• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guantanamo closure plan ordered

There you go.

I agreed with the premise of your post, and thought, damn, an honest Obama supporter with a little bit of brain matter to boot.

Nope, just a conservative grounded in common sense trying to prove a point.

So I'm still searching for that lone honest lib, besides Kucinich.

LOL. Just too funny.

BTW, I was advised by an esteemed fellow Conservative poster that my avatar gave off the wrong impression. I was trying to send a barbed (but true) message in a way that might register with the unthinking Obamabots before the election. Obviously it didn't work. I just haven't changed it yet.

Obama is a sneaky guy who we still can't trust.

Closing Gitmo represents the height of liberalism run amuck.

The detainees have to be housed somewhere. Gitmo is conveniently close to the US, it poses no safety risks to civilians and the detainees are incarcerated there humanely.

Moving them anywhere else runs the risk of changing those parameters.
 
Wow, you really are something of a republican eater.
Oil and food, Saddam and 911, Islam and Nazism, non-dialogue/non-diplomacy straight to war, phony evidence, I guess you eat republican propaganda raw and unprocessed. :shock:

I am damn proud to be nothing like you, nor the other pole. :mrgreen:

What phony evidence? All the world's major countries intel agencies?

Oil for food is massive corruption scandal and a disgrace that cost lives... did you ever think that if it wasn't for this corruption, there might not have been a need to go to war? Probably not, as people like you are blind as a bat and have problems with reasoning.

Saddam had nothing to do with 911, but he was a threat, and connecting the dots made him an even greater threat.

CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Kay: ...after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.

I take it you did not read the testimony of David Kay. I'd bet a good chunk you didn't because it would upset your narrow world view.

I spend too much of my time in Europe.
I seek the truth.
That truth lead me away from my socialist roots.
I'd be disgusted with myself living in ignorance or worse the lies and hate you folks embrace.

One day you might grow up too and seek the truth.
Good luck on your voyage.
 
Quote:
They've been wrong on about every major issue for the last thirty years.

Oh? Give us some examples for such a bold statement.
Not bold. true.

TheBosnian mess. They calimed they could fix it by themselves. Wrong.

Euros said the Russians would never accept NATO enlargement. Wrong.

The Euros said the Russians would never accept National Missile Defense. Wrong.

Withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would wreck the structure of international arms control agreements. Wrong.

Kyoto Protocol is a good treaty. Wrong.

EU common security and defense would improve NATO military capablities. Wrong.

Europeans take about Ronald Reagan and the Evil Empire. Wrong.

Continental Europeans are repeatedly wrong, arrogant and hypocrites. new Europe has a far better record because they know tyranny first hand. They know who and what defeated it. They know who and what policies gave them hope and what emboldened the totalitarians.

Old Europe should be ignored.
Their track record is laughable.

What I really enjoy while in Europe is watching the news from 20 and 25 years ago.
They show all the F-ups and all the lunatics.
They still don't get it. They won't either until it's too late.

Then they'll come whining for our help again.
Ungrateful ingrates.
 
PEU
Provide evidence of this. I know the right wing blogs and media outlets have claimed this over the years, but find me a french or german source, directly quoting either a government official or representative. Show us a news article, where the French and German intelligence agencies agree with the US and UK assessment of the situation in Iraq before the war.
People quickly forget Clinton's claims were exactly the same as Bush. In fact there was a chorus of Democrats on record making Bush's case... when Clinton was president.

Saddam's Bombs? We'll Find Them - Brookings Institution
And it wasn't just the United States that was concerned about Iraq's efforts...The Germans were actually the most fearful of all—in 2001 they leaked their estimate that Iraq might be able to develop its first workable nuclear device in 2004.

At no point before the war did the French, the Russians, the Chinese or any other country with an intelligence operation capable of collecting information in Iraq say it doubted that Baghdad was maintaining a clandestine weapons capability. All that these countries ever disagreed with the United States on was what to do about it.

In the meantime, accusations are mounting that the Bush administration made up the whole Iraqi weapons threat to justify an invasion. That is just not the case—America and its allies had plenty of evidence before the war, and before President Bush took office, indicating that Iraq was retaining its illegal weapons programs.
 
Quote:
Schroeder hid a report from one of his ministries that stated the massive effects of bio weapons that Saddam had the chemicals to produce. A small amount was deadly.

Says who? Provide evidence of this.
You should do your homework.

THREATS AND RESPONSES: GERMANY; Schröder's Team Not Telling Full Story on Iraq, Foes Say - New York Times
THREATS AND RESPONSES: GERMANY; Schröder's Team Not Telling Full Story on Iraq, Foes Say

Members of Germany's conservative opposition have accused Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's government of withholding a true picture of the threat from Iraq, citing classified German intelligence information that Iraq possesses the smallpox virus and that the Saddam Hussein regime has mobile factories capable of producing chemical and biological weapons.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news
According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, one of Germany's top newspapers, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government is playing down its own report, based on intelligence sources, that says Iraq has a smallpox arsenal big enough to kill as many as 25 million Germans.
...
Well. Vater can stick to his story. But doing so makes it hard to explain why Germany nearly doubled this month its order of smallpox vaccine to 66 million doses. By the end of the year, Germany plans to have 100 million doses.

If Iraq has no biological weapons, what's the purpose?

These stories are long after the initial claims but reveal the truth about slimy Schroeder. What is interesting in the NYT piece is the EU members were gagging at Schroeder's behavior because it was idiotic and purely designed to get his scummy ass reelected.
 
True.
Smuggling was another way to get cash.
The Clintons did turned a blind eye to it.

Billions were garnered through the UN, and not only that, it gave Saddam the feeling of having bought off the UN. It hardened his position, and with it came war.

Thank You UN.
 
PEU:
You're a lost cause I can see.
The following is sad.
Really, really sad.

I don't know what type of world you live in but it isn't this one.

When facts and logic don;t work, I have no idea of how to reach people like you.
Floating in a utopian cesspool of ignorance.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Quote:
He believed, and rightly so, that the deck was stacked in his favor. It was up to 911. After that the world changed.
The deck was stacked in his favor.. sure if you think so. Country isolated, people starving, military run down, society only held in check with brutal force.. sure was soooo stacked in his favour.

As for the world changing on 9/11.... not really. The US changed yes, but not the world, since we have been fighting terror in many forms since the 1920s. There was the Jewish terror in the 1920s and 30s, then there was the Nazi terror, then there was the various communist terror during the 1950s and 1960s, then there was the PLO and other Palestinian terror in the 1970s and 1980s, and then the commie Red Army and what not. Not to forget the Corsican terror groups and ETA. Yea, we have nooo experience in Europe (or its colonies/dependants) on terror... none, nada..

Quote:
We saw the potential of a IslamoNazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that hated America. Saddam was right in their yard.
Err... lets see.. an islamonazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that is very non religious for the region, treats women relatively nicely (they could vote and join the army after all), or shack up with a rogue nation that is a religous nutjob state, shares the same values and even practices them...yea right.... I would choose the first of course...
Quote:
Connect the dots.
You should actually, since you only jump from one right wing conspiracy theory to another, jumping over the actual facts. Why did you gloss over the fact that the head of the Iraqi WMD program defected to the West and said that the WMD were destroyed? And that documents found later after the war backed him up? Why did you gloss over the fact that the main intelligence source of the US, was an anti-Saddam pro Tehran Iraqi who we later found out totally screwed the US and told lie after lie?
 
You believe they should not be under the Geneva convention, but prisoners even so.. They certainly didn't break any laws in the US so in this hypothetical case they would be "kidnapped foreigners" standing trial in the US.
But they are not imprisoned for domestic crimes! They are not US citizens or LAWFUL combatants under the Geneva Conventions.

Domestic criminals go to domestic jails and domestic courts. Criminals in combat zones go to different jails and use different courts. Its a whole different scenario and you seem to think they should be treated as equal because of some utopian and idealistic belief you possess.
 
But they are not imprisoned for domestic crimes! They are not US citizens or LAWFUL combatants under the Geneva Conventions.

Domestic criminals go to domestic jails and domestic courts. Criminals in combat zones go to different jails and use different courts. Its a whole different scenario and you seem to think they should be treated as equal because of some utopian and idealistic belief you possess.

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

UN Convention Against Torture
 
Whether "torture" was used or not is a tangent from the current discussion. If you want to discuss it then I would suggest you start a new thread.

In May 2006, the UN Committee against Torture condemned prisoners' treatment at Guantanamo Bay, noted that indefinite detention constitutes per se a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, and called on the U.S. to shut down the Guantanamo facility

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_05_06_torture.pdf
 

Al Odah v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention, without charge, of Guantanamo detainees. The case is in many ways a continuation of the landmark Center for Constitutional Rights case Rasul v. Bush, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2004. That decision determined that D.C. courts are available to Guantanamo detainees as a venue for habeas corpus petitions. Since that decision, the Bush administration has passed legislation that has interfered with the ability of detainees to contest their detentions, a procedure provided for in Rasul. The current Al Odah case challenges these obstacles. Like Rasul, Al Odah is an umbrella effort, incorporating sixteen habeas corpus petitions. Consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush, it was heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007, and is one of the most anticipated cases before the Court in this term.[1][2][3][4][5][5][6]

The decision, striking down the Military Commissions Act, was handed down on 12 June 2008.
 
Last edited:
Conquer, when you get your butt spanked, will you begin to question the drivel you have been filled with?

PBS and Algore are not Republican supporters by any stretch of the imagination, so you "conspiracy theory" is... dead.



I remember it clearly.

Score: Conquer 0 - Zimmer 1

We offered Saddam to leave.
Conquer. He lost Gulf War 1 and did not live up to the agreement a loser signs. So, "Yes we can" go in and finish the job. That's how it works. We tried it peacefully for 12-years with 16 useless UN Resolutions. Post 911 we tried one more time. We gave him an out too. He chose war.

Every intel agency said he had WMD. To not act would have empowered every kook in the world. Not acting post 911 had consequences outside the Iraq theater.

Maybe difficult for you to understand having a seemingly myopic world view.

Score: Conquer 0 - Zimmer 2

Tell me genius, how are my statements racist?
This I'd love to hear.
Are you Barak Hussein Obama, posting while you have a few minutes on your hand. You sound like him. Uninformed and throwing the racist card around like a baseball during warm-ups.

You sound like a teenager to me.
I was like you at that age. A blind socialist.
Don't worry, there is hope... just don't close your mind.

Your point is getting more nonsense. Nobody asked Saddam to leave his power, on the contrary, the "excuse" given by the Bush father administration when the US troops left Iraq suddenly after destroying his army and surrounding Baghdad was that "it was not a good idea to remove Saddam from power.":lol:

Why? According to that former administration, it was because it could destabilize the zone, Reality is that in that moment the US intelligence really believed that Saddam still had his weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) and after the victory over Iraq they (the US troops and the rest of troops from other countries) decided to turn back. This is to say, they didn't want to shadow their victory with the possible death of thousands of US troops if they tried to enter in Baghdad and Saddam used his chemical weapons as his desperate defense.

In no moment Saddam was asked directly to leave his power in that war. It was assumed that after his defeat Saddam should be turned down by the Iraqis themselves, but such event never happened. On the contrary, as Saddam controlled the information media in Iraq, he declared "victory" because the "US coalition" suddenly left their country.:roll:

In the news media around the world, the words of Saddam saying the the "western devil" was the one which has been defeated and that Iraq won the war was the main news for a few days. Don't you remember?

So, the misinformation that you own and that is storage in your brain, is making other posters to find mistakes by lots in your messages.

And, you might be right, when you argue that your position is not racist, because after reading this reply of yours, one can find that your messages reveal ignorance only.
 
But they are not imprisoned for domestic crimes! They are not US citizens or LAWFUL combatants under the Geneva Conventions.

Domestic criminals go to domestic jails and domestic courts. Criminals in combat zones go to different jails and use different courts. Its a whole different scenario and you seem to think they should be treated as equal because of some utopian and idealistic belief you possess.

Then they simply kidnapped and imprisoned foreigners.
 
Your point is getting more nonsense. Nobody asked Saddam to leave his power,...

I've been challenged, and every time I have taken you folks to the wood shed for a good ass kicking.

Here we go again. I'm not even going to bother cutting and pasting. Go..."click"... and educate yourself.

Would Saddam Simply Leave? - TIME

Message to Saddam:Exile is his last chance : Diplomacy ends; Bush issuing an ultimatum - International Herald Tribune

This is like playing with children.
When you want to debate, then at least bring some game.

Now go take your crayons and paper and come back when you've drawn a page full of pink elephants.
 
Statements made by Democrats. Verify them at snopes.com.
"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 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 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 Sens. 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 useing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 Rockerfeller (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. "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 has 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.
I can hear it in the distance from the kool-aid drinkers... Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied... pass the joint ... Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied...
 
Last edited:
Statements made by Democrats. Verify them at snopes.com.

I can hear it in the distance from the kool-aid drinkers... Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied... pass the joint ... Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied...

You're drinking Grape and they're drinking Cherry... Oh, the irony. :2wave:
 
Don't drink...
You perhaps?
 
Provide evidence of this. I know the right wing blogs and media outlets have claimed this over the years, but find me a french or german source, directly quoting either a government official or representative. Show us a news article, where the French and German intelligence agencies agree with the US and UK assessment of the situation in Iraq before the war.



Says who? Provide evidence of this.



Oh? because he did not bow down to the US, then he suddenly is an America hater and Saddam appeaser?!?

Sure I hated Schroeder too, but for his political views, but he was hardly a Saddam appeaser.. of all the things he dealt with as German leader, I think that Saddam was about as important for him as say trade relations with Uganda.



A a bit of rewriting history there I see. The policy of the US, UK, France and Germany was to isolate Saddam and bring his regime down from within and to use Iraq as a stop block against Iran. THAT was the policy of Bush nr 1 and Clinton, and a very wise policy. The UN was nothing but the instrument of the major powers, as it has always been.



Oil for Food gave Saddam peanuts. Most of his money came from illegally smuggled oil through Jordan and Turkey.. smuggling the US knew about and did nothing about. It was brought up by the UN on many occasions and the US and UK ignored it (and France and Russia).

As for the Oil for Food. Every single contract had to get approval by the US, UK and others. Even the contracts that the UN flagged as "odd" were given the green light by the approval committee. So as for the UN being "bought" off.. hardly. Was its management not as up to code as it should have been.. sure, but again, Saddam made most of his billions through NON UN controlled illegal smuggling with the full knowledge and approval of the US and UK. Dont listen to people like Norm Coleman and Fox News.. try to actually read the facts and evidence.



The deck was stacked in his favor.. sure if you think so. Country isolated, people starving, military run down, society only held in check with brutal force.. sure was soooo stacked in his favour.

As for the world changing on 9/11.... not really. The US changed yes, but not the world, since we have been fighting terror in many forms since the 1920s. There was the Jewish terror in the 1920s and 30s, then there was the Nazi terror, then there was the various communist terror during the 1950s and 1960s, then there was the PLO and other Palestinian terror in the 1970s and 1980s, and then the commie Red Army and what not. Not to forget the Corsican terror groups and ETA. Yea, we have nooo experience in Europe (or its colonies/dependants) on terror... none, nada..



Err... lets see.. an islamonazi terrorist hooking up with a rogue nation that is very non religious for the region, treats women relatively nicely (they could vote and join the army after all), or shack up with a rogue nation that is a religous nutjob state, shares the same values and even practices them...yea right.... I would choose the first of course...:roll:


You should actually, since you only jump from one right wing conspiracy theory to another, jumping over the actual facts. Why did you gloss over the fact that the head of the Iraqi WMD program defected to the West and said that the WMD were destroyed? And that documents found later after the war backed him up? Why did you gloss over the fact that the main intelligence source of the US, was an anti-Saddam pro Tehran Iraqi who we later found out totally screwed the US and told lie after lie?



Saw you as weak? How so? And you dont think that the US actions since Afghanistan in any way embolded the radicals and swelled their ranks?



You should learn your history.. ALL your history instead of cherry picking bits and rewriting the rest to fit your world view.
One would be hard pressed to find a more jubilant demonstration of sophistry, er..............PeteEUisms. Oh wait! That is right, I'm paying attention and collecting them!

You see in some parallel universe Petey thinks he has even a still born's understanding of US history and much much more. Seriously, but that is what comes with interwebz posers!

PeteEUisms:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/40862-changing-face-us-politics-4.html#post1057851470

EggofTib is quickly starting to challenge you in the golden streams of "isims" you types cavort in.:boohoo:
 
Last edited:
Statements made by Democrats. Verify them at snopes.com.

I can hear it in the distance from the kool-aid drinkers... Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied... pass the joint ... Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied, Bush Lied...

....and this is not like children?
 
""What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
 
Back
Top Bottom