Comments on: Documents show more collaboration between AQ and Iraq

By: Center for Sanity

Center for Sanity — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:51:24 +0000

Libya, China and Syria Angered by Snub

Bitter after being snubbed, Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed….

By: steve

steve — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:42:04 +0000

If bush was serious about getting rid of Saddam, without a war, I’m certain that Iran would have helped him out. As a matter of fact the way out of Iraq is through Iran. We should immediately re-establish full diplomatic relations with Iran. As for the Jews, God loves the Jews, but he condemns the Zionists. Peace

By: Severian

Severian — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:43:12 +0000

The US did not give poison gas or any WMD materials to Iraq steve, where do you continue to get that idiotic information? Or is it just something you KNOW, the same way you just KNOW the Jooooos are behind everything?

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 19:36:38 +0000

I always love that excuse. “We gave them the gas”. It doesn’t matter steve. It’s completely irrelevant, much like your arguments. In 2004 a 155mm shell exploded that contained almost a gallon of sarin gas. Nobody was hurt because the insurgents probably did not know it was a chemical shell and failed to mix the components completely. The sarin, however, was part of the WMD that Iraq claimed it destroyed. So right there is an illegal WMD that was found.If properly mixed and properly delivered that much sarin could have wiped out more people than died on 9/11.

So what now steve, do you blame the Jews for planting it there or will you claim that it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t a huge stockpile???

Saddam fooled the inspectors time and time again and even the inspectors reported that they were not getting the necessary cooperation from Iraqi authorities. Why do people believe that after 12 years of fooling the UN and skirting sanctions that suddenly Iraq was going to play fair and tell the UN and US everything they wanted to know??

By: steve

steve — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:53:32 +0000

The gas that Iraq used against Iran, was given to Iraq by the United States. That is why Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam’s hand and they both had big smiles on their faces. They had just agreed to gas the Iranians. bush, is not above the Constitution and bush ignored the First and Fourth Amendments, when he allowed the NSA to wiretap American citizens without warrants. bush, needs to be impeached. Peace

By: CavalierX

CavalierX — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:39:44 +0000

>u wanna go to a war on such thin >premises??? Are you really saying that the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, voted into law overwhelmingly by Congress, was "thin?" Please, read it and point out for us exactly what was "thin" about it. Your problem is that you're listening to what the media wants you to think about the case for war, not looking at the actual reasons we removed Saddam from power.

By: CavalierX

CavalierX — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:33:25 +0000

>spying on Americans without first
>getting a warrant is against the law

You might want to explain to the 2002 FISA Court of Review, which stated unequivocally that FISA can not encroach upon the President’s inherent Constitutional right to order wiretaps to gather intelligence without needing a warrant, why they know nothing about the law and should listen to you. Make sure you let us know how that goes, okay?

By: CavalierX

CavalierX — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:30:00 +0000

>Here's a fact, there were no WMD's in >Iraq. Well, those who supposedy died of WMD use in the Anfal genocide campaign and the war with Iran will be very pleased to hear that they are, in fact, alive and well! On the other hand, you may wish to explain why you consider UNSCOM and UNMOVIC to be complete liars.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 03:09:22 +0000

Here’s a fact, there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Now a question: If bush really thought that Saddam had WMD’s why weren’t the projections of war dead off the charts? If Saddam had weapons he would have used them, don’t you think? Wouldn’t the Pentagon have released big numbers on invasion force deaths and general population deaths? A dead fish rots from the head and that’s where bush sits. Peace

By: NC Cop

NC Cop — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:14:06 +0000

“Yeah.. well that argument is far more realistic and rational than the right’s “this is good enough for me to drop bombs and to hell with collateral damage” and “its all connected to 9/11, some damn how” arguments, IMHO.”

Far more realistic and rational than the facts???? Thanks for proving my point.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:46:47 +0000

As for impeachment, bush said on saturday that,”We are a nation of laws”, while speaking about the illegal immigration issue. Right on bushie, and spying on Americans without first getting a warrant is against the law. In order to put things back into balance bush must be impeached. It’s the law. Peace

By: Lorica

Lorica — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:02:17 +0000

ABSOLUTELY PAT!!!!! The Chinese embassy was moved to that building 2 years earlier, but somehow the intelligence community missed it. Riiiigggght!!!! That was a hit for some stupid wag the dog Clinton BS. – Lorica

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:25:50 +0000

- Hey if polls were the only thing you could seem to manipulate, you’d live by them too. Unfortunately, skewed polls do not translate into votes with the vast majority of the electorate, so its a fools game. Just the sort of desperate grabing for straws you’d expect from losers.

- Bang

By: pat

pat — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:22:34 +0000

To hell with collateral damage? What in the world are you talking about? Coalition forces sat ringed around Fallujah for nearly a month, then went house to house on foot rather than risk collateral damage, however minimal.

Now, under another administration I seem to recall a Chinese embassy getting bombed with precision munitions “by mistake”, but that was just a mistake, right?

When are those troops coming home, by the way?

By: sanity

sanity — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 03:44:33 +0000

Atlas Shrugs points out something interesting:

Win every poll (exit polls too), lose every election. Do I spot a pattern? And so it begins.

Interesting take on it.