GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/04/13/american-terrorists-caught-helping-al-qaeda/trackback/

  1. [...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » American Terrorists Caught Helping Al-Qaeda — April 13, 2007 @ 9:47 am - April 13, 2007

  2. Although Islam is a religion, not a race, it is treated as a minority race by liberals…and far too many non-liberals…consequently it is given all the licence and deference (see Shelby Steele’s work) that are typically given to racial minorities as the price of maintaining the illusion of liberal moral innocence.

    Comment by EssEm — April 13, 2007 @ 10:51 am - April 13, 2007

  3. Now I’m reading the Dems are inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to speak to Congress.

    Comment by Vince P — April 13, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - April 13, 2007

  4. While they’re at it, the Dhimmicrats could also ask Taliban Johnny what his new digs will look like.

    I hear he’ll be rubbing elbows with the likes of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. Boy, will they have a lot in common.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 13, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - April 13, 2007

  5. If we are pretending, let’s also pretending al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq or Iraq is an unnecessary distraction to fighting them.

    Comment by comment0r — April 13, 2007 @ 5:16 pm - April 13, 2007

  6. You know they are all just lone nuts, right:
    Lone Nut My Ass
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 13, 2007 @ 5:49 pm - April 13, 2007

  7. If we are pretending, let’s also pretending al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq or Iraq is an unnecessary distraction to fighting them.

    They’re in every other country in the world, but somehow they never made it to Iraq.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 14, 2007 @ 2:16 am - April 14, 2007

  8. Please note, I am not the “Kevin” referred to in this blog posting. I agree with the blogger.

    Comment by Kevin Norte — April 14, 2007 @ 8:24 am - April 14, 2007

  9. read a bit more closely…one of those arrested and charged with terrorism had “plans” to take down the brooklyn bridge, by himself, with a blow torch. it’s just another pathetic example of how bushco wants to detract from its illegal and immoral war in iraq by trumping up the delusions of grandeur of a crazy man.

    Comment by rightiswrong — April 14, 2007 @ 10:05 am - April 14, 2007

  10. its illegal and immoral war in iraq

    I’ve been dying to find a lib (who are devoid of morality) who can explain how it’s immoral and exactly which laws have been violated. Just how is it illegal?

    Thing is, not a single lib I’ve found will back up their lying points.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 14, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - April 14, 2007

  11. TGC, I was going to ask the same question. The left cannot decide on a specific reason to hate the war. They have a reason for whatever crowd they are addressing. Oil, Haliburton, Money, Its Illegal, Its immoral, etc. Insert whatever group you want and those excuses and many more fit. They are the party of Sansabelt excuses. (for those of you too young to know what those are, ask your dads)

    Comment by jon — April 14, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - April 14, 2007

  12. TGC: Libs live in the land of “wishful” thinking.. something like a child.

    They WISH the war was immoral and illegal so that they could wash thier hands of responsiblity for the slaughter of the Iraqi if thier surrender plans work.

    Just like they WISH the Republicans were evil, so as to justify the Libs evil.

    Just like they WISH the Lacrosse players were guilty,, saves them from having to know the truth.

    Just like they WISH there is no such thing as Jihad, which saves them from having to protect the country

    Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 1:48 pm - April 14, 2007

  13. This is interesting

    The UK and Scandinavia Counterjihad Summit

    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/uk-and-scandinavia-counterjihad-summit.html

    Is this the beginning of the resisitance?

    Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - April 14, 2007

  14. Have you noticed that all the muslim marches and demonstrations have stopped? Hate rhetoric out of Iran has stilled since the 15 hostages were released. The Palestinian attacks on Israelis have stopped. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab nations are quiet. Little news is coming out of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Only in Iraq do we still get headlines of bombs and body counts.
    Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 3:31 pm – April 14, 2007

    This is how most Muslims are in reality; they’re not the barbarians you think they are. When Zawahiri and Bin Laden were unleashing a wave of terror in the Middle East during the 80s and early 90s to start an Islamic Revolution throughout the region, most Muslims condemn the attacks and failed to rise up against their “corrupt” governments. Zawahiri blamed Americans for the Muslims not rising up against the “corrupt” regimes and he started focusing his attention on America.

    Comment by Nat — April 14, 2007 @ 5:17 pm - April 14, 2007

  15. They WISH the war was immoral and illegal so that they could wash thier hands of responsiblity for the slaughter of the Iraqi if thier surrender plans work.

    The war is immoral and illegal.

    Comment by Nat — April 14, 2007 @ 5:28 pm - April 14, 2007

  16. 19: I never quantified how many Muslims are violence, so your statement to me is without merit.

    in fact, it doesn’t matter how many of them dont follow their religion…. what matters is that enough of them who are willing to do violence DO believe in thier religion.

    Zawihiri and bin laden weren’t spreading terror in the 80s and 90s in the middle east.. they were recruiting for thier future jihad.

    You dont show a mastery of facts

    Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 8:28 pm - April 14, 2007

  17. 20: What law makes this illegal?

    Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - April 14, 2007

  18. in fact, it doesn’t matter how many of them dont follow their religion…. what matters is that enough of them who are willing to do violence DO believe in thier religion.

    Most of them follow their religion that’s why they don’t commit terror.

    Zawihiri and bin laden weren’t spreading terror in the 80s and 90s in the middle east.. they were recruiting for thier future jihad.

    After the Afghans drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, Zawahiri and Bin Laden set out to create an Islamic Revolution in the Middle East. A lot of Muslims went to training camps in Afghanistan so they could go back to their country and overthrow their “corrupt” leaders and start this revolution. The only place they succeeded was in Iran. Zawahiri concluded that the Muslims who did not join the revolution were corrupted by Americans. This is when he focused his attention on America.

    20: What law makes this illegal?

    The manipulation of intelligence (lying to Congress) to start a war with a country that posed no threat to us and he violated the U.N. charter principle against starting wars of aggression (a war crime).

    Comment by Nat — April 14, 2007 @ 11:13 pm - April 14, 2007

  19. >Most of them follow their religion that’s why they don’t commit terror

    Their religion calls for terror. so you’re mistaken.

    >After the Afghans drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, Zawahiri and Bin Laden set out to create an Islamic Revolution in the Middle East. A lot of Muslims went to training camps in Afghanistan so they could go back to their country and overthrow their “corrupt” leaders and start this revolution. The only place they succeeded was in Iran. Zawahiri concluded that the Muslims who did not join the revolution were corrupted by Americans. This is when he focused his attention on America.

    Um, I’m well aware of the history. The Iranian revolution was in 1979. So there’s that go theory. Plus , when they aern’t allied in common cause against the US or West,.. the Sunni absolutely hate the Shiia , so there is no way Sunni in the camps were then going to Iran.. not in the 80s or early mid 90s.

    The fighters who were in the camps were going to either Kashmere or Chechnia, and some to Bosnia and those with brains were sent to England to form cells. They left the Middle East alone for the most part.

    (Read “Inside the Jihad”, I did)

    >The manipulation of intelligence (lying to Congress) to start a war with a country that posed no threat to us and he violated the U.N. charter principle against starting wars of aggression (a war crime).

    That’s just revisionist propaganda. And under the UN Charter, we have the right to self-defense and who cares what the UN thinks. We only use it for our own purposes.

    Comment by Vince P — April 14, 2007 @ 11:21 pm - April 14, 2007

  20. Their religion calls for terror. so you’re mistaken.

    Their religion doesn’t call for call for terror; Extremists call for terror (that applies to any religion).

    Um, I’m well aware of the history. The Iranian revolution was in 1979. So there’s that go theory. Plus , when they aern’t allied in common cause against the US or West,.. the Sunni absolutely hate the Shiia , so there is no way Sunni in the camps were then going to Iran.. not in the 80s or early mid 90s.

    -Alright late 70s to the early 90s.

    -I’m not sure if any Shia went through the camps but the goal of Zawahiri and Bin Laden was to start an Islamic revolution in the Middle East and overthrow the “corrupt” leaders in the region. They count the Iranian revolution as their one and only “victory”.

    The fighters who were in the camps were going to either Kashmere or Chechnia, and some to Bosnia and those with brains were sent to England to form cells. They left the Middle East alone for the most part.

    Their attacks in Egypt , Algeria and other places.
    [Read The War for Muslims Minds]

    That’s just revisionist propaganda. And under the UN Charter, we have the right to self-defense and who cares what the UN thinks. We only use it for our own purposes.

    The administration manipulated intelligence to start a war of aggression. Iraq posed no threat to us so it was not in self defense.

    Comment by Nat — April 14, 2007 @ 11:41 pm - April 14, 2007

  21. The root causes of terrorism.. JIhad. There is no concept in any other religion.

    JIhad, I have two items. The first is a description of how the Muslims moved into Persia.. notice the similarities to the crime they commit in Europe today.. Then after that , I show how Islam in its core teaching obligates the Muslim to do this. It’s a religious obligation and an eschatological requirement. Oh and let me already state what the responses are going to be.. 1 – Taking it out of context 2 – Using a bad translation 3 – English doesnt have the same meaning as Arabic 4 – (My favorite) Billy did it too!!! (Comparing to other religions… this tactic is designed to prevent Islam from being discussed)

    1 – Persian Conquest Example
    “More Moslems came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop. This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame. Those with criminal leanings found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lot to the old faith.”

    Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, pp. 7-8;

    2 – Islam 101

    Shortly before Muhammad fled the hostility of Mecca, a new batch of Muslim converts pledged their loyalty to him on a hill outside Mecca called Aqaba. That Muhammad’s nascent religion underwent a significant change at this point is plain. The scholarly Ishaq clearly intends to impress on his (Muslim) readers that, while in its early years, Islam was a relatively tolerant creed that would “endure insult and forgive the ignorant,” Allah soon required Muslims “to war against all and sundry for God and his Apostle.” The Islamic calendar testifies to the paramouncy of the Hijra by setting year one from the date of its occurrence. The year of the Hijra, 622 AD, is considered more significant than the year of Muhammad’s birth or death or that of the first Quranic revelation because Islam is first and foremost a political-military enterprise. It was only when Muhammad left Mecca with his paramilitary band that Islam achieved its proper political-military articulation. The years of the Islamic calendar (which employs lunar months) are designated in English “AH” or “After Hijra.”

    Muhammad’s greatest victory came in 632 AD, ten years after he and his followers had been forced to flee to Medina. In that year, he assembled a force of some ten thousand Muslims and allied tribes and descended on Mecca. “The Apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba.” (Sira, p550)

    Volume 3, Book 29, Number 72;
    Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, “Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Kaba (taking refuge in the Kaba).” The Prophet said, “Kill him.”

    Following the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad outlined the future of his religion.

    Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177;
    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour {of the Last Judgment} will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

    Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24;
    Narrated Ibn Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

    It is from such warlike pronouncements as these that Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad’s time and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam’s message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered.

    Comment by Vince P — April 15, 2007 @ 12:07 am - April 15, 2007

  22. The first example if it is true has nothing to do with Islam. We have places in America where there is rape, murder, theft and arson.

    The second example leaves out some of the pledge. Read “Muhammad A Biography of the Prophet” [pg. 149,150]. The Muslims made that pledge because they were about to make a pilgrimage from Mecca to Medina (the Jews there said they would provide a safe haven for the Muslims). They were going to leave the protection of their tribes in Mecca and move to a new place. Muhammad had to ensure he had their loyalty because the Quraysh of Mecca were not just going to let their family members (tribes were being torn apart in Mecca because some had decided to convert to Islam while others had not) just leave with Muhammad. The Muslims if it came to it would have to fight to make sure the Muslims made the pilgrimage unharmed.

    Muhammad assembled that army in 632AD because the Quraysh had violated a treaty (I forget the name of it). The Quraysh assisted a tribe that attacked an allied tribe of the Muslims. A representative of Quraysh went to the Muslims and tried to compromise with them but he ended up surrendering Mecca to Muslims. The negotiator went back to the city and told them what he had done and most people locked themselves in their homes and waited for Muhammad to come but there were a few who wanted to fight. Muhammad with about 10,000 men descended on the city and took control with little resistance from the Quraysh. The few that resisted were killed.

    I would have to think the Koran verses you posted are taken out of context. Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24 could be about Muslims who were still worshipping the Pagan Gods which is a violation of the monotheistic message of Islam. Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 may be about the time when the Jews of Medina tried to help the Quraysh destroy the Muslims. When the Muslims defeated the Quraysh they came after the Jews and killed all the men.

    Comment by Nat — April 15, 2007 @ 2:17 am - April 15, 2007

  23. >The first example if it is true has nothing to do with Islam. We have places in America where there is rape, murder, theft and arson.

    Sorry, but it is true. The arrogance and superiority that leads to such consistant patterns of harassment is a consequence of the faith being taught to childern whereby the childern believe all Non_muslims are beneath them .. this leads to rampant crime against Non-muslims. As it did in Persia, it is now so in Europe.

    The fact that other peolpe also commit these crimes takes away NOTHING from what the Muslims are doing. Infact we all breath air.. does that mean the Jihadis aren’t terroriststs?

    And yes, for part 2, I left a lot of the details out becausae ultimately they dont matter. Once they left Mecca. Islam became a military/political concern.

    Comment by Vince P — April 15, 2007 @ 2:43 am - April 15, 2007

  24. A lot of these verses were written when Muslims were basically at war with everyone who saw their emergence as a threat.

    Their emergence IS a threat.

    The bloody borders of islam make it clear what most of them believe.

    What galls me about Leftists is that they refuse to look into tomorrow. What were to happen if they forced us to quit.. etc… Instead they sure waste a lot of time trying to redo history or critiquing this decision or that.. as if that changes anything about today’s situation.

    None of them will speculate on their surrender plan’s consequences.

    But sure, bring up the flipping PNAC. When the PNAC comes up, you know you’re dealing with an irrational person.

    Comment by Vince P — April 15, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - April 15, 2007

  25. Just like he was doing before the current invasion.

    Saddam wasn’t blocking the inspectors. Even if he was doing that, the Bush administration should have bomb the places where the inspectors were not allowed.

    Meanwhile, which part of the UN Charter says that UN bureaucrats and officials of countries on the Security Council may be bribed by a despotic dictator to block any and all Security Council action, even as said dictator openly spits in the face of the Security Council’s directives, carries out genocide in his own country, and funds aggressive war by terrorists in other countries?

    Where’s you proof that they opposed the invasion of Iraq because of some bribe. I opposed the invasion and I had no Business dealings with Iraq.

    He carried out most of genocide during the eighties and early nineties. Bush 1 should have taking care of it when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They sentenced him to death for something that happened in the late eighties.

    The administration started a war of aggression against a country that did not attack us, never threatened to attack us, and that didn’t have the means to attack us.

    But you don’t care about that, Nat; your leftist masters, playing to their knowledge that Democrat leftists like yourself are invariably anti-American and always ready to spout “the US is wrong”, told you the United States was in the wrong, and rather than looking into their oil-for-blood support of genocide and terrorist funding, you simply went off screaming “the US is wrong”, just as they planned.

    I love my country and that’s why I’m sickened by these war criminals running it.

    Comment by Nat — April 15, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - April 15, 2007

  26. What is this evil thing?

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187424.php

    Comment by Vince P — April 15, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - April 15, 2007

  27. Nat, you don’t seem to understand the roll of the inspectors. Despite their innocuous sounding name they were NOT just supposed to have to drive from site to site searching for WMD. Their task was to verify the destruction of the weapons as per the 1991 agreement based on Saddam’s declarations. It was discovered that he lied about those declarations and their roll was expanded.

    The mere fact that weapons were not found upon our invasion and are unaccounted for to this day was a further violation of the UNSC.

    Many on the left have continued to attempt to rewrite the history of these events and some seem to believe their own propaganda or at least convince themselves by continuing to repeat it.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 15, 2007 @ 6:05 pm - April 15, 2007

  28. Nat, before you continue with your fantasy go here (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html) and review the UN Security Council Resolutions Related to Iraq.

    It will help you know the internationally verified facts rather then the spin you have come to cherish.

    Again, if as you put it, “(t)he weapons were unaccounted for but that did not mean he had the weapons,” (did you seriously read that before you posted it) he was in material violation of numerous UNSC resolutions including 667, the cessation of hostilities.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 15, 2007 @ 8:15 pm - April 15, 2007

  29. What I want to know is how Iraq was a threat to us.

    Because back in 2001 Saddam was looking for volunteers to attack American interests in the ME as I mentioned earlier. No, it’s not attacks on the continental U.S., but it would be considered an act of war. Just like firing on our military aircraft, which you defended. And then, how much would we have to endure attacks on our interests before it evolved into an attack on us?

    We endured and ignored attacks on our embassies and even a destroyer overseas before we were attacked on 9/11. Remember that? Long story short, after the attacks on 9/11, it would have been pretty damned irrisponsible to ignore Hussein like we ignored bin Laden in the 90s.

    Why don’t you just admit here and now that you don’t really give a flying fcuk about the real truth. Just admit that you’re only interested in trashing Bush. You know damn good and well that Bush didn’t lie, but you’ve spent the last few days here spinning everything just to avoid admitting it. Just admit that you’re a leftist who will sacrifice the truth and even your own country just so you can keep sucking on the DNC tit. You have appearances to maintain and you don’t have the balls necessary to face reality. Therefore, you continue to keep yourself blinded by your hate and misery.

    Either admit that you’ve been lying and move on or just move on.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 16, 2007 @ 4:24 am - April 16, 2007

  30. Because back in 2001 Saddam was looking for volunteers to attack American interests in the ME as I mentioned earlier. No, it’s not attacks on the continental U.S., but it would be considered an act of war. Just like firing on our military aircraft, which you defended. And then, how much would we have to endure attacks on our interests before it evolved into an attack on us?

    Can you point me to a source?

    We endured and ignored attacks on our embassies and even a destroyer overseas before we were attacked on 9/11. Remember that? Long story short, after the attacks on 9/11, it would have been pretty damned irrisponsible to ignore Hussein like we ignored bin Laden in the 90s.

    So you want us to be mind readers now? Every country is a potential threat to America and its interest and intelligence can be manipulated to show any country is an imminent threat or a grave and gathering threat. You can’t go down that slippery slope.

    Why don’t you just admit here and now that you don’t really give a flying fcuk about the real truth. Just admit that you’re only interested in trashing Bush. You know damn good and well that Bush didn’t lie, but you’ve spent the last few days here spinning everything just to avoid admitting it. Just admit that you’re a leftist who will sacrifice the truth and even your own country just so you can keep sucking on the DNC tit. You have appearances to maintain and you don’t have the balls necessary to face reality. Therefore, you continue to keep yourself blinded by your hate and misery.

    Saddam was not a threat to us. Again, he never attacked us, never threatened to attack us, and didn’t have the means to attack us. The president manipulated intelligence to start a war of aggression and he is a war criminal.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 6:31 am - April 16, 2007

  31. Can you point me to a source?

    You know where to look, but you DON’T WANT to acknowledge reality. If you were honest, you’d have to admit that Bush was right and you aren’t about to do that.

    So you want us to be mind readers now? Every country is a potential threat to America and its interest and intelligence can be manipulated to show any country is an imminent threat or a grave and gathering threat. You can’t go down that slippery slope.

    Mind readers? WTbloodyF? When you have a murderous dictator in possession of the materials I mentioned above PLUS unmanned drones with sprayers attatched PLUS missiles which can fly beyond the UN’s limits, who the hell needs to be a mind reader? What slippery slope?

    What you mean is that a Republican president can’t defend this country and it’s interests.

    Saddam was not a threat to us.

    As you mindless douchebags like to reply “prove it”.

    Again, he never attacked us, never threatened to attack us, and didn’t have the means to attack us.

    Sorry skippy. There’s too much evidence that contradicts each of those points. You’re demonstrating how libs love to suck up to murderous dictators.

    The president manipulated intelligence to start a war of aggression and he is a war criminal.

    I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    BTW, instead of ducking my comments, how about replying to them.

    Just admit that you’re a lying SOB and can’t back your Daily Kolostomy lying points. You’ve demonstrated that you can’t, so just be honest. Just tell us you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 16, 2007 @ 7:26 am - April 16, 2007

  32. VdaK asks: “Just how stupid are people on the left, anyway?”

    Evidently very stupid when Nat offers, despite years of evidence to contrary: “The president manipulated intelligence to start a war of aggression and he is a war criminal.”

    But then, these are the same people who see NancyP’s trip to Syria as a “peace” mission or “fact-finding” mission, who avoid the simple fact that both sides of the political aisle thought exactly as Bush did prior to the WOT-Iraq, that BlamingAmericaFirst is so strong an impulse they can even offer PrezBush is a war criminal –echoing their pals on the terrorist left in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela and India.

    In short, these are DailyKos types who now control the Democrat Party and are pressing the Party toward an anti-American, anti-West position.

    And it’s why, after only three short months, voters DISapprove of the job Congressional Democrats are doing… their rating is as high as when Foley, Cunningham, DeLay and pork-laden spending dominated the last Congress; it’s as high as the WarPrez’s rating after 6 years of abuse by the MSM and his unrepentant leadership of the WOT.

    The Democrats like Nat tried to paint former Secy of State Kissinger as a war criminal after the VietNam War concluded and he retired from govt. This is not a NEW low for them… just another page from the well worn protesters’ book of the VN Era.

    No engagement, no dialogue, no discussion will persuade Nat of the silliness of his ridiculous claims and spins.

    The Left is indeed stupid, VdaK. But they need to be repudiated often. And I give more credit to those here who willing take on the Nats of the world… for me, the Nats of the world are just disgusting and below contempt.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2007 @ 10:27 am - April 16, 2007

  33. Mr Blix said inspectors had been able to conduct operations throughout Iraq with relative ease and described the ongoing destruction of al-Samoud II missiles as a “substantial measure of disarmament”.

    But he said such co-operation could not be described as “immediate compliance” -

    In the statement above “immediate compliance” Blix says he was able to conduct inspections with relative ease and Saddam was destroying the missiles that went 15 miles to long. By him stating that, it looks like Saddam was complying. Did he elaborate on why it wasn’t an “immediate compliance?” The only thing I can come up with is what I posted previously. They were probably dissatisfied w/ the pace at which the missiles were being destroyed.

    Meanwhile, the brainwashed spin continues. “Scott Ritter is a Republican” — no proof, then denying that Democrats like Ritter tried to cover up Saddam’s abuses, which is flagrantly false. Claiming one minute that “he didn’t know” French officials were bribed at all — but he knows positively that Chirac wasn’t, which completely contradicts his previous statement of “not knowing”. He desperately babbles that Saddam never committed genocide at any time during the Clinton administration, but ignores the clear evidence of the Marsh Arabs, for one.

    Scott ritter is a republican:
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0630-05.htm

    And he didn’t cover-up any of the abuses; he said Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

    You’re slightly confused by what I meant. I knew that French got lucrative contracts from Iraq and that French officials received money from Saddam. What I wanted to know is how do you know France was going to veto the resolution because of it. And I mentioned that people with no connection to Iraq were against they the war and the only place there was popular support was in the U.S. The link you posted says that French officials did indeed take the money for a veto vote and I countered with saying Chirac is the one who makes the decision and he did not take money from Saddam in exchange for a veto vote.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - April 16, 2007

  34. He desperately babbles that Saddam never committed genocide at any time during the Clinton administration, but ignores the clear evidence of the Marsh Arabs, for one.
    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 12:30 pm – April 16, 2007

    All of my posts say most of the genocide took place during the Reagan and Bush 1 presidencies. The Marsh Arabs were retaliated against because of the failed Shia uprising instigated by Bush 1. Saddam destroyed the wetlands by drying them out and most of the people there fled to Iran.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 2:48 pm - April 16, 2007

  35. It still boggles my mind that people on the left are retarded enough to believe that Bush was venal and dishonest enough to lie about WMDs to start a war, but not venal and dishonest enough to plant WMD’s in Iraq to make sure they were discovered. It makes no freaking sense.

    Just how stupid are people on the left, anyway? Cheese Louise.

    I think they believed their delusion that they would be greeted as liberators and democracy would take hold in Iraq creating a domino effect in the Middle East. No one in the administration really cared that there was no WMDs because the “greeted as liberators” scenario would overshadow it. It was basically an “ends justify the means” mentality and they got f-cked.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 3:01 pm - April 16, 2007

  36. Why do you feel compelled to trash this country and demonstrate that you believe a murderous a**hole like Hussein over the president of your own country? Are you that angry and full of hate?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 16, 2007 @ 6:18 am – April 16, 2007

    I don’t trash my country; I only trash the war criminal in the White House.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - April 16, 2007

  37. If you really cared about War Crimes you wouldn’t be using the word so causally. So either way , you’re disingenious.

    Comment by Vince P — April 16, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - April 16, 2007

  38. This has been an interesting discussion. The manners you have displayed in this thread are admirable Nat and I look forward to seeing more of your postings.

    Comment by DavidK — April 16, 2007 @ 3:40 pm - April 16, 2007

  39. #88 – ditto. Nat, I certainly look forward to more of your comments as well, if for no other reason than the fact that you maintain your civility despite insults and name calling from some of those who disagree with you.

    Comment by HotMess — April 16, 2007 @ 3:59 pm - April 16, 2007

  40. Meanwhile, back in Chicago, a former Iraqi spy under Saddam Hussein is going up the river.

    Thankfully, the U.S. district judge agreed with the prosecutor that the spy posed a definite flight risk. She must not have been appointed by a Dhimmicrat prez.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 16, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - April 16, 2007

  41. FYI:

    http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2802

    Comment by DavidK — April 16, 2007 @ 4:40 pm - April 16, 2007

  42. And the point? That even a broken clock is right twice a day?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 16, 2007 @ 4:57 pm - April 16, 2007

  43. LOL Peter. Not trying to make a point :)

    Comment by DavidK — April 16, 2007 @ 5:10 pm - April 16, 2007

  44. So, let’s see if I understand Nat’s conception of the great BushHitlerBurton master plan.

    1. Lie about WMD’s
    2. Get the security agencies of Britain, France, and Germany, and pretty much the entire world to collaborate in the lie.
    3. Get the UN Security Council to buy into the lie.
    4. Get Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the lie (by refusing to cooperate with UN resolutions)
    5. Invade Iraq and just kinda sorta, after all that devious planning, hope it all works out somehow and no one will notice … without any kind of devious, well-planned back-up strategy.

    Nat, can I borrow your hat? I need to bake a potato.

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2007 @ 5:51 pm - April 16, 2007

  45. Nat, we were greeted as liberators.

    New York Times Iraq reporter John Burns corrected Russert’s presumption that Cheney was misguided: “The American troops were greeted as liberators. We saw it. It lasted very briefly, it was exhausted quickly by the looting.” Burns added: “I think that the instincts that led to much that went wrong were good American instincts: the desire not to have too heavy of a footprint, the desire to empower Iraqis.”

    BTW, I didn’t see a reply to my post above #73.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 16, 2007 @ 5:56 pm - April 16, 2007

  46. Nat, we were greeted as liberators.

    New York Times Iraq reporter John Burns corrected Russert’s presumption that Cheney was misguided: “The American troops were greeted as liberators. We saw it. It lasted very briefly, it was exhausted quickly by the looting.” Burns added: “I think that the instincts that led to much that went wrong were good American instincts: the desire not to have too heavy of a footprint, the desire to empower Iraqis.”

    BTW, I didn’t see a reply to my post above #73.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 16, 2007 @ 5:56 pm – April 16, 2007

    The Iraqis have a funny way showing it then.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 6:19 pm - April 16, 2007

  47. Calling Bush a war criminal is pure hate and bile. Not civility and good manners. Get real people. Nat did it occur to you that al Qaeda and Iran have something to do with things in Iraq?

    Comment by comment0r — April 16, 2007 @ 6:50 pm - April 16, 2007

  48. your “War Crimes Court” should ask Hillary her opinion. She knew she was voting to invade and thought it legal. Look up her comments at the time. Saddam violated his ceasefire from gulf war 1, she said. Meaning no new authority was needed to invade, the gulf war 1 resolutions were in force still.

    Comment by comment0r — April 16, 2007 @ 6:54 pm - April 16, 2007

  49. Nat, now your just pulling things out of your butt and don’t match the known facts.

    Go back and read the UNSC Resolutions.

    While I appreciate your willingness to debate the issues you have demonstrated that you don’t a grasp of the facts related to the lead up to the war.

    Saddam accepted the responsibility of declaring and destroying, in a verifiable manner, his weapons and weapons programs. He failed to do this – it isn’t more complicated then that.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 16, 2007 @ 6:58 pm - April 16, 2007

  50. The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has distributed a lengthy document to Security Council members containing a wide range of questions he says Iraq has failed to answer about its weapons programmes.

    Resolution 1441 was passed in November. This was March. Yet a fascist regime with a fetish for recordkeeping when it came to weaponry couldn’t find the weapons it continued to insist internally that it had.

    What were the wide ranging questions (I’ve been asking you this since my first reply)?

    Uh huh. He’s just completely anti-Republican, as that article makes obvious.

    Also, what you left out is how Ritter left Iraq screaming that Saddam DID have WMDs, but abruptly changed his tune…..after one of Saddam’s lackeys handed him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Along the lines of bribery, I love how you tried to change your story when confronted with facts.

    He was trashing Clinton. Isn’t that pro-republican?

    All the stuff that Ritter said was before Clinton pulled the inspectors and bombed suspected targets. He might have changed his tune because of that.

    When I gave it to you, you suddenly started spinning, insisting that you had known that European government officials and UN bureaucrats were being bribed to block the UN from acting, but insisted that there was no proof that they were doing it because of the bribe.

    I think the confusion is with the word “bribe.” I wanted you to prove that the money giving to French officials was a bribe. You posted an article that said the money was indeed a bribe which I didn’t know. Anyway, Bush was aggressively pushing for war and the Chirac opposed it. Chirac could have been opposing it because of the deals he had with Iraq or it could have been that he didn’t see Iraq as a threat. Likewise Bush could have been pushing for war for the lucrative deals he would get after Saddam’s ouster or he could have done it because he thought Iraq was a threat.

    Unfortunately, leftist, “most of” does not mean “all”. What you are trying to frantically do is to explain why leftists like yourself are so against genocide — except when Saddam Hussein is practicing it by the hundreds of thousands under the Clinton administration and the second Bush administration.

    Outside of the Iraq-Iran War about 200 to 300 hundred thousand were killed. And this occurred mostly during the Reagan and Bush administrations. There were also a lot of Iraqis killed because of the sanctions during the 90s.

    And what makes it even funnier is that you had no qualms about invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to the United States to prevent them from committing genocide — when it was Yugoslavia, or now when it has to do with Darfur.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 5:16 pm – April 16, 2007

    Bush should have framed as a humanitarian mission instead of lying about WMDs. Or he could have resurrected the Iraqi Liberation Act.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 7:14 pm - April 16, 2007

  51. your “War Crimes Court” should ask Hillary her opinion. She knew she was voting to invade and thought it legal. Look up her comments at the time. Saddam violated his ceasefire from gulf war 1, she said. Meaning no new authority was needed to invade, the gulf war 1 resolutions were in force still.
    Comment by comment0r — April 16, 2007 @ 6:54 pm – April 16, 2007

    She and other Democrats were on the floor of the Senate denouncing Bush for his decision to pull the inspectors and commence the bombing. It was Bush’s decision alone to do that. He was the decider™.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 7:18 pm - April 16, 2007

  52. Clinton pulled the inspectors in December of 1998 and bombed places the inspectors did not have access to and places suspected of being weapons’ site.

    Mhm….ever seen the actual strike impact data?

    There were literally hundreds of sites to which the inspectors were denied access. I find it rather hard to believe that one strike of around a hundred TOTAL hits — most of which weren’t even on WMD sites — would destroy all of them.

    Also, if all of Saddam’s weaponry was destroyed, why were the inspectors in 2002 still finding things — like the al-Samoud missiles? You said the strikes destroyed EVERYTHING and that Saddam did not try and was not trying to rebuild ANYTHING. Did those missiles just materialize out of thin air?

    Meanwhile, again, you keep screaming about “going back to the UN”. There is proof, given to you above, that the UN and Security Council members were being bribed to block meaningful action from ever being taken against Saddam. The man was not stupid; he merely figured out that the best way to protect himself was to bribe the corrupt UN and leftist European governments into letting him break the law with impunity.

    In short, you and your fellow Democrats think it isn’t criminal to take bribes to be an accessory to genocide and UN violations, but that it is criminal to remove a genocidal dictator because the people taking bribes to protect him object to it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 7:21 pm - April 16, 2007

  53. Saddam accepted the responsibility of declaring and destroying, in a verifiable manner, his weapons and weapons programs. He failed to do this – it isn’t more complicated then that.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 16, 2007 @ 6:58 pm – April 16, 2007

    How do you prove weapons that do not exist in fact do not exist? It’s a stupid premise. The administration said to the world that fact that the inspectors were not finding any weapons meant that Saddam was hiding them and I can’t believe some people actually accepted this without question.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - April 16, 2007

  54. Hmmm, how about destroying them in front of the inspectors, keeping records, testing the soil where chemical precursors were disposed.

    Remember, as I pointed out above, even the left admitted that he had weapons in 1990 – they were even declared in his seven, “Full and Final Disclosures.” So I am not sure where you are getting the, “weapons that do not exits,” theory – they did exist, he admitted it and it was accepted as fact by even the far left.

    That he couldn’t prove where they went should be more of a concern to the peace movement then the thought that a mass murder was brought to justice – that is unless the real goal is anti-Bush, anti-Americanism.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 16, 2007 @ 7:30 pm - April 16, 2007

  55. How do you prove weapons that do not exist in fact do not exist?

    Easy.

    You say, “I lied. The weapons that I claimed to have, the weapons that I told the world I had, the weapons I fooled my own people, including my generals, into thinking I had……don’t exist. I was faking everything. I have nothing, and I never had anything.”

    Saddam had more than ample opportunity to do that — and he didn’t. Indeed, he did the opposite, telling his own people, his generals, everyone that he had them and that they were secretly concealed. Indeed, right up to the day of the invasion, he was promising a bloodbath of US troops and insisting that his special armaments would turn the day.

    The main reason being because, absent weapons of mass destruction, he had less than nothing to protect himself from invasion or rebellion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2007 @ 7:37 pm - April 16, 2007

  56. Meanwhile, again, you keep screaming about “going back to the UN”. There is proof, given to you above, that the UN and Security Council members were being bribed to block meaningful action from ever being taken against Saddam. The man was not stupid; he merely figured out that the best way to protect himself was to bribe the corrupt UN and leftist European governments into letting him break the law with impunity.

    The Inspectors couldn’t find all these weapons Bush claimed Saddam had and this is why many around the world opposed the invasion. Again, the only place that had popular support for an invasion was the United States. Something like 58 percent approved the invasion.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 7:38 pm - April 16, 2007

  57. Hmmm, how about destroying them in front of the inspectors, keeping records, testing the soil where chemical precursors were disposed.

    The weapons capabilities were effectively destroyed during the 98 bombing campaign. How does Saddam prove that?

    Remember, as I pointed out above, even the left admitted that he had weapons in 1990 – they were even declared in his seven, “Full and Final Disclosures.” So I am not sure where you are getting the, “weapons that do not exits,” theory – they did exist, he admitted it and it was accepted as fact by even the far left.

    Where are the weapons?

    That he couldn’t prove where they went should be more of a concern to the peace movement then the thought that a mass murder was brought to justice – that is unless the real goal is anti-Bush, anti-Americanism.
    DKK

    Comment by LifeTrek — April 16, 2007 @ 7:30 pm – April 16, 2007

    He did not have the weapons Bush claimed he had.

    And the best thing for us would have been for Bush to fund opposition groups in Iraq to overthrow the Saddam.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 7:47 pm - April 16, 2007

  58. There were literally hundreds of sites to which the inspectors were denied access. I find it rather hard to believe that one strike of around a hundred TOTAL hits — most of which weren’t even on WMD sites — would destroy all of them.

    When David Kay testified before Congress he said that Saddam weapon’s capability was destroyed in three phases: the Gulf War, eight years of inspections and the bombing campaign in 1998.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 7:54 pm - April 16, 2007

  59. Also, if all of Saddam’s weaponry was destroyed, why were the inspectors in 2002 still finding things — like the al-Samoud missiles? You said the strikes destroyed EVERYTHING and that Saddam did not try and was not trying to rebuild ANYTHING. Did those missiles just materialize out of thin air?

    Alright, they found missiles that went fifteen miles too long.

    Comment by Nat — April 16, 2007 @ 8:04 pm - April 16, 2007

  60. NDT: 94.. what’s even worse. is that soley for the purpose of destroying Bush. these lefties have no problems calling for a policy that guarentees more genocide in Iraq by forcing us to withdraw. These leftists are sick people

    Comment by Vince P — April 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - April 16, 2007

  61. God, it’s 2007 and the Left is still arguing about 2003.

    Comment by Vince P — April 16, 2007 @ 8:49 pm - April 16, 2007

  62. God, it’s 2007 and the Left is still arguing about 2003.

    Try 2000.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 17, 2007 @ 6:11 am - April 17, 2007

  63. Dude! You’ve got skid marks on your tongue.

    I look forward to more comments to. So far all we have, boiled down, is the same old, tired liberal BS “Bush lied” and “Bush is a war criminal”. Nevermind that he still hasn’t provided ANYTHING to back it up.

    You call it “maintain your civility”, but no matter how much you polish a turd, it’s still a turd.

    BTW, when you come ’round lying you’re going to get called on it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 17, 2007 @ 6:11 am – April 17, 2007

    I tried to post several links but for some reason they didn’t appear. When I get home I’ll post them one at a time.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 6:22 am - April 17, 2007

  64. NDT: 94.. what’s even worse. is that soley for the purpose of destroying Bush. these lefties have no problems calling for a policy that guarentees more genocide in Iraq by forcing us to withdraw. These leftists are sick people

    Comment by Vince P — April 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm – April 16, 2007

    I don’t think there will be genocide and I’ll tell you why when I get home.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 6:24 am - April 17, 2007

  65. God, it’s 2007 and the Left is still arguing about 2003.

    Try 2000.

    Try 1972. (The left is trying to reintroduce the ERA). Or 1954 (Where the left’s concept of race relations in the USA begins and ends). Or 1933 (Trying to save and expand New Deal socialism)

    And yet, they call themselves “the Progressive Movement.” And one of their mouthpieces is called “MoveOn.”

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2007 @ 8:14 am - April 17, 2007

  66. The Inspectors couldn’t find all these weapons Bush claimed Saddam had and this is why many around the world opposed the invasion.

    Gee, what a surprise; a bureaucracy and set of governments that were being bribed with billions of dollars in cash and cheap oil contracts a) couldn’t “find” weapons and b) didn’t want the United States to remove the person who was paying them billions of dollars.

    Meanwhile, they simply manipulated leftists like you, Nat, into making excuses for Saddam’s genocide by playing on your belief that the US is always wrong.

    And this I love:

    And the best thing for us would have been for Bush to fund opposition groups in Iraq to overthrow the Saddam.

    Why, leftist? You said Saddam wasn’t doing anything wrong. You said he should have been perpetuated in power. And funding people to overthrow a government is, in the minds of hate-filled leftists and Democrats worldwide, the same as doing it yourself.

    We simply eliminated the middleman and did it ourselves. And the reason it pissed the Europeans and the UN off so much is because it cut off their multibillion-dollar scams, contracts, illegal arms sales, and whatnot. Hell hath no fury like a continent of racist leftists who are cut off from free funding at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people they consider inferior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - April 17, 2007

  67. NDT: Aren’t leftists still in a lather because Bush supposedly tried to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela? Aren’t they still in a lather because the US helped “opposition groups” overthrow Allende back in 70-s?

    (I note that Pinochet eventually left power peacefully, and left his country prosperous… unlike communist dictators who don’t give up power peacefully and keep their countries locked in misery… like Cuba.)

    Basically, a leftist will bash America no matter what we do, so why bother trying to please them?

    Comment by V the K — April 17, 2007 @ 12:18 pm - April 17, 2007

  68. NDT: 94.. what’s even worse. is that soley for the purpose of destroying Bush. these lefties have no problems calling for a policy that guarentees more genocide in Iraq by forcing us to withdraw. These leftists are sick people

    Comment by Vince P — April 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm – April 16, 2007

    The reason why I don’t think their will be a genocide is that the surrounding neighbors won’t allow it. 85 to 90 percent of the Muslim World is Sunni. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and the rest won’t sit idle by while the Shia kill the Sunni of Iraq. Right now the Shia Militias are the killing Sunnis because they know that these countries cannot fully engage in Iraq because of the American presence. Once we leave, the Shia have two choices. They can start murdering the Sunnis and risk being wiped out themselves by Sunni Muslims of other countries or they can try to work something out with the Sunnis. There will still be American troops in the region if the Shia decide to go the suicide mission route to make sure it’s not a complete bloodbath.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 2:46 pm - April 17, 2007

  69. Gee, what a surprise; a bureaucracy and set of governments that were being bribed with billions of dollars in cash and cheap oil contracts a) couldn’t “find” weapons and b) didn’t want the United States to remove the person who was paying them billions of dollars.

    Where are all the weapons? Where are the UAVs that could come here and spray us? Where are all the mobile laboratories? How was Saddam gonna produce this mushroom cloud?

    Meanwhile, they simply manipulated leftists like you, Nat, into making excuses for Saddam’s genocide by playing on your belief that the US is always wrong.

    You mean Bush manipulated you.

    We simply eliminated the middleman and did it ourselves. And the reason it pissed the Europeans and the UN off so much is because it cut off their multibillion-dollar scams, contracts, illegal arms sales, and whatnot. Hell hath no fury like a continent of racist leftists who are cut off from free funding at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people they consider inferior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2007 @ 12:08 pm – April 17, 2007

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - April 17, 2007

  70. We simply eliminated the middleman and did it ourselves. And the reason it pissed the Europeans and the UN off so much is because it cut off their multibillion-dollar scams, contracts, illegal arms sales, and whatnot. Hell hath no fury like a continent of racist leftists who are cut off from free funding at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people they consider inferior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2007 @ 12:08 pm – April 17, 2007

    Now Bush has the multi-billion dollar contracts.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 2:58 pm - April 17, 2007

  71. You know where to look, but you DON’T WANT to acknowledge reality. If you were honest, you’d have to admit that Bush was right and you aren’t about to do that.

    I don’t know where to get it. You said Saddam planned attacks on American interests in 2001 but for some reason he did not go through with it.

    As you mindless douchebags like to reply “prove it”.

    He did not have weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them.

    Sorry skippy. There’s too much evidence that contradicts each of those points.

    What evidence?

    You’re demonstrating how libs love to suck up to murderous dictators.

    You’re mistaken us for Reagan and Bush 1. And your current president supports Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists originate.

    The president manipulated intelligence to start a war of aggression and he is a war criminal.

    I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - April 17, 2007

  72. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all&position

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:08 pm - April 17, 2007

  73. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:12 pm - April 17, 2007

  74. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - April 17, 2007

  75. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0302nj1.htm

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:15 pm - April 17, 2007

  76. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/16667924.htm

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:16 pm - April 17, 2007

  77. “Now Bush has the multi-billion dollar contracts.”

    Really, Nat? Please show us the proof. As I understand federal law, the President (and Veep) put all of their assets and holdings in a blind trust during their tenure. Clinton did it, Reagan did it and Bush does it.

    And if you claim you have proof – how did you manage to violate federal law by finding and disclosing someone else’s financial returns?

    Try again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 17, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - April 17, 2007

  78. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:21 pm - April 17, 2007

  79. Really, Nat? Please show us the proof. As I understand federal law, the President (and Veep) put all of their assets and holdings in a blind trust during their tenure. Clinton did it, Reagan did it and Bush does it.

    And if you claim you have proof – how did you manage to violate federal law by finding and disclosing someone else’s financial returns?

    Try again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 17, 2007 @ 3:19 pm – April 17, 2007

    When I say Bush, I mean he secured contracts for American companies just as the French did before the invasion.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - April 17, 2007

  80. I’d love to see your unassailable evidence proving your Daily Kolostomy lying point. Problem is, you don’t have any. You just wish that it were true. You still haven’t proved your claim, only repeated it over and over hoping like hell that it will become true.

    I’m trying to post a couple from MSNBC but they won’t go through.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - April 17, 2007

  81. Peter, in case you actually try checking out Nat’s fraudulent effort to convince folks that Bush et al lied about WMDs, the nuclear intent of Saddam, or the real threat he posed to US natl security interests in the wake of Taliban’s fall from power… don’t.

    It’s the usual nonsense of “high senior govt officials”, allegations by the reporter without substantiation, wild-assed analyses by the reporters of motives imputed to Bush Administration officials… and so forth and so on. It’s might be historical fiction, but it ain’t reporting.

    More than 3/4trs of the “articles” from Left-leaning, anti-Bush sources like the “impeccable” Mr Tyler Drumheller –who, like Plame and Wilson– gave Kerry AND Gore campaign contributions.

    Right, Nat… you’ve got some first rate unassailable sources there! You go grrrrl. LOL.

    And spare the MSNBC clips –unless they’re more quotes from Democrat guru and pundit Don Imus calling Condi Rice a “brown sugar” nappy headed ho.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2007 @ 4:05 pm - April 17, 2007

  82. When I say Bush, I mean he secured contracts for American companies just as the French did before the invasion.

    But you insisted that the fact that contracts existed had nothing to do with the French government blocking action against Saddam — even though there was written proof that French politicians, including members of Chirac’s inner circle, assured Saddam that, in response to his bribes, they would block any and all meaningful action against Saddam.

    See how the twisted anti-American leftist mind works? Nat denies that Saddam’s bribes had anything to do with France and the UN’s decision to support and protect his genocidal and murderous regime despite having clear proof that they did — but then insists that Bush invaded Iraq for the contracts, even though he has nothing in the way of proof.

    Where are all the weapons? Where are the UAVs that could come here and spray us? Where are all the mobile laboratories? How was Saddam gonna produce this mushroom cloud?

    Looted, for one. The whole point of a mobile biologicals lab is that it can be easily taken apart, you know. Same with the UAVs and so forth. The fact that they had been carted off in parts doesn’t mean they didn’t exist in the first place.

    In addition, for some of the rest, Ba’athist to Ba’athist transfer under cover of darkness across the Syrian border. Saddam was used to moving his arsenal; that was the way he stayed one step ahead of the un-bribed inspectors.

    Meanwhile, the way Saddam was going to produce a mushroom cloud was very simple; he was going to use the tons of partially-enriched uranium he already had, coupled with the centrifuges he already had, and the knowledge he already had — which was so dangerous that, when it was put out on the ‘Net, leftist Democrats like yourself insisted that doing so would enable terrorists to easily produce an atomic weapon in no time flat.

    And finally, Nat, I think we need to deal with the simple fact of your Democrat mentality. Would you consider it an ability to threaten the United States if Saddam could pay a terrorist — or one of his own agents — to slip a vial of sarin or anthrax into a New York subway train?

    The reason we have the problems we do is because Democrats like yourself are about fifty years behind in terms of military intelligence. The classic example is the fact that, under the last Democrat administration, two men in a tiny boat with easily-procured explosives came within inches of sinking an Aegis – class destroyer. It shows very well that even state-of-the-art technology is no protection when under the control of an emasculated military being forced to follow techniques from a party that is still fighting based on World War II strategy.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - April 17, 2007

  83. “When I say Bush, I mean he secured contracts for American companies just as the French did before the invasion.”

    That’s not what you said, Nat. You directly stated that “Bush has the million-dollar contracts.” Flip-flopping doesn’t lend credence to your statements, kiddo.

    Either way, I have the same request – please show proof positive that Bush went out of his way to violate the law in securing contracts for American companies prior to the Iraq War.

    Also – if the French did the same, wouldn’t that be “illegal and immoral” as well? Or are they exempt from your vitriol?

    Keep trying.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 17, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - April 17, 2007

  84. But you insisted that the fact that contracts existed had nothing to do with the French government blocking action against Saddam — even though there was written proof that French politicians, including members of Chirac’s inner circle, assured Saddam that, in response to his bribes, they would block any and all meaningful action against Saddam.

    I’m just using your premise.

    Looted, for one. The whole point of a mobile biologicals lab is that it can be easily taken apart, you know. Same with the UAVs and so forth. The fact that they had been carted off in parts doesn’t mean they didn’t exist in the first place.

    What you’re saying refutes all the reports that have come out thus far.

    And finally, Nat, I think we need to deal with the simple fact of your Democrat mentality. Would you consider it an ability to threaten the United States if Saddam could pay a terrorist — or one of his own agents — to slip a vial of sarin or anthrax into a New York subway train?

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - April 17, 2007

  85. But you insisted that the fact that contracts existed had nothing to do with the French government blocking action against Saddam — even though there was written proof that French politicians, including members of Chirac’s inner circle, assured Saddam that, in response to his bribes, they would block any and all meaningful action against Saddam.

    I’m just using your premise.

    Looted, for one. The whole point of a mobile biologicals lab is that it can be easily taken apart, you know. Same with the UAVs and so forth. The fact that they had been carted off in parts doesn’t mean they didn’t exist in the first place.

    What you’re saying refutes all the reports that have come out thus far.

    And finally, Nat, I think we need to deal with the simple fact of your Democrat mentality. Would you consider it an ability to threaten the United States if Saddam could pay a terrorist — or one of his own agents — to slip a vial of sarin or anthrax into a New York subway train?

    France could pay a terrorist, England could pay a terrorist, Canada could pay a terrorist, in fact any person in world with money could pay someone to commit an act of terrorism against this country.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 4:35 pm - April 17, 2007

  86. That’s not what you said, Nat. You directly stated that “Bush has the million-dollar contracts.” Flip-flopping doesn’t lend credence to your statements, kiddo.

    So I flip-flopped. I should have said he got contracts for his oil buddies.

    Either way, I have the same request – please show proof positive that Bush went out of his way to violate the law in securing contracts for American companies prior to the Iraq War.

    I’m not saying that even though I think it is true. I’m saying Bush started a war of aggression and is therefore a war criminal.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - April 17, 2007

  87. Mhm — without the proof I provided that it was true.

    As I said before I don’t know why Chirac was going to veto the resolution. The French public vehemently opposed the war. Maybe that’s why he did it.

    What — that there was looting in Iraq? That there were numerous cases of people carting everything off before anyone could get there? Why on earth would you think these things would be any different?

    Again, what you’re saying contradicts the reports that have come out thus far that say the weapons were destroyed in three phases: The Gulf War, eight years of inspections, and the 98 bombing campaign.

    Furthermore, Nat, you didn’t answer my question: would you consider it an ability to threaten the United States if Saddam could pay a terrorist — or one of his own agents — to slip a vial of sarin or anthrax into a New York subway train?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 17, 2007 @ 5:13 pm – April 17, 2007

    Why should I answer a question based on your conjecture? Answer this first and I’ll answer your question:

    Would you consider it an ability to threaten the United States if Blair could pay a terrorist — or one of his own agents — to slip a vial of sarin or anthrax into a New York subway train?

    Anyway, I’m done posting here. I have things to do.

    Comment by Nat — April 17, 2007 @ 5:38 pm - April 17, 2007

  88. Nat keeps saying he has a life. Why? (maybe not?)

    Comment by comment0r — April 17, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - April 17, 2007

  89. Bush with military families demanding Congress pass teh funds

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070416.wm.v.html

    Comment by Vince P — April 17, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - April 17, 2007

  90. Where are all the weapons? Where are the UAVs that could come here and spray us? Where are all the mobile laboratories? How was Saddam gonna produce this mushroom cloud?

    1. Where are all the weapons? Good question.
    2. The UAVs were right where the U.N. found them.
    3. The mobile labs? See #1.
    4. How was Saddam gonna produce this mushroom cloud? Most likely with the yellow-cake that he allegedly was not buying from Africa.

    I don’t know where to get it. You said Saddam planned attacks on American interests in 2001 but for some reason he did not go through with it.

    Therefore, he’s a great guy who didn’t deserve to be spanked.

    As you mindless douchebags like to reply “prove it”.

    He did not have weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them.

    Well that’s convincing. After all, the libs who told us he did now say the weapons never existed (or were destroyed in 1991, or 1998, or whatever). Good job.

    You’re mistaken us for Reagan and Bush 1. And your current president supports Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists originate.

    No I ‘m not mistaken. I’m thinking of the libs who love Chavez, Castro, Ortega, “Uncle Joe”, Lenin etc. As far as the terrorits from Saudi Arabia, McVeigh was from New York and Kaczynski was from Chicago. What’s your point?

    Yeah I know. And Gay conservative thought I didn’t have them.

    You don’t. You gave us meaningless drivel from the same drive-bys who tried to convince us the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty, Bush was AWOL, Algore won, “there’s no good news in Iraq” etc.

    As I said before I don’t know why Chirac was going to veto the resolution. The French public vehemently opposed the war. Maybe that’s why he did it.

    And we all know how Chirac always did what his people wanted. Well, as long as he didn’t have to cut his vacation short.

    Nat, you’re done. MovOn. You’ve even gone so far as to waste Dan & Bruce’s space. Your bobbing, weaving, spinning and oxygen thieving would be appreciated elsewhere, I’m sure.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 18, 2007 @ 2:27 am - April 18, 2007

  91. And your current president supports Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists originate.

    So all Saudis are terrorists, huh? You disgusting bigot.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 18, 2007 @ 2:29 am - April 18, 2007

  92. You’re mistaken us for Reagan and Bush 1. And your current president supports Saudi Arabia where most of these terrorists originate.

    The United States has been supporting Saudi Arabia since Day 1.

    Back in early 1900s after Ottoman Empire was gone, the Euro countries via monopolies basically shut out the US from getting enough oil for its needs from Iraq and Iran. At the time it wasn’t known that Saudi Arabia had a lot of it.
    Out of desperation , Saudi and the US cooperated to survey their lands. Saudi’s trusted the US was not a colonial power (beause we weren’t) and consented.

    We’ve been their strong ally ever since.

    They been at war with us ever since.

    Comment by Vince P — April 18, 2007 @ 8:56 am - April 18, 2007

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.262 Powered by Wordpress