jazzer

According to Wikipedia seems he was a friend of Dubya: Al-Amoudi and other Muslim leaders met with then-presidential candidate George W. Bush in Austin in July 2000, offering to support his bid for the White House in exchange for Bush's commitment to repeal certain anti-terrorist laws.

So what's the problem? According to the article "condoms must always be cleared away, it must never take place in the neighbourhood of children's playgrounds and the sex must be restricted to the evening and night-time,"

Not surprised you'd belittle your namesake's committee. Isn't that the American way?

Funny how the 911 commission didn't link Saddam and Al Qaeda isn't it?

You seem to have a comprehension problem. I said I don't trust the pentagon. Saddam may or may not have supported terrorism, but there are too many conflicting sources to know for a certainty. And quite frankly, most international intelligence agencies bought into the WMD hoax and so suffer from credibility issues as well.

I don't trust the pentagon or GW Bush's administration to be conveyors of reliable or unfalsified information.

From the pentagon you say? That somehow gives this old chestnut credibility?

While there's no pressing need for a Muslim padre - there are only about 200 Muslims in the military - bringing Demiray in will make the Forces more inclusive, said Col. Stan Johnstone of the Chaplain-General's office from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...870/?hub=Canada. It's a little outdated, but the other link I provided said there were over 600 from muslim countries. I think one can reasonable assume some of them will be muslim.

Is is not enough these folks to willing join our armed forces? What the hell do you want besides your bigotry? You'd better get used to having the forces diversified as this article talks about: link And here's another one you can choke on: link

What about the 200 or so muslims in our Canadian army? Are they not fighting for you Argus?

I'd go easy on the Indian feather headresses there Argus. They are the first nations after all.

And changed his mind very quickly to drop Dion, Goodale and Ignatieff. Doesn't seem to confident of a case to me.

I love how Monty changes the subject so swiftly. Gee, what was that topic again? At least the conservatives are consistent; consistently shifting positions that is.

Does any of this ring a bell? The tape suggests Harper was not only aware of a financial offer to Cadman, but that he gave it the go-ahead, while urging party emissaries not to "press" Cadman too hard. link I suggest you quit skirting around the issue and hold Mr. accountability, Mr. transparancy responsible. He's the only one playing games here.

Fine. Then have Harper very simply explain why he offered financial considerations to a dying man's campaign.

Yep, so much for humanitarian causes and plus the fact that there is no oil in Danfur that I know of.

I don't know what I am, and according to spiritual writer Eckhart Tolle, that's where I should be.

And two went to jail. Next.

Not to mention the billion + spent in Afghanistan.

Yep, kinda makes the Quebec Lib's sponsorship deal look pretty tame.

So why don't these remaining "two guys" hold a press conference and tell us exactly what was said?

Please re-read post #134. Cadman said there were offers.

In a June 12, 2005, interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW, Cadman said the Tories did, in fact, make him financial offers days before the crucial vote. "There was certainly some, you know, some offers made and some things along those lines about not opposing me and helping out with the finances of the campaign and that sort of thing. But, again, you know, that's all part of the deal that goes on. It's what happens, especially in a minority situation," Cadman says. From http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...SYBtDST70o8W-3A Interesting indeed.

Yeah, unlike straight shooter Harper who enticed Emerson and Fortier on election day. Give me a break.

Well said.