"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries"

[OklahomaTuba]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/11/D8GTUL906.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/plane-b2-bomber-bg.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

Have I mentioned that this isn't going to end well?

Have I also mentioned that I still chuckle at Tuba's avatar?

[OklahomaTuba]

Have I mentioned that this isn't going to end well?

Have I also mentioned that I still chuckle at Tuba's avatar?

Those are 2 things you and me can both agree on.

[Flagstaffsooner]

I hope they join Japan in the club of nuclear fried countries.

[OklahomaTuba]

I hope they join France in the surrender club myself. Would make things go a lot easier for me I think.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Those are 2 things you and me can both agree on.

I think I'll only agree on one of his points. McKinney freaks me out ... saw her on Bill Maher's show last week and you could tell that Maher thinks she's nuts even if they do agree on a lot of political topics.

And her eyes looked even more buggity than in your avatar.

Speaking of buggity eyes, anyone see that new Tori Spelling show?

[OklahomaTuba]

Your pic of side show bob kind of freaks me out KC. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

This picture cracks me up...

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/newt1.1530.iraq.ap.jpg

Your the leader of the #1 terrorist supporting nation on earth, and dream nonstop of the day when you can unleash nuclear holocaust on the west, and you stand in front of a poster with doves on it?

[sooneron]

I kind of think we should get our butts out of the country of 27 million angry people before we head over to the 68 million angry people country.

Anyone have a guess as to when that will happen? I'm not sure how this will pan out. I really think the republicans will hold back as long as possible on moving on Iran, b/c when 2008 rolls around, they prolly don't want to be the guys in charge of waging a multi-front war longer than WWII.

Of course, W could tell them to f off and do what he wants since he's a lame duck and repercussions seem to matter little to him. However, the powers in the Leg branch could easily say, "We'll shoot down any of your feel good intiatives if you ignore us". Thus, sealing his legacy as not good.

[sooneron]

You pic of side show bob kind of freaks me out KC. ;)
Did doleo steal your password??

[JohnnyMack]

Land war in Iran. Yeah, that'll be fun. Good idea. Great idea in fact. Why not send our Navy off to search for Atlantis while we're at it?

[yermom]

maybe we can topple the government and glob it together with Iraq and make a new counrty

we could call it Iranq or something

and JM's avartar is freaking me out, i keep thinking i've already posted in this thread

[TexasLidig8r]

Land war in Iran. Yeah, that'll be fun. Good idea. Great idea in fact. Why not send our Navy off to search for Atlantis while we're at it?

Then.. what is the solution? Iran's leadership has already publically stated they desire the obliteration of Israel. Iran's leadership has already publically thumbed its nose at the United Nations. Iran's leadership has already expressed its views that it regards western nations as infidels whose deaths are not murder. Iran's leadership supports terrorism and terrorist activities against "non-believers."

Now... this same Iranian leadership has the capacity to control enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.

And. the reason why one of the wealthiest, oil rich nations on the face of the earth needs a nuclear power plant is ... what again??????

What is the solution? Trade embargo? China and Russia would not support it.

Appeasement? Iran has already demonstrated that they will not back down nor will they back away from its development, and probably usage of nuclear weapons.

Do we wait until Tel Aviv or Jerusaleum or. the USS Ronald Reagan...is a smoking, radioactive wasteland?

[sooneron]

Then.. what is the solution? Iran's leadership has already publically stated they desire the obliteration of Israel. Iran's leadership has already publically thumbed its nose at the United Nations. Iran's leadership has already expressed its views that it regards western nations as infidels whose deaths are not murder. Iran's leadership supports terrorism and terrorist activities against "non-believers."

Now... this same Iranian leadership has the capacity to control enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.

And. the reason why one of the wealthiest, oil rich nations on the face of the earth needs a nuclear power plant is ... what again??????

What is the solution? Trade embargo? China and Russia would not support it.

Appeasement? Iran has already demonstrated that they will not back down nor will they back away from its development, and probably usage of nuclear weapons.

Do we wait until Tel Aviv or Jerusaleum or. the USS Ronald Reagan...is a smoking, radioactive wasteland?

I agree with taking action against those ****ers, I wanted to when george was trying to gear us up for Iraq. I wanted Iran more, as they were truly more of a threat and more linked to the big boys (terrorism wise) Saddam was a despot. Now, it's not so easy to step up. We still have a ****load of troops in Iraq.

[yermom]

maybe the newly liberated Iraqis want to help out ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Then.. what is the solution? Iran's leadership has already publically stated they desire the obliteration of Israel. Iran's leadership has already publically thumbed its nose at the United Nations. Iran's leadership has already expressed its views that it regards western nations as infidels whose deaths are not murder. Iran's leadership supports terrorism and terrorist activities against "non-believers."

Now... this same Iranian leadership has the capacity to control enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.

And. the reason why one of the wealthiest, oil rich nations on the face of the earth needs a nuclear power plant is ... what again??????

What is the solution? Trade embargo? China and Russia would not support it.

Appeasement? Iran has already demonstrated that they will not back down nor will they back away from its development, and probably usage of nuclear weapons.

Do we wait until Tel Aviv or Jerusaleum or. the USS Ronald Reagan...is a smoking, radioactive wasteland?

Well if that dip**** you Texans sent to the White House hadn't launched us headlong into a protracted campaign that has put a strain on our military resources that makes a land campaign in Iran so utterly impossible to maintain I might consider your argument more seriously.

And if that worthless Texan had done what any man should have done and gone after any and every Al Qaida member on this planet and turned them into Kingsford charcoal after Sept. 11th then I might believe a little more in our current administrations ability to stare down Iran. He carpet bombs the **** out of those mountain ranges, collateral damage be damned and let's the whole world know that he's not to be fu*ked with and then, maybe then we'd see a different attitude from Iran. But he's shown about as much focus and resolve when it comes to Al Qaida as VY on his.....nevermind......even I'm tired of that joke. I wonder why Iran doesn't take us seriously. :rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

I say we just bomb the Iranian nuke sites. No introduction of ground troops. Like the way the Israelis unilaterally handled the French-built Iraqi nuke site at Osirak back on June 7, 1981. In fact, it would be cool if we waited until that anniversary to do it. :D

[TexasLidig8r]

Well if that dip**** you Texans sent to the White House hadn't launched us headlong into a protracted campaign that has put a strain on our military resources that makes a land campaign in Iran so utterly impossible to maintain I might consider your argument more seriously.

And if that worthless Texan had done what any man should have done and gone after any and every Al Qaida member on this planet and turned them into Kingsford charcoal after Sept. 11th then I might believe a little more in our current administrations ability to stare down Iran. He carpet bombs the **** out of those mountain ranges, collateral damage be damned and let's the whole world know that he's not to be fu*ked with and then, maybe then we'd see a different attitude from Iran. But he's shown about as much focus and resolve when it comes to Al Qaida as VY on his.....nevermind......even I'm tired of that joke. I wonder why Iran doesn't take us seriously. :rolleyes:

Objection.. non-responsive.

Answer the questions asked. :)

[JohnnyMack]

Objection.. non-responsive.

Answer the questions asked. :)

Don't be all Perry Mason on me just 'cause you know I'm right.

[TexasLidig8r]

I say we just bomb the Iranian nuke sites. No introduction of ground troops. Like the way the Israelis unilaterally handled the French-built Iraqi nuke site at Osirak back on June 7, 1981. In fact, it would be cool if we waited until that anniversary to do it. :D

Since the Mossad and our Israeli little buddies have experience at that sort of thing, perhaps we should just let them do it..

Plausible deniability.

[soonerscuba]

I think the most we can get away with is air strikes (the non-nuclear variety). It is my sincere hope that a couple of B-2s are already en route to lay waste to what I'm sure is the shortest time in history that a nation had nuclear power. That being a seemingly wise choice, I'm sure Bush will do something else.

[JohnnyMack]

W needs to watch more of the Sopranos and less Desperate Housewives.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I formally declare that iran gets nuked!


Bring out the "Bomb Iran" song.

The thought is that tactical nukes in the bunker busting munition will be required as we don't know how deep and how well constructed their underground bunkers are. I suspect we will need to nuke a couple of mountains as well as they have tunneled into mountains to protect their plants.

[mrowl]

W needs to watch more of the Sopranos and less Desperate Housewives.

except the fight with Perry Annunziata would not end up with W winning...

[Jerk]

Man, I miss the good old days when it was just us versus the commies. At least the Soviets had a sense of self-preservation. On the other hand, those Persian mullahs are fk'n nuts.

+1 on this will not end good.

[Octavian]

We should invade w/ a full fledged military operation and change their regime...it's the only way to keep us safe. Now some naysayers and policy wonk types may object...but their people will greet us as liberators. Just you watch...

They will throw rose pedals at our feet and offer their daughters in reverance and appreciation....



Does that seem stupid? Well...to me, that seemed stupid when I heard it over 3 years ago.

[OklahomaTuba]

We should invade w/ a full fledged military operation and change their regime...it's the only way to keep us safe. Now some naysayers and policy wonk types may object...but their people will greet us as liberators. Just you watch...

They will throw rose pedals at our feet and offer their daughters in reverance and appreciation....



Does that seem stupid? Well...to me, that seemed stupid when I heard it over 3 years ago.

Hmm, interesting.

Either you are in favor of appeasing them, or you advocate bombing them yet not doing anything afterwards to help the people left behind.

What a great position to have on such issues. Don't do anything, or screw them if we do.

And to think that liberals actually claim to care about people.

[Octavian]

The word "appease" is what throws me for a loop...any and all diplomacy can easily be attacked as "Chamberlainesque" (a new word maybe? :texan: )...even when none of the present conditions are similar.

My point was the Iranian situation is worse than it would've been had we decided on a different course of action w/ regards to Iraq...

That makes no difference now though...we are where we are. I'm neither for pulling out of Iraq or taking an "appeasing" stance towards Iran. We've already made our bed...the time for winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim street or their future generations has long since passed. So if Iran has nukes, they've forced our hand...we have no choice but to eliminate their nuclear capacity.

So what will US involvement be in the Middle East after that? In 20 years from now? Quite active for sure...we'll be on the ground there for several decades IMO. Thats the road our leaders chose (after they had the approval of over 70% of our population) to go down over 3 years ago.

[Harry Beanbag]

My point was the Iranian situation is worse than it would've been had we decided on a different course of action w/ regards to Iraq...


Okay I'll bite. How so?

[Jerk]

Okay I'll bite. How so?

I normally don't argue for the libs, but there is a slight problem with us being in Iraq while this Iran thing is going down. (Keep in mind I am for keeping the troops in Iraq and I am for their mission). Right now, we only have Sunni muslims attacking us, mostly AQ-tied terrorists using IED bombs. If we get into a scrap with Iran, we might also have the Shi-ites against us...and they are the majority population in Iraq. The Iraqi shi-ites would be between a rock and a hard place, knowing full well that if we leave Iraq then Sunnis will try and regain power, or they can keep us as their protectors while we turn their "spiritual brothers'" homeland into ashes.



I say nuke em all, let allah sort em out. No, really, I'm only kidding.

[Harry Beanbag]

I say nuke em all, let allah sort em out. No, really, I'm only kidding.


It would solve a lot of problems though.

[Jerk]

It would solve a lot of problems though.

Sometimes, being the 'civilised' and moral people that we are can be a weakness.

[Okla-homey]

We need to set top men to work on full scale development of the "Nude Bomb." Those shiites would surely freak-out and they wouldn't know whether they should behead folks for looking or kill themselves for being nekkid.

For those of you too young to remember the 1980 film of the same name:

The Nude Bomb was a 1980 Universal movie starring Don Adams as Get Smart. Originally planned as a TV movie, when Universal discovered how popular Get Smart was, they moved it to a theatrical release.

The plot concerned KAOS' discovery of The Nude Bomb, a bomb that can destroy all clothing. They demand ten billion dollars a month from the United Nations or they will detonate the bomb, making everyone nude.

Max, now working for PITS -Provisional Intelligence Tactical Service, teams up with several new agents to foil the plot- weapons specialist Carruthers (Norman Lloyd), teen geniuses Pam and Jerry Krubney, and Agents 22,34, and 36. Larabee also helps Max, especially with his plan for people to wear food instead of cloth, thereby defeating the purpose of the Nude Bomb

[Jerk]

Or just send Chuck Norris over there to kill all of the Mullahs.

[Jerk]

Israel will deal with this,and it won't be pretty.

Yes, they do have the capability, and the only ones who can stop them is us.

[Octavian]

Okay I'll bite. How so?

SIA…don’t mean to be preachy…its just my take.

We played our ace too soon….which surprises me b/c Dubya was spot on in the weeks following 9/11: Find al-Qeada where they are, eliminate al-Qeada, use sticks and carrots along the way to force the hands of others. Said this was a new and different war and that tanks rolling across boundaries wouldn’t win it. To me, he was right. Then…he rolled tanks across boundaries, occupied a city, and declared victory. So now…

1.) Our ground forces are currently occupied. If Iran (which was the more dangerous option of the two to begin w/ -a Shia theocracy) tried this if Saddam had been further isolated (he was already the virtual mayor of Baghdad)…we’d have more options.
Currently, we’d have to redeploy forces from South America to Korea to invade Iran.

2.) If Iraq had been handled differently, we’d have more leverage w/ China and Russia. They don’t need us to not to play our ace and invade nations around their borders. We now need them to help us pressure nations like Iran and N. Korea.

3.) We’ve lost any support we could’ve gained from the Muslim street, and hence, Muslim governments. We played our hard-line ace early and lost the only democracy (Turkey) early. Even the most autocratic of regimes (the Saudis) cant afford to support us w/ a broad strike now…they’d be overthrown.

4.) We’ve lost the unanimous support we garnered on 9/11 from Europe. Even Britain will have a hard time goin w/ us now….it’ll just be us (and maybe Israel if it gets bad enough) this time around.

5.) Which leads us to Israel…if they openly join us in a strike against Iran, we might as well nuke the region now and begin a post-nuke strategy for the rest of the globe. It’ll be a lot easier than nation-hopping from Gaza to Jakarta.

Pentagon leaders are scared to death of striking Iran and are trying to distance themselves from the administration’s rhetoric…they know where it will lead. We took a big gamble on the neocon vision for the Middle East and the globe…as of right now, its not lookin too good.

[Octavian]

Right now, we only have Sunni muslims attacking us..we might also have the Shi-ites against us...

but the Shia brand of Islam producing radical terrorist cells was the problem to begin w/...thats partly of what Im talkin about...

We didn't play the radicals against the moderates. We gave them something to unite around and against: US

We needed more Kissinger realism and less Wilsonian idealism...

we got Wolfowitz :(

[Jerk]

....which is why Israel will strike unilateraly.

[Okla-homey]

....which is why Israel will strike unilateraly.

Rock On My Israeli Bruthas!
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8339/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz15.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Octavian]

....which is why Israel will strike unilateraly.

maybe so...

[Jerk]

but the Shia brand of Islam was producing radical terrorist cells was the problem to begin w/...thats partly of what Im talkin about...

We didn't play the radicals against the moderates. We gave them something to unite around and against: US

We needed more Kissinger realism and less Wilsonian idealism...

we got Wolfowitz :(

Dude, 90% of the problem in Iraq are AQ/Sunni related. This is why the British are in southern Iraq with the shi-ites. Sure, it hasn't been a match made in heavan, but they haven't turned out to be the real cockroaches here. I wouldn't put it past them, though, to turn against us.

[royalfan5]

I wonder what would have happened if we didn't topple their new socialist government in 1953? I tend to think a similar government would have arisen eventually due to Islamic sentiment and socialism not working, but maybe they would have hated the Ruskies more?, or perhaps the socialists would have been better at repressing the Islamic stuff than the Shah was.

[Octavian]

Dude, 90% of the problem in Iraq are AQ/Sunni related. This is why the British are in southern Iraq with the shi-ites. Sure, it hasn't been a match made in heavan, but they haven't turned out to be the real cockroaches here. I wouldn't put it past them, though, to turn against us.

I'm not just talking about inside Iraq...

thats my point though...the Sunnis weren't a global problem before Iraq...the Shia were.

are you there, BTW?

[soonerscuba]

I think many people are underestimating the forces of nationalism between Iran and Iraq here. It wasn't that long ago they were butchering each other by the millions, consider me less than swayed by playing off of religious sects as a means workable diplomacy. The absolute best response I can think of is keep the rhetoric strong but not overbearing and if Israel happens to destroy them, we get rearry, rearry mad, and write them a retter telling them how mad we are.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Maybe we're going about this all wrong - we should try telling the Chinese that the Iranians are telling "your momma's so fat..." jokes about them and see if they invade. Hell, they have a few hundred million people to spare. :texan:

[JohnnyMack]

I feel that if W had come down hard, like Dresden hard on Al Qaida, crossed his arms and said, "anyone else wanna fu*k with us?" we wouldn't be in this situation.

[Scott D]

I doubt it JM. Grandstanding and bold stances seem to be the operations du jour in geopolitics now.

[JohnnyMack]

I doubt it JM. Grandstanding and bold stances seem to be the operations du jour in geopolitics now.

Is Harry Truman still dead?

[Scott D]

Is Harry Truman still dead?

last I checked yep. However, tomorrow you'll get to hear how the current administration is full of 'men of action' ;)

[usmc-sooner]

I feel that if W had come down hard, like Dresden hard on Al Qaida, crossed his arms and said, "anyone else wanna fu*k with us?" we wouldn't be in this situation.

if he had you and the rest of liberals would have crucified him.

honestly why don't you direct that attitude towards Clinton. I know a lot of us in the military would wonder if he would ever stand up and get in the fight.

We've got a President who has the balls and does this, and you guys rip him daily, then turn around and bitch because he doesn't do it.

[Harry Beanbag]

SIA…don’t mean to be preachy…its just my take.

We played our ace too soon….which surprises me b/c Dubya was spot on in the weeks following 9/11: Find al-Qeada where they are, eliminate al-Qeada, use sticks and carrots along the way to force the hands of others. Said this was a new and different war and that tanks rolling across boundaries wouldn’t win it. To me, he was right. Then…he rolled tanks across boundaries, occupied a city, and declared victory. So now…

1.) Our ground forces are currently occupied. If Iran (which was the more dangerous option of the two to begin w/ -a Shia theocracy) tried this if Saddam had been further isolated (he was already the virtual mayor of Baghdad)…we’d have more options.
Currently, we’d have to redeploy forces from South America to Korea to invade Iran.

2.) If Iraq had been handled differently, we’d have more leverage w/ China and Russia. They don’t need us to not to play our ace and invade nations around their borders. We now need them to help us pressure nations like Iran and N. Korea.

3.) We’ve lost any support we could’ve gained from the Muslim street, and hence, Muslim governments. We played our hard-line ace early and lost the only democracy (Turkey) early. Even the most autocratic of regimes (the Saudis) cant afford to support us w/ a broad strike now…they’d be overthrown.

4.) We’ve lost the unanimous support we garnered on 9/11 from Europe. Even Britain will have a hard time goin w/ us now….it’ll just be us (and maybe Israel if it gets bad enough) this time around.

5.) Which leads us to Israel…if they openly join us in a strike against Iran, we might as well nuke the region now and begin a post-nuke strategy for the rest of the globe. It’ll be a lot easier than nation-hopping from Gaza to Jakarta.

Pentagon leaders are scared to death of striking Iran and are trying to distance themselves from the administration’s rhetoric…they know where it will lead. We took a big gamble on the neocon vision for the Middle East and the globe…as of right now, its not lookin too good.


You do make some good points. I was asking an honest question and it wasn't loaded.

Your point #1 is something that I'm actually very concerned with. I believe our ground forces (Army and Marines) are just way too damn small to deal with what could start happening rather quickly if things get out of control. We need to start building up now. You can't expect to be able to occupy two countries and still be capable of doing anything else of substance in the GWOT with a half million man Army.

[JohnnyMack]

if he had you and the rest of liberals would have crucified him.

honestly why don't you direct that attitude towards Clinton. I know a lot of us in the military would wonder if he would ever stand up and get in the fight.

We've got a President who has the balls and does this, and you guys rip him daily, then turn around and bitch because he doesn't do it.

You don't pay attention very well. For years now I've been railing against W's policy as it relates towards Al Qaeda and Iraq. I've said from day one that I thought Iraq was a mistake and that I wished we'd have dropped a much heavier and much swifter hammer on the heads of those dirty bastards who murdered thousands of innocent Americans. W was in office on 09/11/01 and it was his choice in how to deal with Al Qaeda. I do not agree with the manner in which W chose to deal with Al Qaeda. You wanna talk about balls? Why didn't W have the balls to go after Al Qaeda any more aggressively than he has? Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for Sept. 11, but you seem content to allow those who were to avoid facing the punishment they so richly deserve.

[afs]

blah blah blah

8 months from now nothing but political banter will have occured.

[soonerbub]

Unless we want to see $5 gas this summer I think we need to let the bear and the dragon handle this one. The second we act in Iran is when the sinos go for taiwan. imo

[ouflak]

blah blah blah

8 months from now nothing but political banter will have occured.

Yup. This seems to be the illegal immigration-like topic of international politics right now.

[OklahomaTuba]

Why didn't W have the balls to go after Al Qaeda any more aggressively than he has?

Just like Clinton did?

Oh wait...

[OklahomaTuba]

Unless we want to see $5 gas this summer I think we need to let the bear and the dragon handle this one. The second we act in Iran is when the sinos go for taiwan. imo

Bub,

Unless we do something about Iran, you can bank on $5.00 gas.

Also, Iran has basically declared war on us already in my opinion, by arming, funding and supporting the terrorist activities in Iraq targeting our troops, and threatening us and our allies with nuclear destruction. This doesn't include their support of AQ and other terrorists groups.

[JohnnyMack]

Just like Clinton did?

Oh wait...

See that's a chicken**** politic-speak kinda thing to say.

Who was President of the United States on 09/11/01?

[OklahomaTuba]

See that's a chicken**** politic-speak kinda thing to say.

Who was President of the United States on 09/11/01?

Bush was. 8 whole months after taking the job.

And who was President of the United States when Osama bombed our embassies, military bases and war ships for 8 years before 9/11 and offered NO RESPONSE????

And who was President of the United States when the Sudan offered 4 TIMES to give us Osama free of charge?

And who was President of the United States while the Taliban gave Osama a home base and support with not so much as a peep from his government????

And during all that time, who was the President of the United States that was busy gutting the CIA and the US Armed Forces while using them in such important campaigns as Bosnia, Somalia, etc, yet couldn't lift a finger to hit AQ or the Taliban?

Those are FACTS, hardly politic-speak.

[soonerscuba]

Who trained and armed those same people?

Oh wait...

You can play that game all day long, and it still doesn't make any sort of point on Iran.

[OklahomaTuba]

Who trained and armed those same people?

Oh wait...

You can play that game all day long, and it still doesn't make any sort of point on Iran.

Sure you can play it all day long, if one doesn't put history into context, like fighting the cold war and trying to battle the USSR.

But never mind facts and history, it gets in the way of a libz argument more often than not.

[caphorns]

Can't we all just get along (and nuke everyone that doesn't) :)

[OklahomaTuba]

Can't we all just get along (and nuke everyone that doesn't) :)

May Austin be the first to be cleansed by the sword of Allah.

[JohnnyMack]

Sometimes I get the feeling W could set a litter of puppies on fire while listening to Prussian Blue and Tuba would still defend him.

[sooneron]

Sometimes I get the feeling W could set a litter of puppies on fire while listening to Prussian Blue and Tuba would still defend him.
Wow! There's a visual for ya!:texan:

[handcrafted]

I formally declare that Iran will join the club of nuked countries.

Seriously. I can't think of a better use for 'em. Float some of our boomers up the Persian Gulf and turn every square inch of every Iranian military base and nuke facility into glass. Because they'll have weapons-grade material in 5 years. And they won't just sit on the bombs like N. Korea does. The Iranian leader is crazier than Saddam, and he'll take out Tel Aviv at first opportunity.

[Harry Beanbag]

Our missile subs will not go into the Persian Gulf, but they can get the job done from the Indian Ocean.

[OklahomaTuba]

Sometimes I get the feeling W could set a litter of puppies on fire while listening to Prussian Blue and Tuba would still defend him.
Of course, cause actually presenting facts = defending Bush.

Interesting thought process that is. No wonder its flawed.

[JohnnyMack]

Of course, cause actually presenting facts = defending Bush.

Interesting thought process that is. No wonder its flawed.

What was unfactual about my statement?

[Howzit]

AND THEY'RE OFF....

;)

[Harry Beanbag]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2004/06/06/1086535676_6427.jpg

[JohnnyMack]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2004/06/06/1086535676_6427.jpg

It's usually a little more like this:

http://www.donkey-derby.com/man-on-donkey2.jpg

:O

[OklahomaTuba]

What was unfactual about my statement?

Don't worry kiddos, this race is already ova. Just slap the rose ring around my fat ***.

Seriously though, maybe, just maybe, its the whole blaming Dubya for 9-11 attitude you constantly shove down people's throats while ignoring 8 years of history in which we had a President (whom I voted for BTW) that did NOTHING about AQ even though they attacked us multiple times???

It just proves my point that facts and history always seem to get in the way of a liberals argument.

[afs]

blah bla blah bla blah

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Since the Mossad and our Israeli little buddies have experience at that sort of thing, perhaps we should just let them do it..

Plausible deniability.Who are we to say that plan won't be implemented.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

See that's a chicken**** politic-speak kinda thing to say.

Who was President of the United States on 09/11/01?What is this comment, some kind of defense of Cinton. It's lame. It suggests that Clinton's activity or inactivity DURING THE 8 YEARS HE WAS IN OFFICE had littlle or no bearing on what Bush had to deal with on 9/11. His sorry wife had better not be elected in '08.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seriously though, maybe, just maybe, its the whole blaming Dubya for 9-11 attitude you constantly shove down people's throats while ignoring 8 years of history in which we had a President (whom I voted for BTW) that did NOTHING about AQ even though they attacked us multiple times???

What do you mean you voted for Clinton???NO, say it ain't so!!!What the heck were you thinking?

[Jerk]

Sometimes I think that if a meteor hit the earth and destroyed a blue state, Johnny Mack would blame Bush.