And yet another video why George Bush is a Douchebag...Ron Paul for Pres

[Dfresh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo

[April15]

You don't need a video to know Bush is a bag of anykind. Just listen to him. Or see what he hasn't done.

[Dilloduck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo

Doesnt' matter---they all turn into douchebags. It's their nature.

[JackDaniels]

Doesnt' matter---they all turn into douchebags. It's their nature.

Except this douchebag has causes the deaths of thousands of Americans, spend half a trillion dollars of the American people's money, all for a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

[jimnyc]

Except this douchebag has causes the deaths of thousands of Americans, spend half a trillion dollars of the American people's money, all for a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

Silly me, the years leading up to the invasion led me to believe the war was about years of failed resolutions, Saddam's possession and desire to attain WMD, the repression of it's citizens, his ties to terror organizations and a long list of lesser offenses. One of the worlds largest terror organizations then took up residence in Iraq and we've seen thousands of them killed or captured as a result.

But stick with your Cindy Sheehan handbook, they'll probably send you a nice little sticker for being a good boy.

[JackDaniels]

Silly me, the years leading up to the invasion led me to believe the war was about years of failed resolutions, Saddam's possession and desire to attain WMD, the repression of it's citizens, his ties to terror organizations and a long list of lesser offenses. One of the worlds largest terror organizations then took up residence in Iraq and we've seen thousands of them killed or captured as a result.

But stick with your Cindy Sheehan handbook, they'll probably send you a nice little sticker for being a good boy.

If you honestly believe what you just said, theres no hope for anyone having intelligent debate with you. You could not have made a more uneducated comment.

[jimnyc]

If you honestly believe what you just said, theres no hope for anyone having intelligent debate with you. You could not have made a more uneducated comment.

It's a fact and cannot be disputed. You can try if you like, but I suppose it easier to just throw out your rhetoric and run with your tail between your legs as usual as opposed to providing anything to disprove the facts I've stated.

[stephanie]

I guess all these Democrats are liars, also..

"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

[Dilloduck]

Except this douchebag has causes the deaths of thousands of Americans, spend half a trillion dollars of the American people's money, all for a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

oh boy----your douchebag is better than this douchebag---when are you going to learn ?

[manu1959]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo

george bush aint runnin ...... douche bag drinker ....

[manu1959]

Except this douchebag has causes the deaths of thousands of Americans, spend half a trillion dollars of the American people's money, all for a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

makes you wonder why the terrorist are trying to kill non-radical islamist all over the world ......

[Immanuel]

Buried 60 Minutes Interview? Are you kidding?

That whole thing was nothing but a campaign ad for Ron Paul.

Isn't that fraudulent advertising?

Immie

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Ron Paul Is An Embarrassment To The Republican Party. He Should Take His Tin Foil Hat And Go Back To The Libertarian Party Where He Fits In With The Rest Of The KOOKS

[JackDaniels]

Ron Paul Is An Embarrassment To The Republican Party. He Should Take His Tin Foil Hat And Go Back To The Libertarian Party Where He Fits In With The Rest Of The KOOKS

Ron Paul is the closest thing to a true Conservative in the race.

[JackDaniels]

It's a fact and cannot be disputed. You can try if you like, but I suppose it easier to just throw out your rhetoric and run with your tail between your legs as usual as opposed to providing anything to disprove the facts I've stated.

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that Iraq did not have any functional WMD for nearly 15 years

Get a clue.

[JackDaniels]

makes you wonder why the terrorist are trying to kill non-radical islamist all over the world ......

It doesn't really make you wonder...the CIA and every intelligent observer of international politics knows exactly why that is occuring.

Blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence))

[manu1959]

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that Iraq did not have any functional WMD for nearly 15 years

Get a clue.

one i will stipulate to

two is debateable and unproveable

three is wrong...technically WMDs as defined in the UN resolutions were found

it is a fact that iraq violated 18 un resolutions and the terms of the cease fire of gulf war one and committed genocide on its own people....

[manu1959]

It doesn't really make you wonder...the CIA and every intelligent observer of international politics knows exactly why that is occuring.

Blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence))

it has been occuring since the 70s

[JackDaniels]

it has been occuring since the 70s

Thank you for understanding the concept.

[JackDaniels]

one i will stipulate to

two is debateable and unproveable

three is wrong...technically WMDs as defined in the UN resolutions were found

it is a fact that iraq violated 18 un resolutions and the terms of the cease fire of gulf war one and committed genocide on its own people....

So have an exponential number of countries...do you advocate a policy in which we invade every country that has human rights abuses?

[jimnyc]

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded

It's a fact that cannot be disputed that Iraq did not have any functional WMD for nearly 15 years

Get a clue.

Apparently YOU are the clueless one. Nobody ever stated Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Zarqawi was in Iraq long before 9/11. "Major stockpiles" weren't found but functional WMD's were, and nobody still can account for tons of chemical weapons that disappeared after 1998.

You are either terribly misinformed or just purposely dense.

[manu1959]

So have an exponential number of countries...do you advocate a policy in which we invade every country that has human rights abuses?

nope....

[manu1959]

Thank you for understanding the concept.

you are quite welcome....

[JackDaniels]

Apparently YOU are the clueless one. Nobody ever stated Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Zarqawi was in Iraq long before 9/11. "Major stockpiles" weren't found but functional WMD's were, and nobody still can account for tons of chemical weapons that disappeared after 1998.

You are either terribly misinformed or just purposely dense.

It seems YOU are the dense one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Your uneducated act is getting old. Don't you have some drywall to hang or lawns to mow?

[jimnyc]

It seems YOU are the dense one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Your uneducated act is getting old. Don't you have some drywall to hang or lawns to mow?

And where did I state that Iraq had solid ties with Al Qaeda, Mr. I have trouble with comprehension? I said Zarqawi was in Iraq long before 9/11. Do we need to rehash what his involvement was against the US after we invaded?

Looks like a guy who hangs drywall and mows lawns is a little smarter than you. But then again, I could be a moldy egg and out debate you.

[JackDaniels]

And where did I state that Iraq had solid ties with Al Qaeda, Mr. I have trouble with comprehension? I said Zarqawi was in Iraq long before 9/11. Do we need to rehash what his involvement was against the US after we invaded?

Do you need to understand that you supported attacking a country that had as much to do with 9/11 as Switzerland did?

You don't seem to understand international politics, because your policy is directly leading to more terrorism and will result in more Americans getting killed.

Educate yourself. Blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29).

[jimnyc]

Do you need to understand that you supported attacking a country that had as much to do with 9/11 as Switzerland did?

You don't seem to understand international politics, because your policy is directly leading to more terrorism and will result in more Americans getting killed.

Educate yourself. Blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29).

And what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Why are you so obsessed with linking the two and using that as a means to obfuscate the issue? Nobody said they were responsible for 9/11. I suggest you read back further in this thread as to why I stated we invaded Iraq.

It's not my policy, but I'm fully supportive of the efforts in Iraq. I'm also fully supportive of killing and/or capturing the little cockroaches that are scurrying from us.

I don't need you to educate me. If I wanted your style of education I'm sure I can find courses on surrender or appeasement online somewhere.

[82Marine89]

Except this douchebag has causes the deaths of thousands of Americans, spend half a trillion dollars of the American people's money, all for a war that has NOTHING to do with terrorism.

$500,000,000,000.00? How much of that was pork barrel add-ons? If you're going to blame him, blame them all.

[JackDaniels]

And what does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Why are you so obsessed with linking the two and using that as a means to obfuscate the issue? Nobody said they were responsible for 9/11. I suggest you read back further in this thread as to why I stated we invaded Iraq.

It's not my policy, but I'm fully supportive of the efforts in Iraq. I'm also fully supportive of killing and/or capturing the little cockroaches that are scurrying from us.

I don't need you to educate me. If I wanted your style of education I'm sure I can find courses on surrender or appeasement online somewhere.

Thanks for the useless post. Come back when you have something real to say.

[Sir Evil]

Thanks for the useless post. Come back when you have something real to say.

I think he did but unfortunately you have little to say in rebuttal, no surprise on that one. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the useless post. Come back when you have something real to say.

In other words, I disproved your claims, and without obfuscation and typical liberal rants you have nothing left. You're officially dismissed.

NEXT!

[JackDaniels]

In other words, I disproved your claims, and without obfuscation and typical liberal rants you have nothing left. You're officially dismissed.

NEXT!

You have provided NO evidence for anything you have said and only a FOOL would believe you could defeat ANYONE in a debate...

Like I said, go hang drywall, you uneducated fool.

[manu1959]

Do you need to understand that you supported attacking a country that had as much to do with 9/11 as Switzerland did?

You don't seem to understand international politics, because your policy is directly leading to more terrorism and will result in more Americans getting killed.

Educate yourself. Blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29).

switzerland probably more.....i would guess most of the money is there in numbered accounts....


when did blowback start and why......

[JackDaniels]

switzerland probably more.....i would guess most of the money is there in numbered accounts....


when did blowback start and why......

It has been recognized by foreign policy experts and government officials that American foreign policy breeds terrorism by inciting blowback, and that has been around for years.

Intervention is not a one way street. When you enter a country and completely destroy its infrastructure, you will get a significant amount of animosity towards the invading force. If the U.S. hadn't of meddled in Mid East affairs for decades, there would have never been a 9/11 attack, and thats something NO expert disputes. The current actions in the Mid East are making blowback worse and will directly cause more acts of terrorism in the future.

[JackDaniels]

typical liberal rants

This statement PROVES you don't have an understanding of political theory whatsoever.

If you'd educate yourself, you'd see that I am no liberal. In fact I'm closer to the traditional Republican line than you are.

The current Republican Party is filled with almost nothing except Liberals. You are no exception.

[manu1959]

It has been recognized by foreign policy experts and government officials that American foreign policy breeds terrorism by inciting blowback, and that has been around for years.

Intervention is not a one way street. When you enter a country and completely destroy its infrastructure, you will get a significant amount of animosity towards the invading force. If the U.S. hadn't of meddled in Mid East affairs for decades, there would have never been a 9/11 attack, and thats something NO expert disputes. The current actions in the Mid East are making blowback worse and will directly cause more acts of terrorism in the future.

the middle east has been attacking "the west" for 2000 years.....there was always going to be a "911"

[JackDaniels]

the middle east has been attacking "the west" for 2000 years.....there was always going to be a "911"

Not in the way it happened.

The Mid East had been responding to the imperialism of Christianity for those 2000 years. However, you are right and have touched on another huge problem: organized religion.

Without organized religion, there is also no 9/11 attack.

[manu1959]

Not in the way it happened.

The Mid East had been responding to the imperialism of Christianity for those 2000 years. However, you are right and have touched on another huge problem: organized religion.

Without organized religion, there is also no 9/11 attack.

you seem to have forgotten that the christians responded to the taking of land by islam in the "holy land" and and the moors invasion of spain pre crusade....

blaming a philosophy of man for the actions of man....is like blaming the gun and not the criminal......but i imagine you do that as well....

[jimnyc]

You have provided NO evidence for anything you have said and only a FOOL would believe you could defeat ANYONE in a debate...

Like I said, go hang drywall, you uneducated fool.

Whatever you say, repetitive liberal dolt! I've proved the same things over and over here countless times. No one stated Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 - FACT. Zarqawi was in Iraq multiple times prior to the invasion - FACT. WMD's were found in Iraq, and tons of chemical weapons remain unaccounted for since inspectors left Iraq in 1998 - FACT.

You are terribly uninformed and quite dense - FACT.

[JackDaniels]

Whatever you say, repetitive liberal dolt! I've proved the same things over and over here countless times. No one stated Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 - FACT. Zarqawi was in Iraq multiple times prior to the invasion - FACT. WMD's were found in Iraq, and tons of chemical weapons remain unaccounted for since inspectors left Iraq in 1998 - FACT.

You are terribly uninformed and quite dense - FACT.

FACT - NO WMD were found that would have been operational before 1990.

FACT - Zarqawi being in Iraq is COMPLETELY irrelevant, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So if you really understand that Iraq had NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with 9/11, it would make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Zarqawi may have been in Iraq....get it?

NOTHING you have posted has warranted a preemptive war that has killed thousands of Americans (more than died in the 9/11 attacks) and thousands of innocent Iraqis...

You continue to show you just don't have the nuts and bolts upstairs to understand what is really going on.

[JackDaniels]

you seem to have forgotten that the christians responded to the taking of land by islam in the "holy land" and and the moors invasion of spain pre crusade....

No group is innocent, and I never said they were


blaming a philosophy of man for the actions of man....is like blaming the gun and not the criminal......but i imagine you do that as well....

You don't really get what I'm trying to say...

It especially warms my heart when I get referred to as a Liberal, considering I'm MUCH more Conservative than you are...

You understand that the War in Iraq is the Liberal Progressive dream of Socialist Woodrow Wilson, right?

[manu1959]

FACT - NO WMD were found that would have been operational before 1990.

FACT - Zarqawi being in Iraq is COMPLETELY irrelevant, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So if you really understand that Iraq had NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with 9/11, it would make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Zarqawi may have been in Iraq....get it?

NOTHING you have posted has warranted a preemptive war that has killed thousands of Americans (more than died in the 9/11 attacks) and thousands of innocent Iraqis...

You continue to show you just don't have the nuts and bolts upstairs to understand what is really going on.

but but but you said.....It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded....

opperational WMDs....that would mean they were there in some form and you said....it was a fact there were none.....

spin spin spin.....

[jimnyc]

FACT - NO WMD were found that would have been operational before 1990.

But they WERE found, and quite a bit of it was still operational. Disproves what you originally stated.


FACT - Zarqawi being in Iraq is COMPLETELY irrelevant, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So if you really understand that Iraq had NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with 9/11, it would make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER that Zarqawi may have been in Iraq....get it?

You said Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq prior to the US invasion. Zarqawi was, and apparently in charge of a training camp in Northern Iraq along with Ansar al-Islam. This again disproves what you originally stated.


NOTHING you have posted has warranted a preemptive war that has killed thousands of Americans (more than died in the 9/11 attacks) and thousands of innocent Iraqis...

That's merely your opinion. I think the failed resolutions, 17 in total over 12 years, continuing repression of their people along with the torture, raping and killing & Saddam's desire to attain further WMD was plenty enough. Let's not forget his starting to rebuild his nuclear facilities after 1991 which was forbidden as per the resolutions.


You continue to show you just don't have the nuts and bolts upstairs to understand what is really going on.

Say what you will, but the person who's intelligence you keep insulting is making you look like more and more of the fool you are with every post. :laugh2:

[JackDaniels]

but but but you said.....It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded....

No Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. There wasn't until AFTER we invaded.


opperational WMDs....that would mean they were there in some form and you said....it was a fact there were none.....

The WMD that supposedly were "found" were shells of weapons that could not have been operational for 15 years. That's not finding WMDs.

[JackDaniels]

but but but you said.....It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded....

No Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. There wasn't until AFTER we invaded.


opperational WMDs....that would mean they were there in some form and you said....it was a fact there were none.....

The WMD that supposedly were "found" were shells of weapons that could not have been operational for 15 years. That's not finding WMDs, and it's intellectually lazy to claim it is.

[manu1959]

No Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. There wasn't until AFTER we invaded.

The WMD that supposedly were "found" were shells of weapons that could not have been operational for 15 years. That's not finding WMDs.

so you admit AQ were in iraq pre invasion....

so you admit there were wmd's that met the UN definition....

i am very proud of you....

[jimnyc]

No Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. There wasn't until AFTER we invaded.

Let's take a peek at your original statement in this thread:


It's a fact that cannot be disputed that there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded

How does the wind feel while backpedaling?

[JackDaniels]

Let's take a peek at your original statement in this thread:



How does the wind feel while backpedaling?

You are nitpicking. There was no Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. Get it?

Nitpicking shows you are intellectually lazy and need to grasp at straws. It's sad to watch someone so desperate.

[JackDaniels]

so you admit AQ were in iraq pre invasion....

so you admit there were wmd's that met the UN definition....

i am very proud of you....


Read my post again, yet comprehend it this time.

[Gaffer]

No group is innocent, and I never said they were



You don't really get what I'm trying to say...

It especially warms my heart when I get referred to as a Liberal, considering I'm MUCH more Conservative than you are...

You understand that the War in Iraq is the Liberal Progressive dream of Socialist Woodrow Wilson, right?

Wow, another history revisionist. Blame America first then make up a bunch of bullshit to prove your points.

You really need to simplify your posts by typing "I Hate Bush" instead of making up all this crap.

[jimnyc]

You are nitpicking. There was no Al Qaeda involvement in Iraq. Get it?

Nitpicking shows you are intellectually lazy and need to grasp at straws. It's sad to watch someone so desperate.

It's sad to watch someone change his own words when he's proven wrong. And I would think Zarqawi heading up terror camps along with Ansar al-Islam to be "involvement".

Beat it, little jackie, I'm done with you. I can't stand liars, and I can't stand picking on those that are so uninformed with history and yet stamp there feet as if they know it all.

You are officially dismissed again. Your teacher is leaving the building now.

NEXT!

[JackDaniels]

Wow, another history revisionist. Blame America first then make up a bunch of bullshit to prove your points.

You really need to simplify your posts by typing "I Hate Bush" instead of making up all this crap.

Blowback isn't something thats revisionist. In fact its not really up for debate, considering our own CIA created the concept, and nearly every foreign policy expert believes that blowback was the main contributor to 9/11.

But thanks for trying.

[manu1959]

Read my post again, yet comprehend it this time.

you said no AQ in iraq....now you say they were there...which is it...either they were or they were not.....

you said no WMD's .....now you say they had them.....which is it ....either they had the or the didn't....

you see....you lied.....then you started qualifying your statments....

you sound like george bush or kerry or hillary to me.....hey you should run for office....

[manu1959]

Blowback isn't something thats revisionist. In fact its not really up for debate, considering our own CIA created the concept, and nearly every foreign policy expert believes that blowback was the main contributor to 9/11.

But thanks for trying.

all blowback is .... is retaliation....one could argue the middleast is experiencing blowback for the assasination plot of bush I.....it matters not who started it....or even why...it matters who finishes it...the world is at war and has been for 2000 years....

[JackDaniels]

It's sad to watch someone change his own words when he's proven wrong. And I would think Zarqawi heading up terror camps along with Ansar al-Islam to be "involvement".

Those terror camps were set up as a response to U.S. aggression in Iraq, not anything pre-9/11. The U.S. action is the reason those camps were set up.


You are officially dismissed again. Your teacher is leaving the building now.

You've got to be kidding me, right? Some uneducated white trash moron is going to try to play that card? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: There's a reason that you need so many Neo-Cons on this board with you. Because no one else respects you.

[manu1959]

Those terror camps were set up as a response to U.S. aggression in Iraq, not anything pre-9/11. The U.S. action is the reason those camps were set up.


really? what about the 747 out in the middle of the desert that was found with all the trappings of a hijacking training camp for what......stewardes school?

[Sir Evil]

You've got to be kidding me, right? Some uneducated white trash moron is going to try to play that card? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: There's a reason that you need so many Neo-Cons on this board with you. Because no one else respects you.

Wanna talk trash one needs look no further than this statement:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=139140&postcount=41

Respect? lol, backpeddling through an argument always garners much respect, what a shit brick!

[jimnyc]

Those terror camps were set up as a response to U.S. aggression in Iraq, not anything pre-9/11. The U.S. action is the reason those camps were set up.

Wrong again. Ansar al-Islam is a Kurdish militant group and they had the camps up and running long before the US invasion, and Zarqawi joined alliances and started running the camps as a lieutenant for Bin Laden in 2002.


You've got to be kidding me, right? Some uneducated white trash moron is going to try to play that card? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: There's a reason that you need so many Neo-Cons on this board with you. Because no one else respects you.

Again, tsk tsk. How funny when someone is literally getting their ass kicked starts to call the other uneducated! I have the respect of 95% of this board, and 5% of outright idiots don't care for me. 95% of those 5% are the true uneducated twits, like yourself.

That was your last schooling for the evening as I'm off to watch a movie now. Maybe I'll run circles around you in another thread in the near future, let's just hope it's not another thread where you poke at a handicapped person and tell him to kill himself.

[JackDaniels]

really? what about the 747 out in the middle of the desert that was found with all the trappings of a hijacking training camp for what......stewardes school?

My quote was referencing the terror camps in northern Iraq, set up by Al Qaeda....which weren't there before 9/11.

[manu1959]

My quote was referencing the terror camps in northern Iraq, set up by Al Qaeda....which weren't there before 9/11.

where were those type of camps pre 911.....

[JackDaniels]

Wrong again. Ansar al-Islam is a Kurdish militant group and they had the camps up and running long before the US invasion, and Zarqawi joined alliances and started running the camps as a lieutenant for Bin Laden in 2002.

The aggression toward Iraq was launched well before the actual physical invasion. There had been talk in early 2002 that we were going to be invading Iraq, which didn't actually physically happen until the next year.

I stated that the camps weren't there pre-9/11. That is correct.

[Gaffer]

The aggression toward Iraq was launched well before the actual physical invasion. There had been talk in early 2002 that we were going to be invading Iraq, which didn't actually physically happen until the next year.

I stated that the camps weren't there pre-9/11. That is correct.

This is an old argument that has been covered a dozen times. You can read it all in the older threads on the war. we have gone over it all so much most of us have it memorized. You can reword your argument all you want it still comes out the same. History is history and facts are facts. I suggest you go find another thread to harp on as this subject has been covered adnausium. And after its all said and done it will come down to the fact that you hate Bush.

[JackDaniels]

This is an old argument that has been covered a dozen times. You can read it all in the older threads on the war. we have gone over it all so much most of us have it memorized. You can reword your argument all you want it still comes out the same. History is history and facts are facts. I suggest you go find another thread to harp on as this subject has been covered adnausium. And after its all said and done it will come down to the fact that you hate Bush.

You have typed a paragraph yet made it completely meaningless. Thanks for the useless post.

[Gaffer]

You have typed a paragraph yet made it completely meaningless. Thanks for the useless post.

Another liberal with reading comprehension problems. As if we didn't have enough of them. :finger3:

[manu1959]

You have typed a paragraph yet made it completely meaningless. Thanks for the useless post.

You have typed two sentences yet made them completely meaningless. Thanks for the useless post.


hey this is fun.....

[JackDaniels]

Another liberal with reading comprehension problems. As if we didn't have enough of them. :finger3:

Once again, you show you don't really understand the meanings of Liberal and Conservative.

[Gaffer]

Once again, you show you don't really understand the meanings of Liberal and Conservative.

I understand what your NOT.

[JackDaniels]

I understand what your NOT.

And if you did understand, you'd know the one thing that I am NOT is a statist...which is what you MUST be to support the current Republican Party.

[avatar4321]

I think this thread is a perfect example of libertarians trying to coopt conservatism.

Claim it all you want but libertarians are not true conservatives.

[Gaffer]

And if you did understand, you'd know the one thing that I am NOT is a statist...which is what you MUST be to support the current Republican Party.

If you had bothered reading some of the previous posts on this board you would know I do not support any party at all. I support individuals that think on the same lines as I do.

What is a "statist"?

[JackDaniels]

If you had bothered reading some of the previous posts on this board you would know I do not support any party at all. I support individuals that think on the same lines as I do.

What is a "statist"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

[Gaffer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Another wiki thumper. That's site full of revisionist bullshit.

[JackDaniels]

Another wiki thumper. That's site full of revisionist bullshit.

Although what I have linked to is completely true.

If you are so hung up on not using wikipedia, here is another link:

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm