Aren't we all missing the point with the WMD?!?

[TheMojoPin]

People want to blame Bush left and right for either being a sucker and "falling" for faulty intelligence or knowingly going into a situation based on faulty intelligence and then "lying" about it.

Many Bush supporters will counter that Clinton had just as many incidents along these lines, be it blowing up an aspirin factory or a Chinese embassy.

It's like the sides are trying to continually one-up the other by trying to prove how much "worse" one president was over the other when they ALL seem to be missing the key point...THEY BOTH HAD THE SAME INTELLIGENCE OUTLETS. Practically the same directors, specialists, agents, etc.. Yet EVERYONE wants to blame either president...ESPECIALLY Bush.

Fuck that.

I don't believe for an instant Bush lied or thought he had to lie. A president is supposed to be able to rely on the information brought to him by his intelligence resources. The only people who can confirm and Upd@te and verify this info is the intelligence community! Don't people notice that kinda blatant and obvious pattern of our intelligence services fucking up more and more seriously with each coming crisis? THAT'S where the friggin' problems are. THEY'RE the ones who are supposed to keep the administration Upd@ted and prepared. And THEY'RE the ones that are fucking things up and driving us further and further up our own asses.

Yes, most of the controversy now stems from info brought in by BRITISH intelligence services. But information of that kind always does and has to go through our own services for confirmation, pooling of information and verification. It was along those lines that led the CIA to very wisely put the kibosh on the much vaunted time when "Clinton could have had bin Laden handed over to us" when it turned out that bin Laden had already high-tailed it back to Saudi Arabia months before.

Look, the CIA employs my parents. It gave me one of my first jobs, has always paid for my food, college and the roof over my head. My dad works in the upper ranks of the counterterrorism center itself. And I'll still be the FIRST to say that our intelligence services are disgustingly incorrect and unprepared to deal with both the war on terror and operations like what just happened in Iraq. And Britian is no better. Like us, almost all of their intelligence forces were pointed squarely at the Soviets, and the sudden collapse of the USSR shortly after the Berlin Wall came down completely threw the Brits into just a confusing and chaotic mire as we were and still are in when it comes to the rest of the world, ESPECIALLY the Middle East.

Our "spooks" need a good overhauling, refocusing and a few swift kicks to their collective asses. Leave the goddamn president alone.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[mdr55]

Ron and Fez need YOU.......to be the #1 thread on this board!

[A.J.]

I couldn't agree more Mojo. However, I'm surprised why Bush didn't fire Tenet after 9/11. Maybe it was political -- that he needed to keep Tenet on to show confidence in the Intel communities and show them that it wasn't their fault. But the time has come for Tenet to go and for an overhaul to begin. I know firsthand how keen Rumsfeld has been to "transform" DoD -- let's do the same with the Intel communities.

Like us, almost all of their intelligence forces were pointed squarely at the Soviets, and the sudden collapse of the USSR shortly after the Berlin Wall came down completely threw the Brits into just a confusing and chaotic mire as we were and still are in when it comes to the rest of the world, ESPECIALLY the Middle East.

I would add that HUMINT assets weren't considered "as important" around the rest of the world at the time -- that satellite technology would be enough. We're paying the price for that now.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[billyio]

I agree with both of you,but doesn't the President have the final responsibility of making these decisions based on other means? Suppose there is an immediate nuclear threat and the President has received conflicting information from various agencies. Doesn't he have other resources on which to make a "defensive"/"offensive" strategic decision?

I also believe Tenet should be fired for what happened during 9-11, but I also believe that every governmental agency should be held accountable as well for whatever policies that failed our country.

Additionally and speculatively, shouldn't the government have shifted its intelligence resources after the COld War ended by now? Its been 12 years. After WWII, we managed to shift our agencies from German/Japanese inteliigence-gathering to the Soviets in what seems like breakneck speed.

See Ya!

[reeshy]

I agree with you , Mojo-as usual...Now, where the hell were you?????

<IMG SRC=http://www.visimag.com/filmreview/images/f135_cont_redux.jpg>

[JiZ]

Just goto google (http://www.google.com) Type in Weapons of mass destruction. Then hit feeling lucky. I know it will look like the error you see when you reach a site that is down or incorrect. Just read a little more closely:)

Its is my deep seeded hatred and utter contempt for human life that gets me through each day

This message was edited by JiZ on 7-18-03 @ 2:20 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Doesn't he have other resources on which to make a "defensive"/"offensive" strategic decision?

In cases like this?

No.

We pay and fund the CIA, NSA, et al to be the ones "in the know". The president needs to be able to rely on them and the information they relay and provide, NOT the other way around.

I'm not saying it has to be 100%...that's impossible. But we're appearing to be more and more off the mark that I'd bet we're not even batting close to .300.

After WWII, we managed to shift our agencies from German/Japanese inteliigence-gathering to the Soviets in what seems like breakneck speed.

We also managed to enact the Marshall plan for Berlin, where we had supply planes landing every few minutes for OVER A YEAR surrounded by hostile territory and enemy forces. Yet we can't pull of anything even remotely close in Afghanistan OR Iraq?

Sometimes I have no problem recognizing "The Greatest Generation" as being a VERY accurate statement.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[CruelCircus]

Didn't Tenet take his position on something like September 9th, 2001? If so (and I believe it to be true), you can hardly fire him for what happened before he even finished unpacking.

Also, though I did not read it myself, didn't the WSJ report yesterday that British and various other foreign intelligence agencies still believe the Iraq-Niger story to be true?

Jim


<br>
<img height=100 src="http://pw2.netcom.com/~jjmace/gifs/clowns.JPG"><br>
If the US Government decides to stick a tracking device up your ass,
you say "Thank you!", and "God Bless America!"
-Red Forman

[Se7en]

I agree with you entirely, Mojo.

I don't know if the Bush haters here will be as agreeable.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[NewYorkDragons80]

I'm surprised why Bush didn't fire Tenet after 9/11.
Click me (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001164)

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[phixion]

i just wish he would apologize. just say "hey im sorry. i fucked up. i got some wrong info, and i acted." just that, would make me respect him more as a president.

<IMG SRC="http://www.southparkx.net/images/fbad.gif">
"Hey, it was Kyle who took a number 2 in the urinal."

[keithy_19]

Apologize? he shouldn't have too. We did the right thing. Saddam is a bitch.

http://members.aol.com/thetoddsterlsp/sigpics/keithbobeefy1.gif

"Let not your heart be troubled"

[Snoogans]

Apologize? he shouldn't have too. We did the right thing. Saddam is a bitch.


so is fidel castro, no one cries about that, cause he isnt a threat. suposedly bush acted on misinformation he recieved from his staff, you cant blame him for that, just the staff. however this whole thing still stinks of oil and vendetta for tryin to kill his dad

Silent Bob you one rude motherfucker, she like to go down on you, suck you. line up 2 other guys and make like a circus seal

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/Snoogans.jpg

eww you fuckin faggots, i hate guys, i LOOOOVE WOMEN!

[TheMojoPin]

We did the right thing.

No we didn't.

It's nifty and all to "liberate" a country, but until the negative effects of this operation stop far, FAR outweighing any positives, I still think it was a bad move that's going to cause us infinite more problems than the effectively impotent Hussein could ever have inflicted.

Ultimately, I say fuck the Iraqi people. It's awful what they suffered and that I think that way, but I'm 10,000% selfish when it comes to international affairs and the US these days.

And I'm still highly bothered at how little anything has changed in Afghanistan, yet it's essentially forgotten by the public and seemingly our government. How is it going to be any different in Iraq? Again, I point to the Marshall Plan...

We're in a bad way and we have too much exposed and at stake these days. And we have too much that's rooted here at home that needs to be "fixed" before we can even think about dealing with another Iraq-type situation. Hence the very existence of this thread.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[phixion]

Ultimately, I say fuck the Iraqi people. It's awful what they suffered and that I think that way, but I'm 10,000% selfish when it comes to international affairs and the US these days.


i agree. its one thing to care when our ecomony's going great, but when its in the shitter there is no reason to care.

and i kno the president doesnt have to apologize, but he should want to. im sorry he was wrong. if he just says 'i was presented with wrong information' i would b more tahn satisfied with that. but this shit is reminding me of george taking susans parents out on long island to find his house in the hamptons. yes i like my seinfeld reference.

<IMG SRC="http://www.southparkx.net/images/fbad.gif">
"Hey, it was Kyle who took a number 2 in the urinal."

[HBox]

I agree, somewhat. I'll admit I jumped the gun on flat out calling Bush a liar. The more I read about Niger, Iraq, and Uranium, the more I see it probably isn't a big deal by itself. And the fuckups by the CIA, both in past and present, seem to be more to blame.

HOWEVER, my biggest problem with the Bush administration is its deliberate misleading of the public. They introduced the notion the Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda, then when disproved, backed off, but did nothing to correct the misconception the public had. Same with Iraq's connection to 9/11. At the time this war started, most people in the nation believed those things. I don't know about now, but I dobut that has changed.

This administration won't release anything in the least that may make them look bad, but will release almost anything that will support them. I saw on the news yesterday that they released classified documents to support their WMD claims. Any chance we'll ever see any documents from internal 9/11 investigations? No. We won't even get a little freaking paragraph about global warming.

The White House is a PR firm for the reelection of Bush. This has been done to some degrees in the past but this is just ridiculous.

I took off on a tangent there, sorry.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[HBox]

We also managed to enact the Marshall plan for Berlin, where we had supply planes landing every few minutes for OVER A YEAR surrounded by hostile territory and enemy forces. Yet we can't pull of anything even remotely close in Afghanistan OR Iraq?


This is a different time. For one, they didn't have to worry about flying over a land full of hostiles with rocket launchers that can take down planes strapped to their shoulders. They also didn't have to worry about, in the event a plane does get shot down, families suing the military.

Not to excuse the pathetic job we've done of getting aid in there, though.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[furie]

Just goto google (http://www.google.com) Type in Weapons of mass destruction. Then hit feeling lucky. I know it will look like the error you see when you reach a site that is down or incorrect. Just read a little more closely:)


Yeah, we know. (http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=87&Topic=29875&keywords=hack)

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/mp3heads.jpg">

[JiZ]

Sorry, didn't know it was posted. I never have time to search thru threads. As for the weapons, who cares our President lied, and this country sucks. What else is new?

Its is my deep seeded hatred and utter contempt for human life that gets me through each day

This message was edited by JiZ on 7-19-03 @ 12:04 PM

[TheMojoPin]

i agree. its one thing to care when our ecomony's going great, but when its in the shitter there is no reason to care.

I don't know if this is sarcasm, but it's NOT what I meant.

I feel our focus should be on domestic security issues through the radical working of our intelligence services before we start spreading ourselves too thin across the world.

The economy may be "bad", but it's nowhere near "bad" enough to throw caution to the wind again.

What's worse? 3,000 jobs lost for what will inevitably be a temporary period of time or another 3,000 people killed in a similar 9/11-like attack?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[furie]

and this country sucks.


WHAT?!?

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/mp3heads.jpg">

[high fly]

HBOX: Bush knew, when he made his "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" pledge of the existence of shoulder fired AA missiles. I haven't heard of any planes being shot down with them lately over there, or any statements from the administration saying that is the reason for their failure to keep their word.

And how many times has a family of a U.S. service member shot down over hostile territory, sued the government?

C'mon, HBOX, fill us in .


" and they ask me why I drink"

[FUNKMAN]

i believe Bush knew the information was "suspect" at best and made a decision to use it as "concrete"
evidence... The events of 9/11 happened under his "watch" and even though he shouldn't be held entirely responsible, the reality is "it comes with the job". Just like if the "economy is doing good", the President gets most if not all of the credit. Bush was still "redfaced" and sincerely hurt about what happened on 9/11 and this was another chance to get some revenge.

whether it was right or wrong, or a good or bad decision to remove Hussein, only time will tell. The situation looks kind of hopeless right now in Iraq, not to say it can't change but they have to build a whole new infrastructure. If the majority of the Iraqi people want a better way of life they are going to have to stand up for themselves and root out their terrorist neighbors and family members.

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[HBox]

C'mon, HBOX, fill us in .

The Federal Tort Claims Act bars "any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or Coast Guard, during time of war."

I guess you're right though. Lawyers aren't the greedy kind of scum to try and argue that the war ended when Bush claimed all major activites were over a few weeks back. Because lawyers aren't the kind of people who are completely driven by money. I'm sure there's not one upset family and scumbag lawyer out there who would try and sell that shit.

What the hell is your problem, anyway? You are so completely intolerant of anything that isn't exactly your view. Just because I said something that was, in a way I guess only you could imagine, supportive of President Bush, you jump one me. But I did say this:

Not to excuse the pathetic job we've done of getting aid in there, though

But why the hell let facts get in the way of your pathetic little attacks anyway? Maybe if I specifically mention Bush it would meet the high fly bitching standards.

Just go away. Everybody is tired of your stupid nicknames, cliches, and slogans. You add nothing to the threads, and you just stand to embarrass your own cause. Go away.


P.S. Military fighters were fired on in Afghanistan last year. They weren't fired down, thankfully, although I would guess you could care less if they were.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[NewYorkDragons80]

I have yet to see an Al Qaeda link that was supported by the administration that was disproved.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[TheMojoPin]

I have yet to see an Al Qaeda link that was supported by the administration that was disproved.

In regards to Saddam Hussein? I've yet to see one, period.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

I have yet to see an Al Qaeda link that was supported by the administration that was disproved.

Distorted Intelligence (http://www.msnbc.com/news/931306.asp)
The failure to prove a Saddam-Al Qaeda link (http://www.iht.com/articles/103441.html)
Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04.story)
Weak Link? (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ansar030205_krekar.html)
No proof of Iraq, al-Qaeda links: analysts (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804465839.html)

Be educated, and spread the word to the ignorant masses!

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[FUNKMAN]

the Box is Hot!

<img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/funkman.gif">

[Yerdaddy]

At home I put together a timeline similar to these:

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/uranium030714_timeline.html" target="_blank">ABCNEWS.com : Timeline of the Iraq Uranium Allegations</a>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3051709.stm" target="_blank">BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Timeline: 'Niger uranium' row</a>

<a href="http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=niger_timeline" target="_blank">Dean for America: Niger-Uranium Timeline</a> (I don't care who put this together. I judged it on its merits. Partisan motives are a fact of life. Get used to it.)

My timeline is probably more comprehensive because I'm a freak like that, but also because I actually considered the explainations the administration made. In all, it looks to me that the intelligence community is not primarily to blame for the faulty information getting into the statements of the adminsitration members. There should be special care taken by an administration making a case for war, so the weak explainations, like that the diplomatic mission report that was called for by Dick Cheney never got to Dick Cheney, or that Condoleezza Rice, her staff and other administration members involved in vetting the State of the Union Address failed to read the strong statement of dissent from the State Department in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Even if those claims are true, then the administration is at least responsible for a massive failure to check the information it was putting out to the public and the Congress.

But I think an objective look at the administration's record of dealing with intelligence shows a pattern of the policy leading the intelligence instead of the intelligence leading the policy. I think the foreign policy team that the president brought with him came with an agenda and used the intelligence community to carry that out. It is widely reported that the administration set up an "Office of Special Plans" unit inside the Defense Intelligence Agency, ( <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact" target="_blank">$electIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH</a> ), and that it's mandate was to collect intelligence that supported the administration's case for war. Also, if you go back to most of the speeches, press conferences and written works of the administration before the war, (and now), they use caviats, weasel words and qualifiers when they made claims about specific evidence. For example, now the administration, ( and the pundits and the president's supporters here on the board), will cite the president's reference to the British intelligence agencies as proof that the president's State of the Union sentence about the Niger uranium story. But that's not the standard of evidence that we should expect from the State of the Union Address. To cite an uncorroborated and (supposedly) unchecked piece of intelligence from a foreign intelligence agency in the State of the Union is unpresidential irresponsibility at the very least.

One more point is that this is not about one piece of information in one speech. Given the fact that two US military teams have already conducted searches of Iraq for WMD using the best prospects the US had for finding them and come up empty-handed suggests that most of the specific claims of knowledge made by this administration about Iraqi WMD will be proven to be false. And given that the adminsitration has set the precident that the US will make war based not on a specific threat by a foreign country, but by a presumed threat based on our intelligence, then the quality of our intelligence and the standards by which it is used by our elected leaders has just been made dramatically more critical. But instead it looks to me like the president lowered the threashold for war and the standards of intelligence at the same time, and that, to me, is unacceptable, dangerous to our security, and fundamentally dishonest. So I repeat that there needs to be open and independent hearings on the use of intelligence in the leadup to war. And the

[Bergalad]

It's all very simple really, and all these protestations and now timelines coming out do nothing at all to fix the actual issues with the Bush Administration. The "16 words" did not IN ANY WAY affect the build-up for the war. They came AFTER the Congress voted to approve Bush's policy towards Iraq. Focusing on this particular episode is grasping at straws and foolish. There are other issues about the whole Iraq problem that should be questioned, yet all anyone can come up with seems to be "oh he said something that was really true but sorta not so let's fucking beat him to death with it!". How childish.

[silera]

Bergelad, you apparantly didn't read the same thread I did because very specific and broad concerns were brought up that were far from childish. The very point of this thread has nothing to do with "16 words."

If we are going to change the protocol for war, and assume the responsibility of preemptive wars, our intelligence should be beyond question.

As it stands, those few words are the least of the concerns because none of the reasons for which this war was initiated have been proven.

Sadly, I am not as open as Mojo in my assesment. I think Bush and company are liars that had an agenda even before 9/11 happened. I believe that they used a combination of the truth, lies, exageration, fantasy and pulling at America's heartstrings to go to war to further their own gain.
I find all of this shit that I'm reading too fucking convenient on so many levels and it's starting to read like a goddamn Tom Clancy novel.



<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Se7en]

Bush Admits He Lied About Iraq-Niger Nuke Deal
(2003-07-15) -- U.S. President George Bush admitted today that he knew his State of the Union address contained false intelligence about Saddam Hussein's attempts to buy uranium from Niger.

"When I was giving the speech, I almost tripped on those 16 words about the uranium," said Mr. Bush. "I knew it was a big, fat lie and it was hard to say it with a straight face."

The President said it never occurred to him, or his advisors, that the claim would be investigated by journalists, or that insiders at the CIA and White House might leak the story to reporters.

"When this whole shebang just blew up in my face," he said, "I asked Ari Fleischer, 'When did the news media suddenly get so suspicious and nosy?'"

Mr. Bush said he regrets the lie "mostly because the Niger uranium deal was the only good reason we had for deposing Saddam Hussein. Now, people will know that we just went in to capture the Iraqi oil."


Oh, and did someone mention Dean?

Dean: Liberia Would Be 'Cake Walk' for U.S. Troops
(2003-07-15) -- Democrat presidential frontrunner Howard Dean said today that Liberia would be a "cake walk" for U.S. troops, and we should send them in as soon as possible.

However, the Vermont governor denied the Republican accusation that he supports military intervention just to protect Liberia's strategic latex industry, which has been instrumental in eliminating teen pregnancy in America.

Gov. Dean also rejected GOP demands that a broad international coalition be mustered before the U.S. commits forces to Liberia.


Oh, and can't forget this:


I think Bush and company are liars that had an agenda even before 9/11 happened.


http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[silera]

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Well, how can I possibly argue with that?

I've completely changed my opinion of the situation based on the "rolleyes.gif."

Sadly, my opinion or yours don't even matter because we're still grossly unprepared for a terrorist attack and instead are wasting our time galavanting around the globe in a fruitless search for weapons that might harm us.



<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 7-21-03 @ 11:35 AM

[Bergalad]

The very point of this thread has nothing to do with "16 words."
Much of this thread concerns Bush's supposed lying, and the only real hope those who accuse him have are those 16 words. In fact, Yerdaddy, brought it up specifically in his post prior to mine. Hell, he even came up with a timeline to try to support his assertions!
If we are going to change the protocol for war, and assume the responsibility of preemptive wars, our intelligence should be beyond question.

We should have the best intelligence possible, that is for sure. The problem is intelligence is usually never 100% accurate. Intel analysts work in grey areas much more than you would be comfortable with, but that is how it has to be done.

By your statement, do you then doubt that Iraq had WMD? These Senators seem to now, although just 8 months ago they were the most vocal about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons. Senator Levin believed the intel (apparently only when it was convenient for him), but do you?
As it stands, those few words are the least of the concerns because none of the reasons for which this war was initiated have been proven.

That's right. We haven't found WMD in Iraq. I agree that's a large problem, because although I support removing Saddam, they "sold" the threat on tangible WMD, not capabilities. I want them to find WMD as much as anyone, and if they don't, then I will be pissed.
I think Bush and company are liars that had an agenda even before 9/11 happened. I believe that they used a combination of the truth, lies, exageration, fantasy and pulling at America's heartstrings to go to war to further their own gain.

That's unfortunate you feel that way. I personally feel Bush is very honest, and although he has some people around him that are odd, he has earned my trust and respect. Hopefully, eventually, he'll earn yours too.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Christopher Hitchens probably makes the best case for the Iraq War, using arguments that our State Department never could.

My favorite is on page 13 of his book "A Long Short War", where he writes
Imagine if you can the meeting between Saddam and his chief of security on September 12, 2001. The Leader wants to know what is known about those who have just immolated downtown New York, and his secret police chief says, in effect, "I've never heard of them O Great One. Never met them either." If that had been his answer, the wretched man would not have lived out the day. Why, of all the groups consecrated to murder and destruction, should Iraq's dictatorship have made an exception in this one case? It would be atypical to say the least.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 7-21-03 @ 12:58 PM

[silera]

I never believed that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US. Never, not once believed it.

I'll agree that it's really convenient for all the slimy fucks in congress to call him out on all this shit now, after all the damage was done.

I don't see how anyone could have believed his bullshit. I heard the speeches, and saw the so-called evidence and wasn't convinced.

I don't see Bush earning my trust ever. I really don't believe him. I don't like the way he speaks. I don't like his poor choice of words. I don't like the way he handles our money. I don't like the way he sees issues as if we're playing out some old western where there are good guys and bad guys and the only victors are the ones that draw their guns first. I am saddened at his reckless use of our military, and worse yet I believe that he does believe he is doing the right thing (even if he has to lie to do it), which makes me think on top of all the other things, that he is not a very smart person.




<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[HBox]

Christopher Hitchens probably makes the best case for the Iraq War, using arguments that our State Department never could.

My favorite is on page 13 of his book "A Long Short War", where he writes

Quote:
Imagine if you can the meeting between Saddam and his chief of security on September 12, 2001. The Leader wants to know what is known about those who have just immolated downtown New York, and his secret police chief says, in effect, "I've never heard of them O Great One. Never met them either." If that had been his answer, the wretched man would not have lived out the day. Why, of all the groups consecrated to murder and destruction, should Iraq's dictatorship have made an exception in this one case? It would be atypical to say the least.

OK. I guess you're right. Your circumstantial evidence completely destroys my hard evidence.

I guess I should mention that a reason Saddam did not work together with Al Qaeda is because bin Laden has for years been calling for the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. I don't think it is atypical to work with people who want to take you down. How often did Saddam work with us? Well, lately, I mean.

I should also mention that the gap between not even hearing about Al Qaeda and actually working with them is about the size of the Grand Canyon.

But that was a cute misleading little paragraph without a trace of fact. All of it is idle speculation with an implied accusation. But he did get his message through, to the people looking for the slightest reason to believe.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[HBox]

BTW, here is an article that came out today. Its an National Intelligence Estimate released in October. It deals with mostly the only real threat Saddam posed, and the only way Saddam might possibly work with Al Qaeda. It really makes me feel better.

Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20698-2003Jul20?language=printer)

The last sentence is horribly ironic.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TheMojoPin]

We should have the best intelligence possible, that is for sure. The problem is intelligence is usually never 100% accurate.

True.

But the point of my thread was that the intelligence wasn't just "a little" inaccurate...it's becoming more and more apparent that it's REALLY inaccurate. I doubt we're even at 50% at this point, much less even remotely close to 100%.

For the most powerful nation on Earth, our intelligence capabilities have been nothing short of awful and wretched and humiliating for a good decade now. My only bit of finger-pointing at Bush is in regards to him being the one in office right now, and HE'S the one who can start changing things for the better and truly making us safer, and making his own job better off so he doesn't have to rely on the efforts of halfwits. Sending a halfassed intelligence community out to embarass us is NOT ensuring I'll stay alive.

Fix it.

NOW.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

HBOX- please quote the post in which I gave the impression about lawyers.
I'm in agreement with you- they'll sue if they see even the tiniest chance of getting something out of it.
Nice quote on the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Still waiting on your examples of a family sueing under the circumstances you described.
Or were you making a point based upon.....nothing?


Also, I don't think I'm any more intolerant than you are.Indeed, there is much in your posts above that I agree with.Your last 2 posts are superb. Guess I should have pointed that out.
As far as not caring about any US planes being "fired down", the fact that my girlfriend's brother is flying over there right now makes it a point of interest to me.
As far as the cliches and slogans and nicknames, they hardly obscure the points I make. Rather than use the juvenile "go away" argument, how about taking on the points you disagree with?
So, what do you think of Bush's failure to keep his word on the "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan"?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

My only bit of finger-pointing at Bush is in regards to him being the one in office right now, and HE'S the one who can start changing things for the better and truly making us safer, and making his own job better off so he doesn't have to rely on the efforts of halfwits. Sending a halfassed intelligence community out to embarass us is NOT ensuring I'll stay alive.
I am in complete agreement with you. I hope after the 911 report comes out and after we have a lull in Iraq, Bush can clean up the mess with the Intel Community.

[silera]

I hope after the 911 report comes out and after we have a lull in Iraq, Bush can clean up the mess with the Intel Community.


Maybe the latter task was more imminent than the former task.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[high fly]

Lull in Iraq?
The trend seems to be going the other way.
As for cleaning up the mess with the intel community, I don't think Bush is up to the task. He's in over his head.
As for the title of this thread, I hope y'all read the article, "Oct Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be A Threat" linked by HBOX in his post on the 21st.
Also, I heard part of the weekly radio addresses by the President and the Democratic response.
In the Democratic response, the guy said that before the war, Rumsfeld said that we knew where the nuke stuff was, maybe he also included other WMDs, I'm not sure.
What exactly did Rumsfeld say?


" and they ask me why I drink"

[A.J.]

Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line 'Everybody makes mistakes' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[Se7en]

I don't see how anyone could have believed his bullshit. I heard the speeches, and saw the so-called evidence and wasn't convinced.


But then again, you've had preconceived notions and beliefs about Bush from the start.

I mean, let's be honest here. YOU don't see how anyone could believe Bush, but then again you've NEVER supported him or "liked" him, so OF COURSE you can't believe anyone would believe he isn't an awful, dirty liar.

Same with people like high fly, and a few other yellow-dog liberal types on this board.

I'm quite honestly convinced that if Bush singlehandedly found a cure for AIDs tomorrow, you'd be bitching that afternoon that he hasn't cured cancer yet.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[HBox]

Same with people like high fly, and a few other yellow-dog liberal types on this board


Same with you, in the reverse.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[silera]

But then again, you've had preconceived notions and beliefs about Bush from the start.

I mean, let's be honest here. YOU don't see how anyone could believe Bush, but then again you've NEVER supported him or "liked" him, so OF COURSE you can't believe anyone would believe he isn't an awful, dirty liar.

Same with people like high fly, and a few other yellow-dog liberal types on this board.

I'm quite honestly convinced that if Bush singlehandedly found a cure for AIDs tomorrow, you'd be bitching that afternoon that he hasn't cured cancer yet.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I suggest you find one post in this entire forum in which I make a blanket statement against the entire Republican party or agenda. You won't find one because I don't resort to baseless and irrelevant blanket statements in an attempt to refute an argument.

On the contrary, I agree with some Republican initiatives and contrary to your implication above, I am quite capable of forming clear, concise, independant, and distinctive opinions on issues regardless of which political faction is espousing them.

However, it's easier for many Republicans to swallow your take on the matter instead of taking a step back and trying to evaluate what is being fed to them by our government and our media.




<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Yerdaddy]

But then again, you've had preconceived notions and beliefs about Bush from the start.

I mean, let's be honest here. YOU don't see how anyone could believe Bush, but then again you've NEVER supported him or "liked" him, so OF COURSE you can't believe anyone would believe he isn't an awful, dirty liar.

Same with people like high fly, and a few other yellow-dog liberal types on this board.

I'm quite honestly convinced that if Bush singlehandedly found a cure for AIDs tomorrow, you'd be bitching that afternoon that he hasn't cured cancer yet.
This from a guy who I don't think has ever posted any substantive information to support his blanket generalizations and two-bit opinions. Uncritical support for a president is as dangerous and undemocratic as blanket condemnation of one. Keep towing that ideological line and blaming others for doing the same. It really helps.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[IrishAlkey]

Yerdaddy is really workin' it for that blowjob.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee><font color=r

[shamus mcfitzy]

"No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime."


true dat. I actually did laugh out loud when reading that sentence.

[Yerdaddy]

Yerdaddy is really workin' it for that blowjob.
I can talk up the virtues of tax cuts to anyone who's slobbing my knob. Just thought I should let that be known.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[A.J.]

I can talk up the virtues of tax cuts to anyone who's slobbing my knob. Just thought I should let that be known.

Log Cabin Republicans (http://www.lcr.org/)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[Yerdaddy]

Log Cabin Republicans
Doh!

If Alkey's giving me bad advice on how to score with his chick then I probably will end up "heading for the cabin."

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Bergalad]

I suggest you find one post in this entire forum in which I make a blanket statement against the entire Republican party or agenda. You won't find one because I don't resort to baseless and irrelevant blanket statements in an attempt to refute an argument.
Alrighty...
Sadly, I am not as open as Mojo in my assesment. I think Bush and company are liars that had an agenda even before 9/11 happened. I believe that they used a combination of the truth, lies, exageration, fantasy and pulling at America's heartstrings to go to war to further their own gain.Link to "blanket statement". (http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=87&Topic=30582)Bolds added by me for emphasis.

Now, what were you saying?

[HBox]

"Bush and company" does not equal "entire Republican part or agenda."

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[silera]

You suck at reading comprehension.

I think Bush and company are liars is very specific to both the persons I was talking about and the issue we were discussing.

I did not say, Republicans are liars, and I do not, as you do, on a regular basis and consistently without respect for topics or the forum, confuse issues and dredge up non sensical responses.

I think that Bush and Co are lying about the events leading up to this incident and their reasons for it is in NO way a blanket statement.

I don't trust Bush is my personal opinion, that I have the mental ability to set aside when I need to recognize good things he has done as president.

When one of those good things comes to fruition, I'll be sure to sing his praises through the streets of Jerusalem.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[reeshy]

I think that we just got rid of 2 WMD's yesterday!!!


<IMG SRC=http://www.multcolib.org/webcamp/club/ke.jpg>

[Bergalad]

"Bush and company" does not equal "entire Republican party or agenda."
HBox, Bush is the head of the Republican Party. He sets the agenda. Just so you know.
You suck at reading comprehension.

No, you just don't type what you mean to say apparently.
I think Bush and company are liars is very specific to both the persons I was talking about and the issue we were discussing.
Grammatically, this sentance
I think Bush and company are liars that had an agenda even before 9/11 happened.
states that you think Bush and company are liars. Period. Then you go on about 911. Here's a little English Composition lesson for you. You could easily, and correctly, have said
I think Bush and company are liars; they had an agenda even before 9/11 happened.

See? The beauty of the semi-colon. You might not have desired your sentance to read that you thought they were liars, but that's how grammatically it is written out. The 9/11 stuff is extraneous to the liar part. Isn't English fun?!

[silera]

No, you just don't type what you mean to say apparently.


The obvious problem is that you choose to construe things as they suit you, and as I stated before, throw out blanket statements irrelevant to the discussion.

I win.




<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[HBox]

If we are going to get all super technical, here's the head of the Republican Party. (http://www.rnc.org/rncleadership/chair.htm) But what she clearly meant was that she was not happy with the current administration, and you are trying to say by doing that she is laying down a blanket statement against Republicans.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[travis151]

Honestly we all know Iraq did not have a nuclear bomb, but it could of had uranium. I mean it could be buried anywhere, same goes for the bio/chemical waepons. An few onces of antrax could wipe out thousands but could be hidden easily. Yes, it does suck that still Americans lifes are being lost, but this has saved thousands of Iraqis from death and torture. I trust our President for doing his job with the information that was given him, which I still believe will be found correct. Face it the world and the United States are safer now because of this war.

Red Sox=More Better

[IrishAlkey]

You convinced me.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee><font color=r

[high fly]

...you can't believe anyone would believe he isn't an awful, dirty liar.
Same with people like high fly

Wait just a minute here, buster. i posted a nice $election of, what, 8 or 10 clear lies by Bush in the "Bush's Chances For Reelection" thread.
Where were you to shoot-em down?
Hiding out in Nowhereville, that's where.
Wanna hear-em all over again? They show a pattern, and that's what's important [cuz after all, we all make misstatements occasionally - I think Bush used the term "misunderstandments" (snicker)].
Keep in mind that those are only a partial list.
The man just doesn't level with us, like he should.
That's one reason I supported John McCain in the last election.



" and they ask me why I drink"

[Se7en]

Wait just a minute here, buster. i posted a nice $election of, what, 8 or 10 clear lies by Bush in the "Bush's Chances For Reelection" thread.
Where were you to shoot-em down?
Hiding out in Nowhereville, that's where.

Well, I sincerely apologize.

I usually try to ignore most of your posts in order to maintain cerebral integrity.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[A.J.]

Liberia Tries to Buy Uranium, Bush Commits Troops

(2003-07-22) -- U.S. President George Bush today committed 10,000 soldiers and Marines to a U.N. peacekeeping force in Liberia. The decision came immediately after U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said that a British intelligence report indicates Liberia may have tried to buy uranium in Niger.

A statement from the President to the troops said: "If Liberian President Charles Taylor had done nothing worse than slaughter tens of thousands of his own people, violate U.N. resolutions and destabilize the region, the U.S. would stay out of it. But now that unconfirmed intelligence indicates they might have tried to buy yellowcake uranium, we must go in. That is the only reason we would ever invade another country."

To determine whether the troops will defend the Liberian government or the anti-government rebels, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will "toss a coin."

The 10,000 troops are part of the new U.S. quagmire force, or Q-Force.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[high fly]

Well I sincerely apologize

Apology accepted. It's evident you're sorry.

I usually try to ignore most of your posts in order to maintain cerebral integrity

Lightweight.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TooCute]

Grammatically, this sentance



I think Bush and company are liars that had an agenda even before 9/11 happened.


states that you think Bush and company are liars. Period. Then you go on about 911. Here's a little English Composition lesson for you. You could easily, and correctly, have said



I think Bush and company are liars; they had an agenda even before 9/11 happened.


See? The beauty of the semi-colon. You might not have desired your sentance to read that you thought they were liars, but that's how grammatically it is written out


Huh? You just said the same thing twice. I don't get it.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bergalad]

Huh? You just said the same thing twice. I don't get it.
Read carefully.

[TheMojoPin]

Berg just feels better when he thinks everyone else's posts are winking at him.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

It does tend to make me feel a little bit naughty...

[TheMojoPin]

My mouse is licking me and I didn't even ask it to.

SAUCY.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TooCute]

But I was under the impression that she meant that they were liars - not that they were liars because of their agenda.

Anyhow I'd worry much more about the spelling and grammar in this sentence:

You might not have desired your sentance to read that you thought they were liars, but that's how grammatically it is written out

;)

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bergalad]

Anyhow I'd worry much more about the spelling and grammar in this sentence
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get you worried at all. I'll stop. Hope you can sleep better now.

[high fly]

They are not liars THAT had an agenda, they are liars WHO had an agenda.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

They are not liars THAT had an agenda, they are liars WHO had an agenda.
Exactly...I guess.

[HBox]

I don't want any of you to be my English tutor.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TooCute]

I don't want any of you to be my English tutor

Don't worry. I'm American.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[JerryTaker]

They are not liars THAT had an agenda, they are liars WHO had an agenda.


What the holy flying fuck?

I'm glad we're having a mature discussion about the existance/non-existance of WMDs and the reasons behind the war...

This is the problem... Political arguments/discussions always tend to boil down to something stupid and semantic that have nothing to do with anything resembling the original topic

Which is why high paid politicians argue over whether a blowjob is "sex" and what the definition of "is" is... I'm still struggling to find a job and pay my rent and put food in my cupboard... and I'm one of the "lucky" ones who even has a cupboard.

The politicians, the so called "leaders" of this county have you all so brainwashed, that instead of questioning our country's leadership, asking where all the money is going, asking why our soldiers are dying so senslessly and needlessly... ou're debating the difference between "that" and "who"?

Ponderous.... Fucking ponderous... We might as well give up our autonomy right now.


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/snowsig.gif">

Even in death you still look sad.
Don't leave me! Dont leave me, here.

[high fly]

I'm still struggling to find a job and pay my rent and put food in my cupboard

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"-----President W, January 27, 2000
(tee hee hee!)

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Se7en]

The politicians, the so called "leaders" of this county have you all so brainwashed, that instead of questioning our country's leadership, asking where all the money is going, asking why our soldiers are dying so senslessly and needlessly... ou're debating the difference between "that" and "who"?

Well, thank GOD you're here to show us the error of our ways.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[JerryTaker]

Well, thank GOD you're here to show us the error of our ways.


It's a dirty job....

...and you're sure as shit not doing it, or much of anything else useful.

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/snowsig.gif">

Even in death you still look sad.
Don't leave me! Dont leave me, here.

[Bergalad]

I'm still struggling to find a job and pay my rent and put food in my cupboard......and you're sure as shit not doing it, or much of anything else useful.
Interesting. Weren't you talking about offing yourself in a thread a few weeks ago? Typical Democrat...all talk and no action hehe.

[high fly]

can we get back to the grammar lesson?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[JerryTaker]

Interesting. Weren't you talking about offing yourself in a thread a few weeks ago? Typical Democrat...all talk and no action hehe.


Typical Republican... Ignoring the real points of my post and focusing on personal attacks instead. I'm also not a Democrat. Pay attention!

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/snowsig.gif">

Even in death you still look sad.
Don't leave me! Dont leave me, here.

[TheMojoPin]

Dude, don't front.

We totally nominated you "Liberal of The Week" at the big national meeting that every liberal is required to attend and follow NO MATTER WHAT under the penalty of death.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[CruelCircus]

I knew it!

<br>
<img height=100 src="http://pw2.netcom.com/~jjmace/gifs/clowns.JPG"><br>
If the US Government decides to stick a tracking device up your ass,
you say "Thank you!", and "God Bless America!"
-Red Forman

[shamus mcfitzy]

HBox, Bush is the head of the Republican Party. He sets the agenda. Just so you know.

[shamus mcfitzy]

"Bush and company" does not equal "entire Republican party or agenda."

HBox, Bush is the head of the Republican Party. He sets the agenda. Just so you know.


so that's why the Republican party doesn't have a primary......they're completely unified. Bush is king.

This message was edited by shamus mcfitzy on 7-30-03 @ 4:57 PM

[Bergalad]

For the terminally retarded out there, the President is the head of his political party. Why is this so hard to understand? Here's a Presidential primer for you Presidential Primer (http://www.quinnell.us/politics/knowledge/president.htm).
Here's a line from it
State of the Union message: attempts to set public agenda for government
President is head of his political party You want to keep playing dumb, it's on you now.

[TheMojoPin]

I seriously live by this thing. It's like the size of friggin' phone book and about three times as smart as the Bible.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1578591392.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

Or check out Richard Neustadt's "Presidential Power".

Back to WMD: We found hidden Iraqi jets at least (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=23&u=/ap/20030801/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_air_force_2)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[Se7en]

Rockefeller is supposedly going to announce that he's found some evidence of WMD sometime soon.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[NewYorkDragons80]

You're poopheads. Every last one of you.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[TheMojoPin]

"ShutupshutshutupshutupSHUT UP!!!"

http://www.starwars-rpg.net/swfa/jmm/joe/mindbender.gif

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

On WMDs, a good book is Terrorism, Asymetric Warfare, and Weapons of Mass Destruction by Anthony Cordesman.
A bit dry, it's got all you want to know on the subject.

" and they ask me why I drink"