How Many Here Would Vote For The Following candidates,

[_GoodK]

Anyone that tries to seriously defend Bush's assissine decision to invade Iraq is a hack.

Says who? When you make your first million working as a journalist - as Hitchens as done many times - let me know. Until then, you will continue to be a :

I don't give a s*** if they've got a dozen Pulitzers sitting on their mantle

Because one of the most significant awards in journalism has nothing to do with whether or not the journalist is a "hack" right? Unbelievable... I can't believe people like you are allowed to operate motor vehicles. Good thing I am far, far from any Kentucky highways.

Turn off TRL, log out of World of Warcraft, and do some reading. Jesus.

I see you're now subscribing to the Drippy La Douche school of ad hominems, dumbas.

I was just giving you what you clearly wanted. I tried to respond without commenting on you personally, but you went and jammed that olive branch in your eye. Again, what can I do?

Any time you want to debate history, I'm game, GoodK.

I wanted to from the very beginning, fella. Let's talk about Iraqi history. Let's talk about the Ba'thist regime. Let's talk about Sadaam - that "harmless secular dictator" - and how he felt about the U.S.

See, you can toss about worthless ad homs like this all you want and I'll just call you on it. Pick a subject and we'll debate it. Otherwise, shut your damned frool mouth, boy.

Oh my. The irony in this statement is so thick Angus might try and go on a date with it.

What you do need to do is demonstrate a clear threat to you in order to justify an attack.

Which has been done. Many times.

Also, I still want to know where all the illegal missiles...

So did the UN. This was part of the problem. See below:

"The Baathists declared a very impressive stockpile of weapons as late as 1999 and never cared to inform the U.N inspectorate what they had done with it."

Ok, let's see this official state declaration made by the Iraqi government.

I "mislaid" the copy he sent me. I think it is somewhere in Bill Hamblin's messy office. Seriously, do some research for yourself.

Ok, let's see this "increasing weight of disclosure" that demonstrates a clear link between the Iraqi government and material support of Al Qeada. I hear a lot of talk about there being evidence, but I'm still not seeing any.

I "mislaid" my copy. I think it is somewhere in Bill Hamblin's office. Seriously, do some research for yourself.

Much more salient is the story of Saddam's dealings with Kim Jong-il. You may remember the secret and disguised shipload of North Korean Scuds, intercepted on its way to Yemen by the Spanish navy just before war began... "

Oh no, not more scuds... You mean the same Scuds that aren't a threat to us thanks to advanced theater and area defense systems we've had in service for over a decade now?

Moving the goal posts...

Instead we go after Iraqi's broke ass. That sure makes a lot of sense.

It makes sense to anyone who has been awake the last ten years and has even expressed the slightest interest in history and international affairs.

"there are reams of verifiable contact between al-Qaida and Baghdad. Bin Laden supported Saddam, and his supporters still do, and where do you think this lovely friendship was going?"

Ok, then show those reams of verifiable contact. Don't tell me about it, SHOW ME. Unless evidence is provided this is nothing more then hearsay.

Oh Christ. I was just cleaning my office and threw them out last week. Why don't you get off your fat behind and do some of your own research for once. You've already been given more than a few sources to check. Me telling you about them obviously doesn't work.

"Even more interesting is the fashion in which the deal broke down. Having paid some $10 million dollars to North Korea, the Iraqi side found that foot-dragging was going on—this is the discussion revealed on one of the hard drives—and sought a meeting about where the money might be refunded. North Korea's explanation for its slipped deadline was that things were getting a little ticklish. In the month before the coalition intervened in Iraq, Saddam's envoys came back empty-handed from a meeting in Damascus. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (just for once I can use this expression without toppling into cliché) to deduce that the presence of a large force all along Iraq's borders might have had something to do with North Korea's cold feet."

Seriously, who cares.

Ya. Who cares that Iraq was buying weapons from North Korea. No big deal. Business as usual for a "harmless secular dictator" -- nothing to be alarmed about. Are you serious?

North Korea was and is a much greater threat

Maybe. That is a different issue, though.

Oh no... Saddam was trying to buy more Scud-1's? So the great big threat was Saddam trying to get his hand on theater range missiles he ALREADY HAD that were well with in compliance of what he was allowed to have.

Do you just make this crap up as you go, or is some junior high student's blog feeding you all this nonsense?

[_ozemc]

I voted for Reagan because he most fit my personal world view which I assume was and is shaped my my theological views to a large extent. I assume it is why I still remain conservative though I am so disappointed in what has played as conservative over the past 8 years.

I would definitely agree with that one. What are called conservatives today are not what conservatives were in the 80's.

by the way, I voted for Reagan twice.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Anyone that tries to seriously defend Bush's assissine decision to invade Iraq is a hack.

Says who? When you make your first million working as a journalist - as Hitchens as done many times - let me know.

Don't be absurd, GoodK. By that idiotic rational since Geraldo made his first million as a "journalist", then anything he says must be true! Because journalists never tell half truths, never get facts wrong, and never add their own personal slant on things at all, right?

Nice hotlink on that picture, by the way. Let me guess, photobucket or imageshack were to complicated for you to figure out, huh.

Because one of the most significant awards in journalism has nothing to do with whether or not the journalist is a "hack" right? Unbelievable... I can't believe people like you are allowed to operate motor vehicles. Good thing I am far, far from any Kentucky highways.

By that retarded logic, since Tom Cruise has won three Oscars then he can never be wrong either.

I was just giving you what you clearly wanted. I tried to respond without commenting on you personally, but you went and jammed that olive branch in your eye. Again, what can I do?

Learn to tell the difference between an insult and an ad hominem fallacy for starters, dumbass...

The truly hilarious part of this thread is the last couple of posts you kept mentioning how much of a big deal it is for you to not only agree with Drippy LaDoche, but to be defending his side of an argument and then you proceed to ACT JUST LIKE HIM. What's next, GoodK? Going to buy a word a day calendar so you can use big words in a pathetic attempt to look as "intelligent" as Drippy? Because that would just make my day...

Any time you want to debate history, I'm game, GoodK.

I wanted to from the very beginning, fella. Let's talk about Iraqi history. Let's talk about the Ba'thist regime. Let's talk about Sadaam - that "harmless secular dictator" - and how he felt about the U.S.

Sure thing. I've been trying to get you to illustrate exactly how Saddam's Iraq after the Gulf War was an actual threat to US either directly or indirectly. Instead of you citing facts, you post snippets from a damned OpEd piece.

So like I said, when ever you think you're up to debating the actual subject (or any other history for that matter), let me know.

What you do need to do is demonstrate a clear threat to you in order to justify an attack.

Which has been done. Many times.

No, what you have done is cite an OPINION piece, not provide any hard fact. Even worse, all you have cited is that opinion piece with no corroborative sources.

I "mislaid" the copy he sent me. I think it is somewhere in Bill Hamblin's messy office. Seriously, do some research for yourself.

BS. You're the one defending the claim that Saddam had these supposed "illegal" missile, not me. That means you're the one that needs to do the research and show the evidence to back your claim.

Oh no, not more scuds... You mean the same Scuds that aren't a threat to us thanks to advanced theater and area defense systems we've had in service for over a decade now?

Moving the goal posts...

Not moving the goal posts at all (seriously, do you even know what the term means?).

Your fun little OpEd piece specifically mentioned the Rodong-1 ballistic missile. Guess what the NATO reporting name for the Rodong-1 is? SS-1 "Scud". You're talking about a weapon developed in the early 1960s, upgraded with 1980s Soviet technology, manufactured by a third world country, with a range less then what the UN said Saddam was allowed to have.

See that? That's what FACT looks like, bonehead.

Instead we go after Iraqi's broke ass. That sure makes a lot of sense.

It makes sense to anyone who has been awake the last ten years and has even expressed the slightest interest in history and international affairs.

Hey, YOU'RE the one trying to defend an ivasion based on faulty or even fabricated intelligence against a nation that was supposed to be a threat because they were developing WMDs which we still haven't found, remember. If we could invade Iraq based on that, then why aren't we invading countries with confirmed WMD programs that really do present a viable threat to our national interests aboard?

Seriously, who cares.

Ya. Who cares that Iraq was buying weapons from North Korea. No big deal. Business as usual for a "harmless secular dictator" -- nothing to be alarmed about. Are you serious? [/quote]

Yeah, because failing to acquire out dated missiles that haven't been able to pose a threat to us in years obviously means we should invade right away...

North Korea was and is a much greater threat

Maybe. That is a different issue, though.

No maybe to it at all. The DPRK is a direct threat to our allies and interests Asia, has a confirmed nuclear weapons program (supposedly they even managed to conduct a subcritical test of a working nuke), and is run by a wacko that makes Saddam look positively sane and rational.

But gee, we invaded the week sister conveniently located next door to our Good Buddy Saudi Arabia... You remember Saudi Arabia, right? The country that Bin laden hails from... Gets most of his money from... Recruited the bulk of the men who carried the 9/11 attack from...

But yeah, Iraq was soooooo very evil, amirite?

Oh no... Saddam was trying to buy more Scud-1's? So the great big threat was Saddam trying to get his hand on theater range missiles he ALREADY HAD that were well with in compliance of what he was allowed to have.

Do you just make this s*** up as you go, or is some junior high student's blog feeding you all this nonsense?/quote]

Hey, Dumbass, the Rodong-1 is the SS-1 "Scud-D". Also, Saddam's military already had SS-1's of various models including the Scud-D in service (go look up the "Al Hussein").

[_GoodK]

Sigh... this is like if Tyson were to fight an infant...

Don't be absurd, GoodK. By that idiotic rational since Geraldo made his first million as a "journalist", then anything he says must be true! Because journalists never tell half truths, never get facts wrong, and never add their own personal slant on things at all, right?

Nonsense. First you tried to attack the Free Republic. Then when you learned that attack was misdirected and wrong, you accused Hitchens of being a republican. Then when you learned that was wrong, you tried to dismiss him as a hack. He isn't. Get used to this sentence : You are wrong.

Nice hotlink on that picture, by the way. Let me guess, photobucket or imageshack were to complicated for you to figure out, huh.

Cute. Actually, I didn't want you to sue me for uploading your picture to my account without permission.

Because one of the most significant awards in journalism has nothing to do with whether or not the journalist is a "hack" right? Unbelievable... I can't believe people like you are allowed to operate motor vehicles. Good thing I am far, far from any Kentucky highways.

By that retarded logic, since Tom Cruise has won three Oscars then he can never be wrong either.

No. If you were able to understand logic - you would realize that by my logic, since Tom Cruise is an Oscar winner, he is not a "hack" actor. Unbelievable...

The truly hilarious part of this thread is the last couple of posts you kept mentioning how much of a big deal it is for you to not only agree with Drippy LaDoche, but to be defending his side of an argument and then you proceed to ACT JUST LIKE HIM.

OK Angus. Whatever you say, sweetheart.
You should feel like an asshole for making me take his side on this. You think I like it?
Ever heard of the concept evidence over interest? I don't expect you to, but you should Google it. Seriously.

Notice how you are the only person still arguing this point? Hmm.... wonder what that means...

What's next, GoodK? Going to buy a word a day calendar so you can use big words in a pathetic attempt to look as "intelligent" as Drippy? Because that would just make my day...

I have an iPhone application for that, but I still think Droopy is a homophobic bigot. Doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. He happens to be right about this, and I am honest with myself enough to publicly admit that.

Sure thing. I've been trying to get you to illustrate exactly how Saddam's Iraq after the Gulf War was an actual threat to US either directly or indirectly.

I must have missed where you asked for this and I failed to respond.

Instead of you citing facts, you post snippets from a f*****g OpEd piece.

Sorry for not publishing my own report on the topic, Angus. I thought the portions of the several articles I so kindly provided you with would lead you on the right direction. I failed to account for your blinding, belligerent, intentional ignorance.

If you didn't know, I don't work for the government. I don't have access to any information that you don't.

Bottom line - you are the only one to blame for your ignorance on this subject.

So like I said, when ever you think you're up to debating the actual subject (or any other history for that matter), let me know.

Like I said, fella, anytime. You're going to have to learn how to construct convincing arguments and stop substituting real arguments with teenage-boy, potty-mouth insults. Do you think you'll be able to handle that?

Which has been done. Many times.

No, what you have done is cite an OPINION piece, not provide any hard fact. Even worse, all you have cited is that opinion piece with no corroborative sources.

What you have done is ignore the evidence given to you and throw a tantrum about how no one is giving you any evidence.

Apparently the David Kay report isn't good enough for you? You've had a few years to check that out.

Or the Iraq Survey Group report.

Or any report. It's as if you really have no clue what you are talking about.

I "mislaid" the copy he sent me. I think it is somewhere in Bill Hamblin's messy office. Seriously, do some research for yourself.

b***s***.

Good point. What was I thinking?

Moving the goal posts...

Not moving the goal posts at all (seriously, do you even know what the term means?).

Let me see if I do:

It's as if someone said, "Hey! Sadaam was not a threat to the U.S at all. He didn't have any weapons that he could use to attack the "continental US and its interests abroad" -- remember saying that?

Then, later, that person says, "Hey! The weapons he did have aren't a threat to us thanks to advanced theater and area defense systems..." --- remember saying that?

If we could invade Iraq based on that, then why aren't we invading countries with confirmed WMD programs that really do present a viable threat to our national interests aboard?

I don't know Angus. Maybe because we are busy invading Iraq right now. Unfortunately, that point does nothing to support your claim that Saddam was an innocent victim of our warmongering president, a simpleton, a secular leader. Jesus Christ, don't get me wrong, this is very, very funny -- but it would be funnier if you weren't actually serious.

No maybe to it at all. The DPRK is a direct threat to our allies and interests Asia, has a confirmed nuclear weapons program (supposedly they even managed to conduct a subcritical test of a working nuke), and is run by a wacko that makes Saddam look positively sane and rational.

You really don't know anything about Saddam, do you?

But gee, we invaded the week sister conveniently located next door to our Good Buddy Saudi Arabia... You remember Saudi Arabia, right? The country that Bin laden hails from... Gets most of his money from... Recruited the bulk of the men who carried the 9/11 attack from...

New development:
Angus has Loose Change playing in another window.

But yeah, Iraq was soooooo very evil, amirite?

I don't know if Iraq was evil, but Iraq's dictator was clearly evil. His sons were pure evil. Are you honest enough with yourself to at least admit that? Or would that disrupt your anti-Bush MTV Total Request Live political position too much?

[_Angus McAwesome]

Don't be absurd, GoodK. By that idiotic rational since Geraldo made his first million as a "journalist", then anything he says must be true! Because journalists never tell half truths, never get facts wrong, and never add their own personal slant on things at all, right?

Nonsense. First you tried to attack the Free Republic. Then when you learned that attack was misdirected and wrong, you accused Hitchens of being a republican. Then when you learned that was wrong, you tried to dismiss him as a hack. He isn't. Get used to this sentence : You are wrong.

So I guess you missed where I also attacked his information in that OpEd piece you're trying to pawn off as fact, huh?

Get used to this sentence: You are an intellectually dishonest tool.

Cute. Actually, I didn't want you to sue me for uploading your picture to my account without permission.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, ya hotlinking bandwidth thief.

No. If you were able to understand logic - you would realize that by my logic, since Tom Cruise is an Oscar winner, he is not a "hack" actor. Unbelievable...

You were trying to say that since earning a Pulitzer is a great accomplishment that it means that any journalist who's won a Pulitzer now has ultimate credibility and anything thyey say should be accepted as fact, jackass. So the Tom Cruise analogy stands.

Ever heard of the concept evidence over interest? I don't expect you to, but you should Google it. Seriously.

Funny you should mention evidence, GoodK... Considering you haven't shown anything more then an OpEd piece to back your argument that's some serious irony right there.

I have an iPhone application for that, but I still think Droopy is a homophobic bigot. Doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. He happens to be right about this, and I am honest with myself enough to publicly admit that.

Stupid is as stupid does then. So, when are you going to get around to showing some actual evidence to back Drippy's arguments since you're dead set on defending them?

Sure thing. I've been trying to get you to illustrate exactly how Saddam's Iraq after the Gulf War was an actual threat to US either directly or indirectly.

I must have missed where you asked for this and I failed to respond.

Try reading then, jackass. “F”, I asked that question when we got on this topic back on page two of this thread and you've been dodging it ever since, GoodK.

Sorry for not publishing my own report on the topic, Angus. I thought the portions of the several articles I so kindly provided you with would lead you on the right direction. I failed to account for your blinding, belligerent, intentional ignorance.

Dumbass, it's not my job to research your argument. It is your job to provide evidence for the claims you make, not mine.

Like I said, fella, anytime. You're going to have to learn how to construct convincing arguments and stop substituting real arguments with teenage-boy, potty-mouth insults. Do you think you'll be able to handle that?

So instead of answering any oh my questions and actually debating the topic you switch to "nuh uh, I know you're not, but what am I" grade-school yard idiocy.

Tell ya what, the insults will stop when you start answer my questions instead of dodging them like a dishonest little asshole. That being said, any animosity on my part over this thread is staying in this thread. But since we're here and you're being a dishonest dodgy chucklehead...

What you have done is ignore the evidence given to you and throw a tantrum about how no one is giving you any evidence.

Since damned when is an OPINION/EDITORIAL piece "evidence"?

Apparently the David Kay report isn't good enough for you? You've had a few years to check that out.

You mean the same David kay report that came to the conclusion that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles of WMDs Bush accused him of having and that US intelligence services either screwed up or flat out falsified the reports Bush based the invasion on? That the Kay Report you idiots have such a hard-on for?

Good job proving my side of the argument, shit-for-brains...

Or the Iraq Survey Group report.

You mean the Duefler Report that reinforced what the Kay Report said about Saddam not having had any stockpiles of WMDs and went further to add that Iraq didn't send any WMDs into Syria to try and hide them?

Wow, you're making my job easy...

Or any report. It's as if you really have no clue what you are talking about.

So says the dumbass the cited two reports that back my argument....

It's as if someone said, "Hey! Sadaam was not a threat to the U.S at all. He didn't have any weapons that he could use to attack the "continental US and its interests abroad" -- remember saying that?

Then, later, that person says, "Hey! The weapons he did have aren't a threat to us thanks to advanced theater and area defense systems..." --- remember saying that?

That's not moving the goal posts at all, dumbass. I asked what Saddam had that constituted a threat and you brought up the Rodong-1 missile from that OpEd piece as a supposed "threat", and I then explained what the Rodong-1 missile was and why it was not a threat.

Seriously, you really don't know what the term "moving the goal posts" means. At this point I'm starting to doubt that you're agreeing with Drippy LaDouche because you genuinely agree with him, but instead because you're every bit as dumb as he is. If you don't know what a term means or how to apply it then don't use it.

I don't know Angus. Maybe because we are busy invading Iraq right now.

Wow, so your reason for why we didn't invade nations that really are threats to us and our interests before we invaded Iraq is to say "but we're already in Iraq..."

Dumbass.

Unfortunately, that point does nothing to support your claim that Saddam was an innocent victim of our warmongering president, a simpleton, a secular leader.

1. I never claimed that Saddam was innocent.

2. Last time I checked, invading another nation for no real reason was considered "war mongering".

3. Compared to other leaders in that region, Saddam was secular.

No maybe to it at all. The DPRK is a direct threat to our allies and interests Asia, has a confirmed nuclear weapons program (supposedly they even managed to conduct a subcritical test of a working nuke), and is run by a wacko that makes Saddam look positively sane and rational.

You really don't know anything about Saddam, do you?

You really don't know anything about Iraq or the DPRK, do you?

New development:
Angus has Loose Change playing in another window.

I guess you still haven't figured out what an ad hominem is either....

I don't know if Iraq was evil, but Iraq's dictator was clearly evil. His sons were pure evil. Are you honest enough with yourself to at least admit that? Or would that disrupt your anti-Bush MTV Total Request Live political position too much?

Evil or not, they weren't a threat to us.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Indeed. At least Bush did the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, though only half-heartedly. He's failed to do anything about illegal immigration. He's bowed to the left on education. It took severe chastisement from conservatives to nominate the right Supreme Court Justice. etc. But....he's still better than any Democrat president (or potential president) in the last century.

Holy crap.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

How Many Here Would Vote For The Following candidates, were they to run for office this political season, and if LDS, what theological justification could you give for doing so?

The first time I cast a vote for president it was for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Diaper years for me.

[_Brackite]

The first time I cast a vote for president it was for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Diaper years for me.

Back then in about 1984 through 1987, this was my favorite cartoon to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxCInOkn6OU

[_GoodK]

I'm losing interest, so here are my last words:

Get used to this sentence: You are an intellectually dishonest tool.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, ya hotlinking bandwidth thief.

I know you are but what am I?

You were trying to say that since earning a Pulitzer is a great accomplishment that it means that any journalist who's won a Pulitzer now has ultimate credibility and anything thyey say should be accepted as fact, jackass. So the Tom Cruise analogy stands.

Hey Angus, did you forget that you are the one that brought up the Pulitzer prize. To be quite honest, I didn't know/still don't know if Hitchens has won it. I never hinted that a Pulitzer prize had anything to do with this.
You truly are hilarious.

Funny you should mention evidence, GoodK... Considering you haven't shown anything more then an OpEd piece to back your argument that's some serious irony right there.

Hey Angus, if you bothered to read any of the sources I gave you, or even any of my posts, you would have figured out that I gave you more than "an OpEd piece" -- seriously, this is getting a little silly, fella.

Stupid is as stupid does then.

I know you are but what am I?

So, when are you going to get around to showing some actual evidence to back Drippy's arguments since you're dead set on defending them?

I have. Like Coggins said, it is clearly a waste of time to even try anymore. But I am not dead set on defending anything but the reality of our situation.

Try reading then, jackass. f***, I asked that question when we got on this topic back on page two of this thread and you've been dodging it ever since, GoodK.

I haven't been dodging anything, you incoherent, rambling, bumpkin.

Like I said, I kindly tried to point you in the right direction in response to your poorly thought out question - and what did you go and do?
Now as it stands, for the last several posts, you have sunk to such a pitiful level of discourse that Coggins won't even continue to participate with you. I am done as well.

Dumbass, it's not my job to research your argument. It is your job to provide evidence for the claims you make, not mine.

I have researched my argument. I have shared links and articles with you. It's not my job to force you to read (I'm not even sure if you can). It's not my job to search for evidence to support YOUR claims - which remain clearly unfounded.

Like I said, fella, anytime. You're going to have to learn how to construct convincing arguments and stop substituting real arguments with teenage-boy, potty-mouth insults. Do you think you'll be able to handle that?

So instead of answering any oh my questions and actually debating the topic you switch to "nuh uh, I know you're not, but what am I" grade-school yard idiocy.

Let's just do this for a few more days, shall we?
You scream: "ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
%&(@* !! $#&*$@ !!! STUPID! JERK! IDIOT! PENIS!"

I say, "I already have answered your question, Angus."

And then you scream again: "AARRGGHHH! NO ONE HAS ANY EVIDENCE! $#%@ #*$@ GIVE ME EVIDENCE!! HUSSEIN IS A VICTIM! BUSH IS A WARMONGER!!

I make fun of you a bit, and tell you again, "I already have, Angus."

How long should we do this for?

Tell ya what, the insults will stop when you start answer my questions instead of dodging them like a dishonest little asshole.

Kiss my ass. I don't care if you say I am dishonest, any one reading this thread can decide for themselves who is dishonest. I am not going to be held hostage by insults from a simple minded clodhopper. You personally insult me because you have nothing important to say, and you are a cyber bully. In real life, I have no doubt that I am many things you wish you could be. Please rid yourself of any notion that I have ever taken anything you have said seriously.

That being said, any animosity on my part over this thread is staying in this thread. But since we're here and you're being a dishonest dodgy chucklehead...

Like I said.

Since f*****g when is an OPINION/EDITORIAL piece "evidence"?

Since never.

Apparently the David Kay report isn't good enough for you? You've had a few years to check that out.

You mean the same David kay report that came to the conclusion that Saddam didn't have the stockpiles of WMDs Bush accused him of having and that US intelligence services either screwed up or flat out falsified the reports Bush based the invasion on? That the Kay Report you idiots have such a hard-on for?

Good job proving my side of the argument, s***-for-brains...

Is that all it takes to "prove" your side of the argument? Oh golly. That was easy.

Actually, I was talking about the Kay report that reveals compelling evidence of "a complex concealment program, of the designing of missiles well beyond the permitted legal range, of the intimidation of scientists and witnesses, and of the incubation of deadly biological toxins."
That Kay report. I've already been through this with you. How much longer do you expect me to humor this nonsense?

Or the Iraq Survey Group report.

You mean the Duefler Report that reinforced what the Kay Report said about Saddam not having had any stockpiles of WMDs and went further to add that Iraq didn't send any WMDs into Syria to try and hide them?

Wow, you're making my job easy...

Convincing you of anything has got to be the easiest job on the planet.
This article probably only convinces you that you are right, huh?

Here Angus, consider this the last olive branch.

READ IT.

So says the dumbass the cited two reports that back my argument....

Make that three articles now. Here is four.
Have five.

I hope these articles help to prove your point as well. Hopefully lurkers can see mine.

I don't know Angus. Maybe because we are busy invading Iraq right now.

Wow, so your reason for why we didn't invade nations that really are threats to us and our interests before we invaded Iraq is to say "but we're already in Iraq..."

Dumbass.

My reason is, I don't know. Maybe you had a hard time reading that. I didn't know I had to justify why we haven't invaded hundreds of other countries in order to answer your question - which was: "Arrghhgghhh!!! %$@$%!!! What threat was Saddam???!!! Give me evidence!!"

Evil or not, they weren't a threat to us.

Hopefully you'll grow out of this someday.

[Guest]

After it became clear that there was no WMD in Iraq, a popular theory developed among some hardcore conservatives that there really was WMD, but it was shipped away - mainly to Syria - shortly before the invasion. It wasn't uncommon to see this argued in 2004, even with some sketchy evidence. It's not very common now, but I think you can see an artifact of that argument in what Droopy is saying. You might not realize that's what he's alluding to.

This isn't a theory. For bloody heaven's sake E do some homework first.

Read the Rob/Silbermann report and the final Iraq Survey Group report. All available evidence indicates that Saddam broke down and dispersed his NBC programs after the first Gulf War, including dispersal outside his own country (primarily Syria it seems, given the satellite evidence we have), intending to use the absence of the programs to buy his regime time while he, with the help of primarily France, Russia, and Germany, enriched himself on the backs of his people through the Oil For Food program.

Once some time had passed and the "heat was off" his intention was to reconstitute the programs and continue where he had left off. The claim there was no WMD in Iraq is, at best, a shot in the dark, given that Iraq is a country about the same size as Texas and hence, even if it were stuffed with WMD, we are yet, even after all the searching done thus far, years from any chance of discovering it.

But no matter. We know he had it, because he used it on more than one occasion (Sarin and blister agents) and when it mysteriously disappeared after the first Gulf War, Saddam had no documentation showing its disposal or disposition.

Bush Derangement Syndrome (combined with a near suicidal streak of pacifistic naiveness leftover from the cultural detritus of the seventies) seems to have reached the point of something resembling mass psychosis.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printa ... 4F1DCB6691

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/dastych022706.htm

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.a ... EC5E2AACBE

This is a textbook example of why the alternative media is so uniquely important and why the "mainstream" media is a poor and untrustworthy sources for most information. A wide variety of reading - on both sides of the issue - is now available and required to be informed on such issues as this and capable of debating and discussing them intelligently.

The regurgitation of CNN factoids and Northeastern liberal cocktail party opinion will no longer suffice.