>>>"It is also used ironically to describe a person who is simple-minded: "He/she's not a rocket scientist.""<<<


Haven't kept up lately. Care to share some of RR's contributions that have elevated him to immunity from old fashioned rocket scientist mockery? Last I heard he's simple minded and anti scientist.

>>>"I haven't focused very much on Iraq" -Sarah Palin.<<<


Great. John..."I'll rather lose the election than the war"... McCain picks a VP who's brushed the war aside as something not worth focusing on.

Going by the average life expectancy for american males, McCain has 3 years left to live so let's hope she starts focusing now in case they do win, especially since she'll have a son there next year. What a joke....

>>>Sarah Palin has been in office lightly more than one year.<<<


Check this out. So much for picking running mates you know well and know you get along with.


John McCain first met Sarah Palin only six months ago and had just one conversation with the Alaska governor before offering her the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket, the Arizona senator's campaign said Friday.

The move appears to be a marked departure for McCain — a man known for his tendency to surround himself with a close circle of advisers and politicians he has long felt comfortable with.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Looks like another Harriet Myers moment. Find a female and don't worry about credentials!!

>>>and She has more then O & B put together,<<<


I know that's the official talking point but nobody seems able to explain how and why. Why don't you explain it?

>>>The key word is "executive"<<<


And......?

>>>with more executive experience the the other 2 but together<<<


Who's this you're talking about now? Palin with 18 months as Alaska governor vs. Joe Biden's 35 years as Delaware senator and Obama's 11 years as state legislator and IL senator?

>>>No excuse for the cop pushing him into traffic.....<<<


I agree......it looks bad. But didn't he try to keep the guy from getting arrested, and he did walk into traffic with him as he was pushing him away from where he got into trouble in the first place.

With bits and pieces here and there I'm not sure what to think. The inferior complex cop with the cigar makes the whole operation look suspect while at the same time you'd think ABC (and other networks) would have made a bigger deal out of this if a reporter got arrested for doing nothing more than standing on a public sidewalk taking notes.

What i wanna know is:


1. Is the sidewalk where he hung out private or public? There's no agreement on this in the reports.
2. What was he doing before the video started? Listening to the conversation it sounds like it's a continuation of something rather than the beginning.

>>>Yep, according to the liberals relative morality, thuggish behavior is OK if it's used against anyone trying to question actions of the left<<<


Should I bother searching for posts of yours reacting with the same outrage when these stories were reported? This is just skimming the surface btw......


A couple arrested at a rally after refusing to cover T-shirts that bore anti-President Bush slogans settled their lawsuit against the federal government for $80,000, the American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday.

Nicole and Jeffery Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas, were handcuffed and removed from the July 4, 2004, rally at the state Capitol, where Bush gave a speech. A judge dismissed trespassing charges against them, and an order closing the case was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Charleston.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/17/couple-arrested-for-weari_n_60896.html



WASHINGTON — A federal court ruled yesterday that the District of Columbia had unlawfully arrested about 70 people during an anti-war and anti-Bush protest march on Inauguration Day 2005. The arrestees are now entitled to a trial to determine the amount of the District's monetary liability to them.

http://www.privacydigest.com/2008/06/22/federal+court+rules+d+c+police+unlawfully+arrested+anti+bush+protesters+inauguration+day



"Woman arrested at McCain event for "McCain=Bush" sign"

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/07/woman-arrested.html



CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) — When school was canceled to accommodate a campaign visit by President Bush, the two 55-year-old teachers reckoned the time was ripe to voice their simmering discontent with the administration's policies.
Christine Nelson showed up at the Cedar Rapids rally with a Kerry-Edwards button pinned on her T-shirt; Alice McCabe clutched a small, paper sign stating "No More War." What could be more American, they thought, than mixing a little dissent with the bunting and buzz of a get-out-the-vote rally headlined by the president?

Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-23-bush-protesters_x.htm

>>>You're bias is showing<<<


I can say the exact same thing about you. All you care is to pin this on the political opposition......circumstances be damned. At least I'm looking at the possibility of this being a routine arrest of a reporter blocking the entrance to a private establishment after being warned a number of times.

IF he was arrested for simply reporting on the Obama campaign then that's bad news for the democracy (what's left of it). Just don't think there are enough details in the report to draw that conclusion.

So was he arrested for reporting on the Obama campaign or was he arrested after he "was advised numerous times by the police before he was apprehended to stop blocking the sidewalk and entryway to the hotel?"


"Jamie Glennon, a spokeswoman for Denver's Joint Information Center, said Eslocker "was advised numerous times by the police before he was apprehended to stop blocking the sidewalk and entryway to the hotel."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/27/abc_new_producer_arrested.html

>>>Letme guess and say this doesn't bother you at all<<<

And let me say that you're guessing wrong. Bothers the hell out of me if true. Smells like there may be more to the story though. Usually is in cases like this. Btw......I know you hate to reveal your sources but a link to the piece would be nice.

>>>I am simply looking at the data.<<<


Everything is relative I guess. Look at the first vote on the vote ratings page: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm

"Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. January 18. (27-71) C-1"


Clinton "NO", Obama "YES". Could explain why republicans represent a shrinking minority in both houses. Cleaning up sleaze, corruption and crime in congress is now thought of as a liberal initiative.

>>>Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007<<<


Just curious......how's that quantified? What's considered a "liberal" vote in the senate? Anything Bush republicans vote against?

Considering the definition of "liberal", why is someone with a liberal voting record considered bad for most americans? Ideas for progress is bad? Openness to new ideas is bad? A broad-minded vision and tolerance for others is bad? Bigotry is good? A know a lot of republicans that are liberals by these definitions. They've been frozen out of the party for all practical purposes but they're still out there.


lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl)
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_declassified_landing.htm

>>>Please provide a link to anyone who has gone through that process because they made a political ad that the Bushes didn't like<<<


Hasn't happened as far as I know. Point was that neither Obama, Clinton or any other politician for that matter owns the franchise on abuse of power. Moreover, what unbelievable hypocrisy for someone who's been supporting Bush's policies including the treasonous outing of Plame to whine about ham handed tactics. Get a hold of yourself.

Worst case scenario here is a due process investigation.

Worst case scenario if you turn on the Bush administration is that Bush himself declares you an enemy combatant and dumps you in a military stockade with no access to counsel and no time limit on your sentence. Or he can accuse you of any other terrorist related crime, deny you the opportunity to find out what you're accused of since he's abolished Habeas Corpus and you may end up in the same military stockade just the same. Like that better?

>>>actually, possibly, it can go into the millions of civilians<<<


care to elaborate?

>>>Your digging way to deep...I see it as a common courtesy<<<


It's obviously much deeper than just common courtesy since it's been at the forefront of delegitimizing a presidential candidate.

Just sayin'............many of those who say Obama's National Anthem flop should disqualify him have not just overlooked but cheered on unpatriotic behavior on a whole different scale within their own party. Makes all the outrage ring a bit hollow.....that's all.

>>>Putting your hand over your heart when observing the National Anthem in the presence of the flag shouldnt even be a topic of discussion...It should just be done.<<<


I don't disagree with that but it's still no more than a gesture. How you actually behave as a citizen carries more weight than gestures imo. George Bush ordered 150,000 US troops to a war he and Cheney spent a year and half making up excuses to fight, knowing full well there was no legitimate national security reason to fight it. They also uncovered a covert CIA agent in a tit for tat political game and turned the justice department into a republican goon apparatus.

Assuming both Bush and Cheney put their hands where they belong during the National Anthem, are they more patriotic than Obama in your opinion? And since McCain campaigned hard for Bush in 2004 - aware of his tactics and the bogus war - does that make McCain more patriotic than Obama?

>>>IN ESSENCE THEY DID PROVE THAT SHE WASN"T COVERT AND THAT SHE WAS OUTED<<<


Why are you screaming? Out of frustration that you still don't get it? If Plame wasn't covert in the first place, why didn't they ask george Tenet to confirm that?


>>>HOW COULD THEY "PROVE" IT W/O A TRIAL??? HOW EXACTLY COULD THEY HAVE PROVED IT BEFORE TRIAL?<<<

See above. If Tenet had produced evidence that Plame was NOT covert at the time of the outing there would have been no violation of the statute and no need for a trial. I have explained this to you THREE TIMES now. Instead, the Bush WH allowed the trial to go forward, allowed Libby to perjure himself 5 times which got him a 30 month prison sentence (commuted), a $250,000 fine, 2 years probation and a lost law license.

Since you're having so much trouble I'll answer for you. The reason Bush didn't ask Tenet to confirm that Plame wasn't covert was because he couldn't. Tenet's CIA was the agency that asked the justice department to investigate the outing of one of their agents to begin with. Why did they ask for that? It's not illegal to reveal the identity of a non-covert CIA employee.


On September 26, 2003, at the request of the CIA, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation

>>>And he shows our country no respect.<<<


Have no idea why he did that but I give him the benefit of the doubt even though I'm not a big fan. Looks like he's spent most of his life in public service of some capacity and/or doing volunteer work. Typically not what citizens disrespectful of their country choose to do with their time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama


The patriotism stuff is getting out of hand during these election campaigns imo. Seems like the debate over who's more patriotic takes up as much time as all other issues combined. Why would they run in the first place if they lacked respect for the country? If your patriotism fell short, would you volunteer for a 4-year, 16-18 hr/day, 7 days a week job that pays $400K and forces you to fake your patriotism in front of TV cameras and reporters on a daily basis?

Did some travel overseas this summer and this exact topic came up. I was asked why we spend so much time discussing this every four years. Must be an American phenomena or maybe a GOP/Karl Rove initiative. Was this ever discussed prior to Bill Clinton entering the picture?

>>>Ummm, Libby was convicted of perjury. not under the FISA law statute for outing<<<


You're acting so frickin stupid the sensible thing to do would be to ignore you. Who cares what he was convicted of? The point I'm trying to get across to you is that if the Bush WH could have proved what you insist on - that Plame was not covert at the time of the outing - there wouldn't have been a Grand Jury investigation, there wouldn't have been a Libby trial and there wouldn't have been 3 years of embarrassing coverage. Understand?

So I ask you again: Why didn't they prove it? Why didn't Bush trot out best buddy George Tenet to confirm there was no outing and therefore there was no need for an investigation? Would have solved all of Bush's and Cheney's problems on the spot and embarrassed a lot of people they like to embarrass. It's a simple question so how about a simple answer without your usual squirming and detours to nowhere?

PS. FISA has nothing to do with this. The outing was a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

>>>The point is it's not a lie- he probably believes it, but it's not fact. It will never be proven that Plame was a covert agent. Fitz was simply expressing his opinion.<<<


Kind of like you then. Just say things that make no sense but you say it anyway because that's what you want it to be? And you want it so badly you actually believe it. It would explain how you can sit there and type garbage with no shame.

Seriously.....Libby lost his law license over this and almost went to jail. The Bush WH - typically not shy when it comes to protecting its turf - sat idly by and let the prosecution go forward knowing it was based on false premises? Imagine the trouble they could have avoided had they called Fitz's bluff. So why didn't they?

Oh.......and CIA director Hayden is delusional too?


From the beginning of the scandal around the outing of the CIA secret agent Valerie Plame by top White House officials, Bush’s spinners and GOP operatives have worked as hard as they could to create confusion about Wilson’s status as a covert agent. The desperation with which they have tried to muddy the waters about Wilson’s undercover status is a clue to how dangerous they consider this piece of information to be.

When Valerie Wilson testified before a House committee in March, she said, under oath, that she was covert. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-West Hollywood) also read a statement from Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, that stated that Wilson was covert at the time she was outed. And yet, the White House and GOP operatives have continued to lie about Wilson’s status.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/05/30/its-official-plame-was-covert-and-iipa-law-was-broken/

>>>Fitz wasn't on tirqal and any statement he made was just his opinion and he would never be subject to perjury.<<<


You're saying a prosecutor can lie in court without consequence to create a crime that doesn't exist? In this case.......he would have lied about Plame's covert status to create the crime he was prosecuting? Wouldn't one of Bush's best buddies George Tenet have had something to say about that had it been the lie you say it was?


Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has been disbarred after being found guilty of a battery of ethics violations for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse investigation, a North Carolina Bar disciplinary committee announced Saturday evening.

The bar's three-member disciplinary panel unanimously found Nifong guilty of fraud, dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation; of making false statements of material fact before a judge; of making false statements of material fact before bar investigators, and of lying about withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, among other violations.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3285862


"The Arizona Supreme Court on Friday disbarred a former Pima County prosecutor, siding with a commission that found he had violated ethics rules by knowingly eliciting false testimony in a capital murder case.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/peasley.htm



Death Penalty Prosecutor Disbarred for Perjury

In a highly unusual decision, set forth in a 45-page unanimous opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a recommendation for disbarment of the state's most "successful" capital homicide prosecutor for suborning and exploiting known perjury.

"A prosecutor who deliberately presents false testimony, especially in a capital case, has caused incalculable injury to the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/05/29/096/53122

>>>Uninformed voters who can be easily scared is not a good sign for this country's future.<<<


Hi peg. Here's all we need to know on that subject. 81% think the country is on the wrong track and still about 50% stand ready to vote for McCain. Which means 30% of americans think a senator who's been voting with Bush 95% of the time will get us off that wrong track he's been supporting for 8 years. Makes sense?


April 3, 2008
CBS Poll: 81% Say U.S. On Wrong Track

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/opinion/polls/main3992628.shtml

>>>What's funnierest is that you still continue to believe that she as in danger or actually working undercover<<<


Let's end this once and for all ok? Just lay it out for me and others as concisely as you're capable why we should take your word over the word of the federal prosecutor in charge of the case.

For 5 years now, like a retard, you've insisted Fitzgerald is lying about Plame being a covert agent and we should listen to you instead. Isn't a federal prosecutor subject to perjury like all others involved in the process? I think so. Which means, with your conviction you should be able to send him in jail instead of the national heroes who exposed a CIA agent involved in covert operations essential and critical in the war on terror. Man you're screwed up....


WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

>>>Hey, looks like the Plame civil suit got laughed out of court<<<


Good to see you're still wrong by default. Saves time. The suit wasn't laughed out of court. It was actually well received but as expected, a libel suit against a sitting president and his staff won't go far due to inherent immunity. You think this was news worthy?


"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

The judge said that such efforts are a natural part of the officials' job duties, and, thus, they are immune from liability.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901395.html

>>>I really dont think he keeps track...Many of those homes are in a trust in cindy's kids names.<<<


Still......why such a retarded answer? Just reinforces the impression that he's the natural extension of Bush. Clueless and helpless. All he had to spit out was the obvious truth and this would have been much less of a story: "Heck I'm not sure. Cindy handles our investments. I know we have a number of them, 5, 6 or 7 but I want to be sure so please let me check."

Not that it will matter though. Looks like it will be another election about national security and with about half the country being single issue, national security voters he can blather away all he wants and still hold his own just being a republican.

>>>can you say "appeasement" -- bottom line follows<<<


You too...huh? What's the deal with RW's and the definition of appeasement? Except that you're clueless about what it means...

>>>big bucks to whistle blowers disclosing US firms doing business with Iran in volition of UN sanctions<<<


So I'm sure it wasn't lost on you that Cheney's HAL had to be dragged kicking and screaming from Iran and still try to weasel their way back in?


"DUBAI, Jan 30 (Reuters) - Oilfield services company Halliburton Co (HAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) has brushed aside claims the decision to set up a second headquarters in Dubai was aimed at evading U.S. sanctions to resume operations in Iran.

The Dubai move sparked controversy among U.S. politicians last March. Senator Frank Lautenberg at the time accused Halliburton of going "to extraordinary lengths in the past to do business with the terrorist government in Iran".

"The company's odd announcement this week certainly sets off alarm bells about its intention to do business with state sponsors of terrorism," he said in a statement at the time."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL3046140020080130

>>>kind of a K-Mart version of Bill Kristol<<<


Or a message board version of Kevin James. This Hardball interview sums up what the whole RW movement is about. Robots, programmed to repeat a limited amount of words and phrases at high volume. Ask for elaboration and fuses start blowing.

>>>Who is our enemy? Don't we talk to them? Are not China, Pakistan, and Russia terrorist states? Even the stupidest gang banger in LA has high level talks with their enemies or takes them out before they reach parity or near parity in weapons strength. It is truely a sad day when Bush and McCain are this stupid and think that the American people are even more stupid than they are.<<<


Have you met rollingrock, razorback, ieddy and extel? They'll call you stupid for saying that. And given the fact that McCain gets just shy of 50% in the polls, Bush and McCain look like they have a better handle on the issue of american stupidity than we do.

>>>When I question Israeli policy I hate Jews...<<<


And you're also un-american, unpatriotic, pro-hamas and probably a communist. So just repent and look at Israel the way it was meant to be looked at......like apple pie and baseball. No need to be analytical about it and ruin a good thing.

>>>never would have thought you would have that perspective you have living in that part of the country<<<


As if you'd be the authority on perspective. I doubt you'd be able to develop any no matter what part of the country you lived in. Report back when you get caught up on the hundreds of posts you've ignored regarding YOUR perspective......or mostly your lack thereof.

Good place to start right here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28970749

>>>You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.<<<


First off, none of what you posted has anything to do with Abraham Lincoln (see below). Further....why is nuance such an impossible thing to deal with for rightwingers? Real republicans don't seem to have a problem with it but for RW's, it's always one extreme or the other. "Leave Warren Buffet's and Bill Gates' taxes alone or they will be destroyed". And you make these arguments in the face of these "rich" practically begging in public to stop cutting their taxes as they don't need the cuts, nor do they want them. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/103107M.shtml

Do you actually believe that skimming a small percentage off the top of the extreme peak and passing that on as a cut to the lowly consumer would be destructive? Give a $2,000 tax cut to 50,000 West Virginian low to middle income wage earners and I bet at least 10,000 flat screen TV's would be bought. Give the same $100 mil. brake to Gates or Buffet and the net effect is what? A tabloid headline pointing out who is richer than the other?


"Tom Cecil called and asked me about using the "Cannots." This sparked an idea. Over the years other Lincoln Presenters have used these "Cannots," really thinking that Lincoln said them. He did not, even though they are attributed to him." I thought the Web Site could warn the Lincoln Presenters before some "wise" newspaper reporter trips them up. When President Reagan used them, various Lincoln Scholars pointed out his error. The "Sound advise from Abraham Lincoln" was not written by Abraham Lincoln. They were written by Rev. Boetscher about 75 years ago and passed off as Lincoln sayings. They do sound a bit like Lincoln's sayings, and they really expressed some of Lincoln's own sentiments. But they are not by Abraham Lincoln, and are not authentic. You can fool some people all of the time, but let us not fooled by the 9 "Cannots" of Rev. Boetscher.

"The 10 Cannots"
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Written by Rev. Boetscher"

http://www.lincolnpresenters.com/ALPNews.htm

>>>It really doesn't matter. You obviously don't understand what the war against radical Islam is about and support the moonbat liberals that want America to lose. What's up with that?<<<


Like I've said, something isn't right about you. If you're a troll you're pretty good but consider yourself unmasked. If you're not a troll you're in my opinion the dumbest poster on this board and a disgrace to the right wing community.....what little is left of it and what little pride they ever possessed. Which is probably why they haven't politely asked you to shut the f#*k up. Enough rats are jumping where even losers are asked to hang around.

If you consider yourself neither of the above, would you consider this?

"Better than a hundred years of ignorance Is one day spent in reflection"

>>>I don't know what to say. You don't even understand
your own post! The President probably didn't want the inspectors killed since Hussien wasn't letting them do their job.<<<


Should have quit while you were ahead which was at the punctuation of...."I don't know what to say".

Two days ago you said: "Saddam Hussein....refused to let UN inspectors in". Today, in response to my question of how Bush could have ordered UN inspectors to leave if they hadn't arrived in the first place you answer: "The President probably didn't want the inspectors killed...".....??? No inconsistency there near as you can tell? Like.....why would "The president" be concerned about the wellbeing of UN inspectors that weren't allowed in to begin with? How do you explain it to yourself? Did a battalion of UN inspectors invade Iraq before US troops did???

Sure is unusual to see someone dig a hole as deep as yours and even more unusual is the lack of deterrent by the increasing darkness. I'd be dumbfounded if it wasn't for the fact that you still refer to the commander guy as "The President". Speaks volumes...


"WASHINGTON, May 1 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush hit a milestone Thursday with a CNN poll giving him the highest disapproval rating of any U.S. president since World War II.

Seventy percent of respondents to the CNN/Opinion Research poll said they disapprove of the way Bush is doing his job.

"He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst."

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/01/bush_disapproval_rating_at_record_low/3512/

>>>.....and refused to let UN inspectors in....... It doesn't matter you don't know what you are talking about anyway.<<<


Priceless. You tell me SH wouldn't let UN inspectors in and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


March 17, 2003

"In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm


In case the question isn't obvious.......if as you insist SH "wouldn't let UN inspectors in", why did Bush have to order UN inspectors to leave 3 days before he started the war?

If you had the faintest idea of the bigger picture surrounding this war you would ask this question instead: "Why didn't Bush allow UN inspectors to finish their mission"? Especially in light of the fact that all the "guaranteed" WMD sites turned out to be dry holes........a fact well known by Bush at the time he kicked them out.

And for the fourth time now: Iraq was seized by blunt military force and is now occupied by 75 US bases and 150,000 US troops in Iraqi territory. Why does this not qualify as an invasion?

>>>You mean "liberals" say it was an invasion. I know many people who agree with me who said it wasn't.<<<


I'm sure you do. Same people who still think Saddam Hussein took down the twin towers and still think Bush is a great president.

For the third time now: Iraq was seized by blunt military force and is now occupied by 75 US bases and 150,000 US troops in Iraqi territory. Why does this not qualify as an invasion? Because you think it was in the Iraqis best interest?