Shady

Yeah, that was a bad one. Let's not forget about the flashing X over VP Cheney a couple of weeks ago on CNN. Apparently is was just a "malfunction". Sort of like the one Janet Jackson had I guess.

First of all, you're the king of red herring's and strawmen. Second of all, we're just comparing quagmires, that's all. We're just trying to figure out which Christmas Bill Clinton was talking about when he said the troops would be home by Christmas. I was also kind of hoping for an exit strategy as well, maybe even a detailed time table of troop withdrawal. But it's been what. 10, 11, 12 years, so who really knows?

No he isn't. In the United States a President can only serve for two terms.

Well, it took a while, but you finally admitted the truth. Better late then never. The belief was Iraq possessed illegal weapons, but the differences were over the solutions, inspections vs force. Some people favoured infinite inspections and infinite sanctions. Some people favoured inspections, and then the removal of all sanctions if Iraq was deemed "clean". Others favoured Saddam's removal from power. Now that you've admitted this fact, I"d like you to please correct, for the record, your mis-statements in this thread and other threads. Thank you. Yes I did. Did you read it? Carefully? Can you read that please? It says that this "senior intelligence official" is not aware, not aware, not aware, not aware. Not aware doesn't mean there wasn't detailed information. If he doesn't know, then surely you have no knowledge of this either. So again, how do you know there wasn't detailed intelligence? I'll answer for you. You don't.

Wow, so your reply to all of the facts laid out in the last several posts is to ignore them completely, and call someone sick and to seek psychiatric help? That's some weak shit. Let me guess though, in person, you'd probably be throwing food like the rest of them, right? Stop posting, you've already been deemed useless.

Maybe he meant Christmas of 2020?

Oh the delicious dodging. Why does it not suprise my that you skip over the oreo cookie throwing incident and head straight for the more "important" issue! That fact is, that anyone of the liberals that participated in oreo cookie throwing incident directed at the LT-governor of Maryland for being a black Republican are assholes. Plain and simple.

They're all hate-filled hypocrites. These are the same people who throw oreo cookies at the LT-Governor of Maryland who's black, because he's a Republican running for the Senate. To sum it up, they're all a bunch of assholes!

They're all hate-filled hypocrites. These are the same people who throw oreo cookies at the LT-Governor of Maryland who's black, because he's a Republican running for the Senate. To sum it up, they're all a bunch of assholes!

Exactly. But Christmas isn't just celebrated as a religious holiday by religious people. Also, it's recognized as a NATIONAL holiday, so it's ridiculous that decorations related to said recognized NATIONAL holiday have to be called something different.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "Christian States of America". However, I'm glad you agree that a Christmas tree isn't a religious symbol. You're making progress. As for Iraq, it's a fact that the vast majority of Iraqi's initially viewed and greeted American troops as liberaters. It's even stated in your year and half old survey. Greeting takes place at the beginning of something. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. From your year and a half old survey:

Another thing House Democrats should be embarassed over. This is what liberalism has brought us! We can't even call a freaking Christmas tree a Christmas tree anymore. Look at this people! Especially the liberals. This is what you've become. Take a good hard look in the mirror. Hastert Wants 'Christmas,' Tree Together Link Enough is enough. If you people don't like Christmas, fine, don't celebrate. But don't think you people can ruin the good times of everyone else. Well, the toppling of Saddam's regime was quick and relatively bloodless. I don't think any serious military leader ever said it would be "bloodless". Afterall, war is never bloodless. However, the post-regime era obviously has not been bloodless, but when put into perspective, which the left seems to have lost, has been relatively minimal. And it's a fact that 80% of Iraqi's have welcomed U.S. troops. Yes, the 20% nazi like population that benefited from Saddam's torturous rule has not been very receptive. Oh well. We'll see how far that gets them. Of course, they've been getting aid from the American left as well as the American and World media for quite a while now. It'd be interesting to see how they'd be doing without all the help. I'm sure people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi must laugh his head off at the way the left is pretty much doing his work for him. I'm sure he could probably sit back and let the left take care of getting the evil infidel American's out of Iraq. It'll probably save him a lot of time and effort, and probably blood.

Here's a great piece that's been circulating. Spread the word and combat the liars and hypocrites. They need to be confronted and denounced! Things that make you think a little: There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq. When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following: a. FDR led us into World War II. b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. >From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year. c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.. >From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year. d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost .. an average of 5,800 per year. f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.. We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts But Wait . There's more! JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13 Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military. Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?" Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank." "I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job? What about you?" For those who don't remember .. During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he's a Senator!

Well of course there can't be an immediate pull out. You can't instantaneously remove 150,000 soldiers + equipment from their theater of operation. But we all know what they mean. Start removing people immediately, so that everyone can be gone as soon as possible. Which would be a horrible mistake. But apparently, that doesn't matter.

Dear fleabag, all I did was post the title of the article. However, it certainly speaks volumes that terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah are offering there support and aid in distributing Michael Moore's work. Don't you think?

Easy. Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah Guardian

Please stop trying to re-write history. The debate in the United Nations wasn't whether Iraq possessed illegal weapons, it was over how to handle the situation, via the inspection process or force. All major intelligence agencies assumed that Iraq possessed such weapons, that wasn't the contentious issue. Oh, and I've read the Downing Street Memo, some really interested information, like the British being very worried about Iraq using chemical or biological weapons in the event of an invasion. LOL, that's a clever way of ducking the issue, but it ain't gonna fly. The Washington Post story, in which you have absolutely no explanation for, is anything but a "red herring". It demonsrates the Administrations (Bush and Clinton) claim that Iraq was a threat, and that Iraq had connections to terrorism. And how the hell do you know whether or not Putin's information detailed any specific threat? Seriously? Where you in the room? Are you a part of Russia's intelligence gathering apparatus? How the hell do you get away with a statement like that? I'm sick of you people speaking as though you have access to all classified information, and as though your all the heads of your own intelligence agency. Pathetic.

You're being disingenuis. You know for a fact that all major intelligence services believed that Iraq possessed illegal weapons and was pursuing such weapons. At the very least they had some intelligence to back up that claim. But let's talk about Russia shall we? Since you brought them up. Explain this Black Dog. Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says Washington Post

Just a little sample: ALBRIGHT (February 18, 1998): Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. BILL CLINTON (February 17, 1998): Or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made. DEAN (January 31, 1998): Iraq is an international outlaw. I'm not sure China is one, but I'm quite sure Iran and Iraq are. SANDY BERGER (February 18, 1998): He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983. PELOSI (November 17, 2002): Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no question about that. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember, we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. BIDEN (August 4, 2002): We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There is a real debate how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years, or whether it's a matter of less than that. And so there's much we don't know. REID (September 18, 2002): Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion. TIM RUSSERT (September 15, 2002): Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change? HILLARY: I doubt it. I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security. JOHN EDWARDS (January 7, 2003): Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. BAYH (March 17, 2003) : Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So, regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to -- but to take action. THE PRESIDENT: (November 11th, 2005) When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.

Actually, it doesn't. FACT STOP LYING!

The blood will be on the hands of the cowards who want an immediate pull-out from Iraq, just as the blood is on the same type of people who fought for the kind of pull-out we saw in Vietnam, and what happened? 2 million people slaughtered.

Wrong. The left's hero Cindy Sheehan believes in an immediate troop withdrawal, and we all know how much the kook-left supports her.

Iraq withdrawal handily defeated CNN They like to talk the talk, but when it comes to actually voting the way they supposedly feel, they fold like a house of cards.

Actually, he does lie. If you've seen his "documentary", Fairenheit 9/11, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. When the real truth is as follows: Link

Your point being what? That I can't compliment the troops without serving? Huh?