"the former dictator of Iraq"? Saddam is the President of Iraq. He has declared this! He got 99.9% of the popular vote! The US occupation is illegal and his overthrow unjust! Allah will vindicate President Hussein. The infidels will burn in wrath...

"Handwriting experts link Saddam Hussein - the former dictator of Iraq, and the leader so many on the American left seem to feel preferable to the chaos of democracy for all those inconvenient brown people..."

If your blog's fans had any intelligence to insult, this sad little assertion would surely do the trick, Mitch. Administration yes-men like yourself didn't arrive at the heart-warming humanitarian justification for the war until the whole WMD and 9/11 ties failed to materialize.

Now you're all in favor of "brown people" (Greg, Colleen: bet you have some colorful names for them!) At least the ones who live on top of vast oilfields and on whose fate the historical reputation of your favorite President depends. Not so much the ones who live in Haiti or Somalia, though, huh?

"If the law is against you, argue facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both are against you, argue like hell."

Hmmmmmm Page 3, section IV, Item (b) of the Rovian Handbook *laughing* How ironic!

Flash

AC:

Untrue. In his speech to Congress (among many others) seeking congressional authorization for the invasion, he did indeed cite four reasons, the same four that I've cited consistently in this blog.

Your statement would be better put "the opposition didn't stop considering all four justifications for the war until the WMDs that even Bill Clinton believed to be in Iraq didn't materialize".

That neocon tool the New Yorker even noted the Administration's four-pronged push, in the months leading up to the war.

That dog don't hunt, Clown.

John F. Kerry believed in the WMD story too. (before he disbelieved it)

Mitch said: "That dog don't hunt, Clown."

Neither does Cheney. Anymore.

I love the argument that Democrats believed in the MWD issues also, so that absolves Bush from any blame. They are all responsible for making that poor decision, but the buck has to stop at the President doesn't it?

I know we have been over this before, but to believe that we went to Iraq for humanitarian purposes is laughable. Sure it was used as one of fours justifications, but when has US policy been so concerned about humanitarian issues before? Oh that's right, only when the country in which the abuse is happening has some sort of political value to the US.

Tell the men and women fighting there that they are there for humanitarian concerns....oh wait they won't believe you b/c a majority of them think we are there b/c of Saddam's role in 9/11.

Fulcrum

"I love the argument that Democrats believed in the MWD issues also"

The MWD issues? Oh Lord.

"Tell the men and women fighting there that they are there for humanitarian concerns....oh wait they won't believe you b/c a majority of them think we are there b/c of Saddam's role in 9/11."

No they don't, you twit. Explain why re-enlistment is so very, very high right now? The men and women fighting there actually know what the situation is unlike you. Play that stupid Saddam, 9/11, soldier meme all you want, the only people who believe are not in the military. Insolent whelp.

"Explain why re-enlistment is so very, very high right now"

Is that right? I'd actually heard some things to the contrary - that re-enlistment was significantly down from pre-2003 levels, unless you counted involuntary re-ups where the individuals were kept in the service beyond the original promised date. I'd be interested to see numbers that indicate otherwise.

(I'd heard that new enlistment was down significantly as well, but that isn't really related to this issue.)

"to believe that we went to Iraq for humanitarian purposes is laughable."

Sure would be - if it weren't a strawman.

There were - as stated in Bush's speech to Congress, and noted in that (again) neocon tool New Yorker magazine - four reasons for going into Iraq: WMD, humanitarian reasons, repeated defiance of UN resolutions, and support for terrorism. The first, given what we knew at the time, was valid; the other three still are. The administration focused on WMD because, duh, WMD can kill us here in the US (especially combined with terrorist links). The left/media (pardon the redundancy) focus on WMD and ignore the other three, because it suits them (and because, as noted in "Berg's Law" three years ago, to address more than one of the reasons simultaneously renders their argument untenable).

"Is that right? I'd actually heard some things to the contrary - that re-enlistment was significantly down from pre-2003 levels, unless you counted involuntary re-ups where the individuals were kept in the service beyond the original promised date. I'd be interested to see numbers that indicate otherwise."

As of the last quarter, enlistment is at plan and re-enlistment is over plan.

Sorry, Beeee j,

4/9/2006
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.

The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.

Mitch fantasized: "support for terrorism"

Oh right, didn't Cheney's people discover compelling evidence that Mohammed Atta and Saddam's intelligence chief shared a honeymoon suite in the Poconos?

Killing people is apparently more fun than you'd think, Beeeej.

Go to hell, angryclown...you're the most bigoted person to post on this blog.

"Killing people is apparently more fun than you'd think, Beeeej."

Real classy AC. Spit on any returning veterans lately?

I resent that Colleen now get back to your trailer and get to work making babies like a good woman should.

There. Now can I have my distinction back from AC?

Mitch said,

"Handwriting experts link Saddam Hussein - the former dictator of Iraq, and the leader so many on the American left seem to feel preferable to the chaos of democracy for all those inconvenient brown people - to Dujail death warrants:"

And the really weird thing is the found the pen he used. It had G.D. Searle & Company Pharmaceuticals imprinted on the side.

To provide Kermit information for my claim, and I would appreciate it if you did not find the need to personally attack me when I did not attack you.

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”:

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

I know polls can be skewed, specially runs run by Zogby and Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, but that is an overwhelming percentage. Nonetheless, this isn't the first time I have heard that the soldiers in Iraq believe we are there in direct retaliation against Saddam for his role in 9/11.

This was the information i was referencing in my previous posts.

Also, not sure how to find the data quickly, but I would be interested to see the changes in "enlistment and re-enlistment goals." My guess is that they significantly lowered their goals in recent years to make the appearance that there is a healthy interest in joining the military.

Fulcrum

What the wingnuts don't tell you, Fulcrum, is that while soldiers are reupping at expected levels, enlistments are way down.

"Sorry, Beeeej"

No need to apologize. I prefer a strong military to the alternative. I may not agree with our having started the current war in Iraq, but the last thing I want is for enlistment and/or reenlistment to be down because of it.

I still have to admit to some skepticism about the numbers and the terminology, though, so it's my turn to apologize, but I've gotta ask: Does "reenlistment" as defined by those compiling the statistics definitely NOT include the involuntary re-ups?

"I know polls can be skewed, specially runs run by Zogby and Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, but ..."

You could have just left it at but. That poll was worth the last kleenex I used.

If your interested in finding out why the US went to war in Iraq, go to the source:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
This is the joint resolution that so many of our democratic friends voted for and say they wish they hadn't. This is the joint res. that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller voted for.

Kermit..polls can be skewed, but did they skew the results this much? 85% of 944?

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

You easily dismiss what you don't want to believe, but if you have other sources that contradict this please provide links to that information, otherwise you are simply wrong about this issue.

And to respond to terry, the administration did have this 4 pronged reasoning to go to war. That has been well documented by yourself and Mitch. But to believe that the main reason we went there was for humanitarian concerns, IMO, is laughable. If you were to apply percentages to weight the reasoning, I am guessing humanitarian concerns garners less than 5%.

Fulcrum

Fulcrum said: "Kermit..polls can be skewed, but did they skew the results this much? 85% of 944?"

Yes, Fulcrum, they can.

Ever notice that Zogby never publishes the questions asked in these polls, hiding behind the shield of "security?" He could publish the list of queries without revealing a single personal detail about the poll respondents. Why doesn't he? Do I need to answer that question?

This kind of tomfoolery is rampant in mainstream press polls; queries can be written to elicit any result you desire. This is why I don't put much stock into any that publish results without the questions asked in the poll listed...and why Kermit used such a colorful description as to their worth.

I'm not holding my breath for poll questions to be released, since Zogby hjas moved from impartial observer to left-wing political hack over the last ten years.

Hello, good site, very interesting and professional!
Look this:
http://las-vegas-travel.v56.be/
http://ip-online.v56.be/
http://heatrae.v56.be/
http://actors.v56.be/
http://parchment-background.v56.be/
http://cheap-power.v56.be/
http://air-fare.v56.be/

Best regards.

get your voyeur masturbation at http://wildriverauctions.com/masturbation.html voyeur masturbation [url=http://wildriverauctions.com/masturbation.html]voyeur masturbation[/url] [url]http://wildriverauctions.com/masturbation.html[/url] 9F7DAB30DD0B2B998984B82F393D1231B29C5963

world record anal gang bang gang bang party sex

world record anal gang bang gang bang party sex

world record anal gang bang gang bang party sex

incest psychology cartoon incest

bdsm adult jobs bdsm games

free pics of hairy pussy hairy twats

free pics of hairy pussy hairy twats

sexy lesbian latin teens latin man nude