.

Bin Laden considers Saddam to be an infidel.

[Dilloduck]

OK, I'll give you that much, altho Saddam had no control over the Kurdish dominated region.



Absolutely nobody takes seriously any possibility that AQ will ever control Iraq. Not the pres, nor the pentagon, nobody.

But thanks for admitting that it is about oil.



No, It is a training ground for Iraqi militias and insurgents. There are almost NO foreign terrorists in Iraq.



Well actually EVERYBODY from Gates to the pres has admitted that YES there IS a civil war, in fact that's the whole war.



Shia, and THAT"s the civil war. Good!

It's way bigger than a civil war--it's a regional religious fight for control of the entire region.

[Kathianne]

Please tell me that you don't vote. Anyone that is this mis-informed should take a test before being allowed to vote. Bin Laden's ultimate ambition is the creation of an Islamic theocracy.

Saddam, is secular dictator who wished to expand his own power, has tortured and killed Muslim clerics in his own country. These two men represent conflicting ambitions and conflicting ideologies.

Bin Laden considers Saddam to be an infidel.
Psst, Saddam is dead. Really.

[lily]

zawrcowi was in iraq recooping from wounds suffered in afganhistan when we invaded. The was a al queda training camp in the northern part of iraq that the kurds helped rangers take out at the start of the war.

Who?????


Now as to what's going on in iraq. This is a key country with an infrastucture and a lot of oil. whether controled by iran or al queda it is still a great source of income and a training ground for terrorists. It also allows more control over the gulf.

So then we invaded them for the oil?



There is NO civil war. There is fighting between sunni's and shea. This fighting is continually stirred by al queda and iran to cause the failure of the government there. al queda wants a taliban type of state while iran wants a puppet government.

If the sunni and shia are fighting each other, what do you call it if not a civil war? I'll settle for sectarian if you insist......because it's the same thing.


The iraqi's are starting to fight back against al queda, which is the cause of most of the recent casualties. Police and army recruitment there has sky rocketed.

Yeah, I've been hearing that for about 3 years now.


But a dhimmi like you would not be interested in that. It means success and we can bring the troops home in a reasonable time.

I'm so glad you learned a new word, dhimmi too bad you don't know what it means. Now when you say we're going to bring the troops home in a reasonable time.......would that be around March 2008 or September 2008?




Newsmax and FOX are not sources of news for me. They are too busy with nichol smith and imus to bother with actual news. I get my news from the internet, iraqi bloggers, and reporters that are actually there. Your sources are wapo, cnn, wiki, and the lame stream media. No comparison when it comes to facts and truth.

I would suggest that you actually pick up a newspaper and read it, instead of reading other people's posts on an internet forum. If you can't provide sources for what you are claiming, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously, except maybe for the many cheerleaders around.

[lily]

Psst, Saddam is dead. Really.

.........and this has to do what with the topic at hand? Please try and keep up. Reading is not to be feared.

[lily]

It's way bigger than a civil war--it's a regional religious fight for control of the entire region.

Point taken. I just wish some here would realize that, instead of insisting it's just al queda we are suppose to be fighting.

[Kathianne]

.........and this has to do what with the topic at hand? Please try and keep up. Reading is not to be feared.

Hello, that was generated by your post, you know, the one where you kept referring to Saddam in the present tense?

[lily]

Hello, that was generated by your post, you know, the one where you kept referring to Saddam in the present tense?

Oh dear Lord......I used the wrong tense. This is almost as bad as when I called you Katherine on the forum you used to "run".:lame2:

You can't debate the facts, so you want to nit-pick on tense?

Damn.....if I ever get this boring and hard up for a post.......someone shoot me!

[Kathianne]

Oh dear Lord......I used the wrong tense. This is almost as bad as when I called you Katherine on the forum you used to "run".:lame2:

You can't debate the facts, so you want to nit-pick on tense?

Damn.....if I ever get this boring and hard up for a post.......someone shoot me!

You do know that this argument has basically run its course? You are the lame one and uninformed.

[Dilloduck]

Point taken. I just wish some here would realize that, instead of insisting it's just al queda we are suppose to be fighting.

I haven't seen anyone claim that we were only fighting with Al quaeda but I have heard some suggest that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia because they are our REAL enemies. Oh ya--really smart idea. :rolleyes:

[glockmail]

Please tell me that you don't vote. Anyone that is this mis-informed should take a test before being allowed to vote. Bin Laden's ultimate ambition is the creation of an Islamic theocracy.

Saddam, is secular dictator who wished to expand his own power, has tortured and killed Muslim clerics in his own country. These two men represent conflicting ambitions and conflicting ideologies.

Bin Laden considers Saddam to be an infidel. How many sources do I have to cite before you would believe me?

[Gaffer]

Please tell me that you don't vote. Anyone that is this mis-informed should take a test before being allowed to vote. Bin Laden's ultimate ambition is the creation of an Islamic theocracy.

Saddam, is secular dictator who wished to expand his own power, has tortured and killed Muslim clerics in his own country. These two men represent conflicting ambitions and conflicting ideologies.

Bin Laden considers Saddam to be an infidel.

saddam was a secular dictator. But that didn't stop him from using those he disagreed with for his own ends. he gave money to hamas suicide bombers. They are tied with AQ. He was a muslim as well as being a secularist. AQ and iran have worked together as well. iran and syria are allied right now. assad is a baathist like saddam and a secularist as well, But he's good buddies with iran right now. Because it suits both their purposes.

irans ultimate ambition is to create a regional caliphate. same as bin laden. They have the same goals, the destruction of the west and islamic take over of the world. In WW2 Britain and the US were allied with Russia. They didn't like each other but they fought a common enemy. It's the same now with the ME countries.

[lily]

saddam was a secular dictator. But that didn't stop him from using those he disagreed with for his own ends. he gave money to hamas suicide bombers. They are tied with AQ. He was a muslim as well as being a secularist. AQ and iran have worked together as well. iran and syria are allied right now. assad is a baathist like saddam and a secularist as well, But he's good buddies with iran right now. Because it suits both their purposes.

irans ultimate ambition is to create a regional caliphate. same as bin laden. They have the same goals, the destruction of the west and islamic take over of the world. In WW2 Britain and the US were allied with Russia. They didn't like each other but they fought a common enemy. It's the same now with the ME countries.

That may all be true, but I have no idea what it has to do with my response to glockmail that Saddam and bin Laden were butt buddies.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Saddam and bin Laden were butt buddies before 9/11.

Naturally you have more than some wingnut's blog as proof, don't you? No, you don't because even our own government's intelligence says it isn't true and the post I made (which you obviously failed to read) proves that.

Bush and Cheney haven't gotten the memo yet. Being part of the 32% must be a real bitch.

You got the :dance: but you have no song to go with it.

[glockmail]

Naturally you have more than some wingnut's blog as proof, don't you? No, you don't because even our own government's intelligence says it isn't true and the post I made (which you obviously failed to read) proves that.

Bush and Cheney haven't gotten the memo yet. Being part of the 32% must be a real bitch.

You got the :dance: but you have no song to go with it. Post 71.

[Gunny]

Naturally you have more than some wingnut's blog as proof, don't you? No, you don't because even our own government's intelligence says it isn't true and the post I made (which you obviously failed to read) proves that.

Bush and Cheney haven't gotten the memo yet. Being part of the 32% must be a real bitch.

You got the :dance: but you have no song to go with it.

You have some substantiation that says only 32% believe bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies? :link:

And don't bother posting Presidential Approval ratings. That isn't what you said.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Post 71.

You are quoting yourself as proof?

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Come back with a citation from a reliable source, stupid, that says Saddam and OBL were butt-buddies before 9/11. I cited one that says they were not. Your turn.

[Gunny]

You are quoting yourself as proof?

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Come back with a citation from a reliable source, stupid, that says Saddam and OBL were butt-buddies before 9/11. I cited one that says they were not. Your turn.

I hope you brought a snack and drink for the ride you are about to go on.:coffee:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You have some substantiation that says only 32% believe bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies? :link:

And don't bother posting Presidential Approval ratings. That isn't what you said.

I can see reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. It's exactly what I said. YOU were the one that extrapolated that I said "only 32% believe bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies."

Still waiting for that link...

[Gunny]

I can see reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. It's exactly what I said. YOU were the one that extrapolated that I said "only 32% believe bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies."

Still waiting for that link...

Right. Your implication is quite clear. You used your Presidential Approval Ratings number as the substantiating percentage for those who do and/or don't believe bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies.

Point is, I agree with you that they weren't. I don't agree that using a dishonest ploy is necessary when anyone with a brain knows that their ideological goals were different, and bin Laden's were actually a threat to Saddam.

And what link are you waiting for from me?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

And what link are you waiting for from me?

I'm not. The reference was to Glock. He made the claim.

[Nukeman]

BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE...BVE is a jerk...BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..BVE is a jerk..

[glockmail]

I'm not. The reference was to Glock. He made the claim. First address post 71 as I previously asked you to do.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

How many sources do I have to cite before you would believe me?

A couple of reliable ones would do it for me. Knock yourself out, man. The floor is yours. Better yet, start a NEW thread about it and we can go at it.

[glockmail]

A couple of reliable ones would do it for me. Knock yourself out, man. The floor is yours. Better yet, start a NEW thread about it and we can go at it. I take it that means two? What constitutes "reliable"?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

A source that is frequently used by other news sources to report a story. Most non-cable news networks, daily papers and their feeds (AP & UPI) qualify. Other sources qualify if the story they report isn't contradicted by everyone else (Newsmax, et al) doesn't make it.

[glockmail]

A source that is frequently used by other news sources to report a story. Most non-cable news networks, daily papers and their feeds (AP & UPI) qualify. Other sources qualify if the story they report isn't contradicted by everyone else (Newsmax, et al) doesn't make it. Newsmax isn't contradicted by everyone else. Can you cite one Newsmax story that was contradicted by anyone?

[glockmail]

A source that is frequently used by other news sources to report a story. Most non-cable news networks, daily papers and their feeds (AP & UPI) qualify. Other sources qualify if the story they report isn't contradicted by everyone else (Newsmax, et al) doesn't make it.1990… One of the first meetings was between Ayman Al-Zawahiri, head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with Al-Qaeda, making Zawahiri second only to Bin Laden. This has been confirmed by a former Iraqi intelligence officer and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces. Washington Post, March 18, 2002.

The beginning of cooperation with Al-Qaeda began in 1994. Farouq Hijazi, a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officer, had his first meeting with Osama Bin Laden in Sudan. Radio Free Europe, October 19, 2001

1997 … the first Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq opened up. Saddam Hussein’s regime increased the flow of small arms and money to Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization. Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2002

[gabosaurus]

The only people who didn't know that Saddam and bin Laden were MORTAL ENEMIES were those taken in by the Bush crockobullshit. Bush had to come up with something that would connect Iraq to Sept. 11. Since there really was no connection whatsoever.
Saddam was a dictator who disliked sharing power. He did not run Iraq as a religious state. bin Laden's policies were strictly religious in nature. He was totally at odds with Saddam and twice tried to have him assassinated.
The "Saddam sleeping with bin Laden" is pure Bush Kool-Aid. Fortunately, he had a lot of devoted mindless parrots willing to believe whatever he decreed.

[stephanie]

The only people who didn't know that Saddam and bin Laden were MORTAL ENEMIES were those taken in by the Bush crockobullshit. Bush had to come up with something that would connect Iraq to Sept. 11. Since there really was no connection whatsoever.
Saddam was a dictator who disliked sharing power. He did not run Iraq as a religious state. bin Laden's policies were strictly religious in nature. He was totally at odds with Saddam and twice tried to have him assassinated.
The "Saddam sleeping with bin Laden" is pure Bush Kool-Aid. Fortunately, he had a lot of devoted mindless parrots willing to believe whatever he decreed.

Well........You better contact all your idiot Congresscritters who fell for it..:laugh2: :laugh2:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

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

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Baron Von Esslingen]

It took me an hour of searching but I finally found enough information about your stuff here. First, you took it all from a blog called probush.com, hardly an unbiased site. Then, each of your points had a reference to a date and an article but not a citation. I did the research this time but next time you will do the leg work because you are trying to convince me.


1990… One of the first meetings was between Ayman Al-Zawahiri, head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with Al-Qaeda, making Zawahiri second only to Bin Laden. This has been confirmed by a former Iraqi intelligence officer and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces. Washington Post, March 18, 2002.

The article you are making reference to features the reporting of Jeff Goldberg, a renowned neocon. He based much of his reporting on interviews with alleged prisoners of the PUK. The problem with the al-qaeda link you claim is that it occured in Northern Iraq, an area under control of the Kurds and part of the no-fly zone where Saddam's troops had no presence. The Kurds were fighting al-qaeda fighters who left Afghanistan but they did not hook up with the Republican Army or any other of Saddam's forces because they were in an area where Saddam had no control over. Tough to make a connection when it was the Kurds, not Saddam, running the show.

Goldberg has credibility problems as well.


Goldberg has come under criticism for two of his pieces that appeared in The New Yorker in the days leading up to the war in Iraq, which, some critics say, reiterated the government line in maintaining ties between the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. "The Great Terror"[1] appeared in the March 25, 2002 issue of the magazine and was based largely on testimony of Mohammed Mansour Shahab, a prisoner, who was subsequently discredited by Jason Burke in the London Observer. It can still be found on his website. from his article in Wikipedia

Even if Al-Zawahiri linked up with OBL, they had no presence in Iraq and nothing from this source you noted proves that. Even this (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200411020824.asp) article in the National Review casts doubt on the claim you are making because if there was a Saddam connection, they would surely would have mentioned it.


The beginning of cooperation with Al-Qaeda began in 1994. Farouq Hijazi, a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officer, had his first meeting with Osama Bin Laden in Sudan. Radio Free Europe, October 19, 2001

In searching the RFE site, even by searching the dates and month you cited, no story even mentioning Hijazi OR Osama OR Sudan OR Al-Qaeda came up. If there is a story there, you find the citation and bring it back.


1997 … the first Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq opened up. Saddam Hussein’s regime increased the flow of small arms and money to Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization. Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2002

In searching the Wall Street Journal site, there is no article containing the words "Al-Qaeda and Iraq and Osama and Saddam" for any date close to the one you used.

In conclusion, not one of your claims panned out because (1) you got them directly from a website that carried no usable citations, (2) had information could not be verified by extensive Google searches, (3) was blatently partisan, and (4) it's hard to bring proof to the table for something that even the Pentagon's own reports say isn't so.


A declassified report by the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble provides new insight into the circumstances behind former Pentagon official Douglas Feith's pre-Iraq war assessment of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection — an assessment that was contrary to US intelligence agency findings, and helped bolster the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war.

The report, which was made public in summary form in February, was released in full on Thursday by Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a statement accompanying the 121-page report, Senator Levin said: "It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon's Inspector General concluded that Secretary Feith's office 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,' which included 'conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community.' "

The Feith office alternative intelligence assessments concluded that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating and had a "mature, symbiotic" relationship, a view that was not supported by the available intelligence, and was contrary to the consensus view of the Intelligence Community. These alternative assessments were used by the Administration to support its public arguments in its case for war. As the DOD IG report confirms, the Intelligence Community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; the report specifically states that," the CIA and DIA disavowed any 'mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

The Los Angeles Times reports that in excerpts of the report released in February, Mr. Gimble called Feith's alternative intelligence "improper," but that it wasn't illegal or unauthorized because then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz assigned the work. The Times also reports that a prewar memo from Mr. Wolfowitz to Feith requesting that an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection be identified was among the newly released documents.

"We don't seem to be making much progress pulling together intelligence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Wolfowitz wrote in the Jan. 22, 2002, memo to Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official.

Using Pentagon jargon for the secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, he added: "We owe SecDef some analysis of this subject. Please give me a recommendation on how best to proceed. Appreciate the short turn-around."

The Times reports that the memo "marked the beginnings of what would become a controversial yearlong Pentagon project" to convince White House officials of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a connection "that was hotly disputed by U.S. intelligence agencies at the time and has been discredited in the years since."

The New York Times reports that presentation slides used during a Pentagon briefing at the White House were also released Thursday. The slides showed how Feith criticised US intelligence agencies that had found little or no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

The slide used by the Pentagon analysts to brief the White House officials states the intelligence agencies assumed "that secularists and Islamists will not cooperate, even when they have common interests," and there was "consistent underestimation of importance that would be attached by Iraq and Al Qaeda to hiding a relationship."

The Pentagon, in written comments included in the report, strongly disputed that the White House briefing and the slide citing "Fundamental Problems" undercut the intelligence community.

"The intelligence community was fully aware of the work under review and commented on it several times," the Pentagon said, adding that [former CIA Diector George] Tenet, at the suggestion of the defense secretary then, Donald H. Rumsfeld, "was personally briefed."

The Times notes that the Pentagon analysts' appraisal of the CIA's approach was "in contrast" to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its 2004 report on prewar intelligence, which praised the CIA's approach as methodical, reasonable, and objective.

link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

[stephanie]

It took me an hour of searching but I finally found enough information about your stuff here. First, you took it all from a blog called probush.com, hardly an unbiased site. Then, each of your points had a reference to a date and an article but not a citation. I did the research this time but next time you will do the leg work because you are trying to convince me.



The article you are making reference to features the reporting of Jeff Goldberg, a renowned neocon. He based much of his reporting on interviews with alleged prisoners of the PUK. The problem with the al-qaeda link you claim is that it occurred in Northern Iraq, an area under control of the Kurds and part of the no-fly zone where Saddam's troops had no presence. The Kurds were fighting al-qaeda fighters who left Afghanistan but they did not hook up with the Republican Army or any other of Saddam's forces because they were in an area where Saddam had no control over. Tough to make a connection when it was the Kurds, not Saddam, running the show.

Goldberg has credibility problems as well.

from his article in Wikipedia

Even if Al-Zawahiri linked up with OBL, they had no presence in Iraq and nothing from this source you noted proves that. Even this (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200411020824.asp) article in the National Review casts doubt on the claim you are making because if there was a Saddam connection, they would surely would have mentioned it.



In searching the RFE site, even by searching the dates and month you cited, no story even mentioning Hijazi OR Osama OR Sudan OR Al-Qaeda came up. If there is a story there, you find the citation and bring it back.



In searching the Wall Street Journal site, there is no article containing the words "Al-Qaeda and Iraq and Osama and Saddam" for any date close to the one you used.

In conclusion, not one of your claims panned out because (1) you got them directly from a website that carried no usable citations, (2) had information could not be verified by extensive Google searches, (3) was blatantly partisan, and (4) it's hard to bring proof to the table for something that even the Pentagon's own reports say isn't so.



link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html)

Maybe you ought to take your DemocratIC parties word for it.....
But of course we know how you all wish these were buried and couldn't ever be used against you.......It spoils all your games to be able to blame President Bush......:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[glockmail]

.... First, you took it all from a blog called probush.com, hardly an unbiased site. .... Never heard of that site. As your initial assumption is incorrect, your conclusions are obviously flawed. Nice try at attacking the messengers as well. But Kudos for trying.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Never heard of that site. As your initial assumption is incorrect, your conclusions are obviously flawed. Nice try at attacking the messengers as well. But Kudos for trying.

http://www.probush.com/ryan_saddam_hussein_and_bin_laden.htm


One of the first meetings was between Ayman Al-Zawahiri, head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with Al-Qaeda, making Zawahiri second only to Bin Laden. This has been confirmed by a former Iraqi intelligence officer and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces.[6]


The beginning of cooperation with Al-Qaeda began in 1994. Farouq Hijazi, a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence officer, had his first meeting with Osama Bin Laden in Sudan.[10] It is believed they discussed cooperation in handling Islamic terrorists and insurgents, and Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons facilities in Sudan.


This year, the first Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq opened up. Saddam Hussein’s regime increased the flow of small arms and money to Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization.[28] In springtime, Iraq’s support for Palestinian terrorists took a new turn. Smuggling routes were established through Jordan, for Iraqi weapons including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and anti-armor RPGs to be delivered to Arafat’s Palestinian militants.[29]

All taken right from the website, word for word what you posted, all without sustainable attribution. Google is your friend but also what exposes the frauds. It's obvious you don't have proof for your allegations that Saddam and OBL were butt-buddies but you can keep believing whetever you want. The Pentagon report proved that Feith was a liar and that lie got us into a war in Iraq.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Maybe you ought to take your DemocratIC parties word for it.....
But of course we know how you all wish these were buried and couldn't ever be used against you.......It spoils all your games to be able to blame President Bush......:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Sorry to burst your bubble, sweetcheeks, but the issue is whether Saddam and OBL were effectively cooperating before 9/11 and afterwards. You got no proof and neither does Glock.

As far as the war itself goes, I blame everybody who voted to get us into this quagmire and everybody who is keeping us in this quagmire be that Kerry, Edwards, or your boy Chimpy. All are to blame. No one is innocent.

[glockmail]

All taken right from the website, word for word what you posted, all without sustainable attribution. .... You "probush" website copied the entire article from a Ryan Mauro. I am referencing from the original article. Mauro's piece is summary of evidence that cites 100+ sources. So you bash a website you don't like and claim it is the original source of information. The fact is that the Washington Post, Radio Free Europe, and the Wall Street Journal (reporters) aren't exactly spokesmen for the Bush Administration, nor do they have control over who cites them, and then who cites the citer.

There is tons of other evidence out there as well, in fact I just finished up a book on the bin Laden-Saddam connection by a different author. He again uses information gleaned from the mainstream media to support the contention the bin Laden and Saddam had a solid working relationship.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You "probush" website copied the entire article from a Ryan Mauro. I am referencing from the original article. Mauro's piece is summary of evidence that cites 100+ sources. So you bash a website you don't like and claim it is the original source of information. The fact is that the Washington Post, Radio Free Europe, and the Wall Street Journal (reporters) aren't exactly spokesmen for the Bush Administration, nor do they have control over who cites them, and then who cites the citer.

There is tons of other evidence out there as well, in fact I just finished up a book on the bin Laden-Saddam connection by a different author. He again uses information gleaned from the mainstream media to support the contention the bin Laden and Saddam had a solid working relationship.

He cites the sources but they don't hold up to scrutiny. Tell you what: you go dig up the citations that I could not. Prove me wrong. Prove that I could not do the research. Here's your chance. It's all there in Post #91.

When you are done with that answer the question of how Ryan Mauro could come up with this connection between OBL and Saddam but the Pentagon could not. Prove the Pentagon's assertions wrong and we will have something to talk about.

Anything else is just a waste of my time.

[TheStripey1]

When you are done with that answer the question of how Ryan Mauro could come up with this connection between OBL and Saddam but the Pentagon could not. Prove the Pentagon's assertions wrong and we will have something to talk about.

Maybe he is on the same wave length as bush and they're both hearing the same broadcast of inner voices...

:dance:

[glockmail]

He cites the sources but they don't hold up to scrutiny. Tell you what: you go dig up the citations that I could not. Prove me wrong. Prove that I could not do the research. Here's your chance. It's all there in Post #91.

When you are done with that answer the question of how Ryan Mauro could come up with this connection between OBL and Saddam but the Pentagon could not. Prove the Pentagon's assertions wrong and we will have something to talk about.

Anything else is just a waste of my time.

In the current political climate, it comes down to what level of proof is required. In the case on Democrats opposed to all things Republican, they require absolute certainty, which will never happen in a time of war. Being more of a realist, I require a preponderance of evidence. If it jives with my suspicions and is logical, then I believe it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

In the current political climate, it comes down to what level of proof is required. In the case on Democrats opposed to all things Republican, they require absolute certainty, which will never happen in a time of war. Being more of a realist, I require a preponderance of evidence. If it jives with my suspicions and is logical, then I believe it.

You can flitter-flutter all you want and pontificate about what you believe but YOU made the assertion that Osama & Saddam were butt-buddies which I disproved using the very same information you gave me. I challenged you to bring citations, not rhetoric. You have failed to do so. Your point is not taken and we are done here.

[Psychoblues]

BVE, Thanks for the info and the links but these buttheads are hardcore and will believe nothing other than the lies that were told to them 5 years ago and have been successfully rebutted time and time again. Believe me, I have been down this road with them before.




You can flitter-flutter all you want and pontificate about what you believe but YOU made the assertion that Osama & Saddam were butt-buddies which I disproved using the very same information you gave me. I challenged you to bring citations, not rhetoric. You have failed to do so. Your point is not taken and we are done here.


But, it never hurts to remind them!!!!!! Hang in there, BVE!!!!!

[glockmail]

You can flitter-flutter all you want and pontificate about what you believe but YOU made the assertion that Osama & Saddam were butt-buddies which I disproved using the very same information you gave me. I challenged you to bring citations, not rhetoric. You have failed to do so. Your point is not taken and we are done here.
You disproved nothing. My original source cites over 100 references that documents the connection, and you picked out one where bin Laden was in Iraq but not in direct anal contact with Saddam.:slap:

[glockmail]

BVE, Thanks for the info and the links but these buttheads are hardcore....!! Seems to work both ways.

[gabosaurus]

Can we go back to Malkin frothing at the mouth? Seems we have strayed off topic here. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Can we go back to Malkin frothing at the mouth? Seems we have strayed off topic here. :laugh2:

I can't imagine that she could possibly froth at the mouth more than you.

[gabosaurus]

Lame response. You can do much better than that! :poke:

[Gunny]

Lame response. You can do much better than that! :poke:

If you were worthy of better, you'd have received better.

Michele Malkin has an extremist viewpoint. At the same time, she can at least substantiate her viewpoint with intelligent reasoning; whether, or not you or I agree with it.

That would be as opposed to the likes of Michael Moore, Jeneanne Garafalo, and just about any other left-wing extremist who parrots rhetoric yet really has no freakin' clue why they believe what they do.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You disproved nothing. My original source cites over 100 references that documents the connection, and you picked out one where bin Laden was in Iraq but not in direct anal contact with Saddam.:slap:

YOU picked out the ones that I disproved or weren't you paying attention?

Your source cites over 100 references that CANNOT be verified so they mean nothing. Just like the guy who claimed to produce cold fusion in his lab: he could claim it all day long but no one else could duplicate the results so it was a meaningless claim believed by those who WANTED to believe it and discounted by everyone else who wanted actual proof. You have had ample time to go back to my post and prove me wrong but you did not. You lose.

[glockmail]

YOU picked out the ones that I disproved or weren't you paying attention?

Your source cites over 100 references that CANNOT be verified so they mean nothing. Just like the guy who claimed to produce cold fusion in his lab: he could claim it all day long but no one else could duplicate the results so it was a meaningless claim believed by those who WANTED to believe it and discounted by everyone else who wanted actual proof. You have had ample time to go back to my post and prove me wrong but you did not. You lose.
They can be verified; you proved it by the one that you did verify.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

They can be verified; you proved it by the one that you did verify.

The one I did verify DID NOT prove your point. I merely proved that the reference existed but what it said was 180 degrees from what you asserted. Seems like you cannot bring up any proof of your claims. You're left grasping at these:
http://www.prairiepack.com/images/straws1.jpg

[glockmail]

The one I did verify DID NOT prove your point. I merely proved that the reference existed but what it said was 180 degrees from what you asserted. Seems like you cannot bring up any proof of your claims. The source was spot on, proving that bin Laden was in Iraq, just not in direct anal contact with Saddam.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The source was spot on, proving that bin Laden was in Iraq, just not in direct anal contact with Saddam.

...contrary to what you claimed. Thanks for conceding the point.

[glockmail]

...contrary to what you claimed. Thanks for conceding the point. Yes, I did claim that bin Laden and Saddam were butt buds, but I figgered you'd have the intelligence to realize that I was intentionally metaphorical, and on that, I was wrong.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Yes, I did claim that bin Laden and Saddam were butt buds, but I figgered you'd have the intelligence to realize that I was intentionally metaphorical, and on that, I was wrong.

Actually, you were correct in "figgering" that I understood you were being "intentionally metaphorical" but you have yet to prove that there was a whit of co-operation between the two, that Osama's goals were the same as Saddam's as far as the United States was concerned which would make them team up against us, or any other such connection of any substance what-so-ever.

You have had more than enough time to come up with citations for the WSJ reference and the Radio Free Europe reference and you have not. You did get a brownie point for sustaining the claim that al-qaeda had a presence in Iraq in pre-war days but you could not make the connection between them and Saddam. The Pentagon's own intelligence says you can't draw that inference, other intelligence agencies have made the same inference and you persist in believing some yokel on the internet because he posted it on his website. Every post you make without backing up your original claims back on Post #88 is a post that further buries your claim as fantasy not truth.

Thanks for playing.

[glockmail]

....The Pentagon's own intelligence says you can't draw that inference, ..... "..some experts say..." ...and other experts agree with me.

Again, there are over 100 references in the report as well as a recent book I read by a different author and I find it very convincing. So did most Democrats, before the going got tough.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

100 references do not equal one citation. Try again. Try the WSJ reference or the Radio Free Europe reference that you originally tried to bamboozle us with. I dare ya...

[glockmail]

100 references do not equal one citation. Try again. Try the WSJ reference or the Radio Free Europe reference that you originally tried to bamboozle us with. I dare ya... I don't have a subscription to either. Are you saying that the author of the summary report is lying? Come out with it, man. :poke:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I don't have a subscription to either. Are you saying that the author of the summary report is lying? Come out with it, man. :poke:

You don't need a subscription to look up their crap on the internet, so, yes, the author is lying. I've been alluding to it the past three days. You just now figuring that out? He's lying and you bought into it.

Or bring your "proof" to the table on those two sources with appropriate citations.

[glockmail]

You don't need a subscription to look up their crap on the internet, so, yes, the author is lying. I've been alluding to it the past three days. You just now figuring that out? He's lying and you bought into it.

Or bring your "proof" to the table on those two sources with appropriate citations.


Obviously if you are willing to call a distinguished author a liar because you disagree with his conclusions then you are simply trolling. Sorry, but I don't play "Lucy and the Football".

[Baron Von Esslingen]

A distinguished author would have citations whether or not I agreed with his premises. Yours does not and you haven't been able to fill in the gaps with your bluster.


Sorry, but I don't play "Lucy and the Football".

Since you are implying that I am Lucy, are you Charlie Brown.... or the football?

[glockmail]

A distinguished author would have citations whether or not I agreed with his premises. Yours does not and you haven't been able to fill in the gaps with your bluster.



Since you are implying that I am Lucy, are you Charlie Brown.... or the football?


The author is a frequent guest on radio shows from Al Franken to Dennis Prager, and has been published in WorldNetDaily.com, Newsmax.com, StrategyPage.com, WorldTribune.com, HomelandSecurityUS.com, JRNyquist.com, "The Eurasian Politician", and in the Turkistan Newsletter (Turkistan Bulteni).
You're Lucy and you want me to be Charlie Brown, but I ain't playing.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

So, I guess we're done and you still haven't proven your allegation.

http://www.pastpeak.com/clips/lucy_football.gif

Game over.

[glockmail]

So, I guess we're done and you still haven't proven your allegation.

http://www.pastpeak.com/clips/lucy_football.gif

Game over.


Thanks Lucy. :laugh2: