Martlet

Translated as: "I'm really too stupid to form my own opinion, so I'm just going to repeat what I read on NAMBLA What the fuck is NAMBLA? Yeah, it's my opinion that he is an asshole and a terrible descretary of defense. I formed that just fine, thanks. So you support Rumsfeld? Ha...fucking moron. So, what makes a good Secretary of Defense?

When I stop dealing with juveniles, then I'll consider it. Anyone that posts things BLATANTLY untrue takes the monikers they deserve. Thanks for your concern, though.

Ok, we'll play that stupid game. You know you were caught being stupid, and I know you were caught being stupid. Let's all be stupid together. It wasn't the conservatives who said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." "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." "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." "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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

My apologies. I attributed the morons post to you. I AM saying Bush didn't implicate Saddam in 9-11. His support of terrorists is well documented, though. Actually, I just showed you make your own lies as you go. You're blathering, mattp. Clearly they skipped you ahead in your English GED classes. If you saying that no liberal claimed Saddam had WMD then me showing you numerous examples of where they did doesn't refute your original statement, then go have your mom explain it to you. It's fairly obvious you were wrong. YOU can give a joint apology with crazy. Or try again, and I'll show you for the uniformed moonbat you are again.

Actually, that wasn't my point. My point was you're full of shit. My point was you specifically said the -big- lies, all of them, came from Bush. That's a lie, as I've shown. My point was you specifically stated that "It wasn't the liberals who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction" and that is a lie, as I've shown. You and crazy can do a joint apology. Could you show me where Bush tried to establish a 9/11-Iraq connection?

Speaking of blind ignorance and unwillingness to read the news, or speaking of liberals claiming Saddam has WMD, here are some interesting quotes: ""The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998" "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 Bah, go read the rest yourself here. Nope, markinore, but would you mind adding the other names to your list of folks who claimed that? You can get some of them from the link I posted above. Do any of you moonbats actually follow politics, or do you just cut and paste from moveon?

Translated as: "I'm really too stupid to form my own opinion, so I'm just going to repeat what I read on NAMBLA

It only appears I know everything, since you're used to reading OpEd posts based on false information. You finally get someone in here that calls you on it and you whine like a bunch of little girls. Liberals sure are amusing.

That depends on who he would vote for.

Amen to that.

Fortunately, they're still looking better for GWB than they are for Hanoi John.

Dear crazyjz, I've heard they don't teach much history in the obligatory GED classes, so I'll help you out. While Bob Kerrey may very well be a war criminal, I was referring to JOHN KERRY and had my facts straight. "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals. -- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971" Feel free to leave your apology right here in this thread.

Ahhh. I'll agree with that.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about Lieberman's speech the other day.....

Excellent rant. Was there a point to it?

"essentially" endorsed. HAHAHAHA. Kerry "essentially" committed war crimes. Oh wait, he ADMITTED to being a war criminal. He's a piece of shit too, right?

12 Years wasn't enough time to take care of this politically? When we finally attempt to push it to a close, we find the nations that thwarted our attempt to make it a UN led coalition were directly profiting from the Oil for Food program. We find that the HEAD of the Oil for Food program was profitting directly to the tune of 3 million dollars. It wasn't a "conflict of interest". It was a DIRECT MONEY SYPHON! We pump money into a corrupt international governing body that weakens our national security. We need out, and Kerry wants us crawling BACK!. Waffles doesn't have a plan for success, he wants the UN to make him one.

At least he earned his medals.

This kind of scapegoating and denial of real causes is typical of the "fog of war" - the official propaganda and the national refusal to see the larger picture, the picture that the rest of the world, particularly the Arab and Moslem world, well knows. There is little likelihood of those really culpable either accepting responsibility or being properly punished for what is euphemistically being called an "aberration". The army's own internal investigation called the mistreatment of detainees systemic. Rumsfeld had to admit that what hasn't yet been revealed is much worse than what has. We're talking rape and murder of prisoners who, by the army's own estimate are mostly innocent. There have been 25 inmate deaths at American hands, some by gunshot and some by blunt trauma. It's been a universal historical truth that occupying powers become abusive to those they control, and America is no exception. Nice of Rummy to apologize (I'm sure Bush forced him to take the heat), but it was his earlier cavalier dismissal of the relevance of international law which set the tone for these kinds of abuses. When asked last year about US treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, Rumsfeld said he didn't care about the Geneva Conventions. America, under an unelected president, has thumbed its nose at all international law as well as the US Constitution. That is how we got into Iraq with no reasonable justification and against the better judgement of the world community, and that is how we continue to behave - as a rogue nation unfettered by anything like civility or accountability. Which makes us as bad as the 9/11 terrorists and much more dangerous, given the size and power of our arsenal (including the WMDs we've used in Iraq - depleted uranium) and our willingness to use it to further our "interests". - Robert Hey Robert, here you go. When you get done with that, take a look at this to familiarize yourself with how an electoral college works. It's how we elect our President, regardless of how many times the moonbats take it to court.

Excellent Book! Not everyone. Just morons that repeatedly post information or insinuate facts that are blatantly false. I don't expect my tone to be convincing. I expect it to be condescending. Not unlike speaking to a child. My FACTS are convincing, though. That should be enough. Probably not for you, though, since moonbats tend to ignore anything that doesn't fit into their Bush=Hitler mentality. I agree COs bear responsibility. Even if they didn't know what was taking place they bear the responsibility. It's their job to know. As unfair as it sounds, that's how it works. It's asinine for Rummy to step down. Everyone except the blind hatred moonbats realize that. He DID take the appropriate action. If you don't think launching multiple investigations within 3 days of the whistleblower coming forward and making arrests by mid march is enough you're crazy. What the hell do you mean by "he allowed these events to continue longer than they should have" because he didn't tell the public? These events ended immediately. That isn't quick enough for you? Because of that you want him out in the middle of a conflict? Moonbat logic. It's better than The Simpsons. So tell us, oh wise one, what's really going on here?

I get the attitude from watching moonbats post opinions on things they haven't the slightest knowledge of, when had they simply skimmed a news source or two they'd have realized everything they were about to post was garbage. You must think it helps your opinion to stay uninformed.

Do you just make up your information? A soldier reported the incident in January. An investigation was launched immediately, and arrests were made in March. Press releases were made throughout. How do you come up with this crap: "first arrest and only now, perhaps, they are intervening at all -- and mostly out of a desire to do damage control it seems." ? I realize it helps your argument if you ignore the facts and just ramble on about whatever you'd like, but try to conduct at least a minimal amount of investigation before you start crying about "hypocrisy".

You apparently didn't listen to the testimony. Rummy did apologize.

My point is some liberal idiots on here try to manufacture news. You insinuate the administration is responsible for "keeping it quiet until now". Keeping it quiet? It was reported to the chain of command on 1/13, and on 1/16 CentCom issued a press release about it. How is that "keeping it quiet"? All parties should receive punishment respective of their crimes. Right now, the moonbats in this thread are opining. We don't know at this point exactly what took place.