Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

[Dr. D]

George did something about a Tyrant, not a Nation that has been the headache of the world for almost a decade, you folks should at least be glad that Saddam is gone after all the mass graves found.

Your concern about human life really is being disengenous, seems like you simply prefer people dying and you don't hear about it.

And you rather not do anything, gamble and wait for an explosion as verification, right?

Same thinking before 9/11, we been attacked many times but chose to take it lightly so the nenmy will not get angrier. So the enemy made sure we can't simply ignore the next attack.

That biological weapon was attained illegally, not a US govt' deal.

150,000? Who are these people?

George did something about a Tyrant, not a Nation that has been the headache of the world for almost a decade, you folks should at least be glad that Saddam is gone after all the mass graves found.

Your concern about human life really is being disengenous, seems like you simply prefer people dying and you don't hear about it.

As if Hussein was the only tyrant in the world . . . . but the others didn't "try to kill my daddy." And the mass graves? Created in part by Georgie's daddy and his willingness to teach Iraqis how to kill and turned a blind eye to the massacres that took place later.

I recognize that the world will always have nations with leaders bent upon detroying a neighbor and anniliating their populace. The world has always functioned that way. Americans did it with the Indian. That does not mean that I do not care . . . . it means that we need to oppose all such actions, not select the one individual and the nation that once offended my father. What is really disingenuous is to discount these deaths as being something "necessary to the world" or to believe it can be rationalized away because he "was a headache to the world." Even more disingenuous is to know that these people have suffered and that 10% of the families in Iraq have lost at least one member and then degrade it by asking, "Who are these people?"

And you rather not do anything, gamble and wait for an explosion as verification, right?

The Bush mob always uses this one. What explosion? An explosion with what? If the idiot had waited and been responsible to permit the U.N. to do their job, the truth would have been learned with a lot less deaths.

That biological weapon was attained illegally, not a US govt' deal.

As late as 1967, the U.S. Army was given instruction to Iraqi officers in the use of biological warfare weapons.

[AROCES]

As if Hussein was the only tyrant in the world . . . .

Well, we got rid of one of the worst of them, just be glad.

but the others didn't "try to kill my daddy." And the mass graves? Created in part by Georgie's daddy and his willingness to teach Iraqis how to kill and turned a blind eye to the massacres that took place later.

I don't hear the Iraqis blaming George's daddy for anything?

You wish they would and would echo you.

I recognize that the world will always have nations with leaders bent upon detroying a neighbor and anniliating their populace. The world has always functioned that way. Americans did it with the Indian. That does not mean that I do not care . . . . it means that we need to oppose all such actions, not select the one individual and the nation that once offended my father. What is really disingenuous is to discount these deaths as being something "necessary to the world" or to believe it can be rationalized away because he "was a headache to the world." Even more disingenuous is to know that these people have suffered and that 10% of the families in Iraq have lost at least one member and then degrade it by asking, "Who are these people?"

And the Iraqis at least are dying for something and that is for their freedom and a new Iraqi.

I guess you prefer when they just got buried on mass graves for nothing.

The Bush mob always uses this one. What explosion? An explosion with what? If the idiot had waited and been responsible to permit the U.N. to do their job, the truth would have been learned with a lot less deaths.

Wait while Kofi is making his deal with Saddam????

Quite obvious what the stall was all about.

As late as 1967, the U.S. Army was given instruction to Iraqi officers in the use of biological warfare weapons.

No such incident happened.

[Dr. D]

Well, we got rid of one of the worst of them, just be glad.

I don't hear the Iraqis blaming George's daddy for anything?

You wish they would and would echo you.

And the Iraqis at least are dying for something and that is for their freedom and a new Iraqi.

I guess you prefer when they just got buried on mass graves for nothing.

Wait while Kofi is making his deal with Saddam????

Quite obvious what the stall was all about.

No such incident happened.

Well, we got rid of one of the worst of them, just be glad.

Apart from being an incredibly weak argument, it is hopelessly untrue.

I don't hear the Iraqis blaming George's daddy for anything?

You wish they would and would echo you.

No, they are too busy trying to survive his defective son and voting by 90% that their lives were better under Hussein.

And the Iraqis at least are dying for something and that is for their freedom and a new Iraqi.

I guess you prefer when they just got buried on mass graves for nothing.

And they ASKED for a new freedom and ASKED for a new Iraq? Please tell me when and where.

Wait while Kofi is making his deal with Saddam???? Quite obvious what the stall was all about.

Well, it's obvious that Kofi is your only defense for our village idiot in the oval office. Too bad you can't defend George on his own demerits.

No such incident happened.

You wish . . .

"The U.S. Army trained 19 Iraqi military officers in the United States in offensive and defensive chemical, biological and radiological warfare from 1957 to 1967, according to an official Army letter published in the late 1960s." They were trained in the use of chemical and biological warfare at the USA army's Chemical School at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/012803gsn.htm

"A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory."

http://hnn.us/articles/1283.html

And concerning your persistent claim that George waited for two years before taking action . . . . perhaps it was on the basis of how much out of touch he was with reality.

February 2001, Colin Powell, the USA Secretary of State made a speech in which he said of Saddam Hussein: "He is not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction".

Two years later Powell had learned to dance the Bush two-step and was declaring that Iraq could use drones to attack the U.S. Fox News, of course (the talking head of the administration) delivered this lie to the public.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html

In July 2001, Condaleeza Rice (the USA National Security Adviser) stated in a TV interview about Iraq: "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

In March 2003, one of the weapons inspectors, Dr Mohamed Al-Baredi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported to the United Nations Security Council that several UK and USA reports about Iraq's nuclear capabilites were fake.

In 2001, the USA unilaterally withdrew from the Intercontinental Balistic Missile Treaty signed in 1972. The USA also refuses to allow biological inspections on its own territories in defiance of the 1972 Biological Warfare Convention. In 1999, The USA rejected a nuclear test ban treaty.

As much as you would like to whitewash the Bush Administrations, please refer to the Report of Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Ranking Member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, Part One, Chapter Two . . . .

The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issueance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:

Date : February 8, 1985

Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency

Materials Shipped:

Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup

Date : February 22, 1985

Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education

Materials Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)

Class III pathogen

Date : July 11, 1985

Sent To : Middle and Near East Regional A

Material Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)

Class III pathogen

Date : May 2, 1986

Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education

Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)

Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82)

Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)

3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)

Batch # 07-07-81 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)

Batch # 10-85SV (2 each)

5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)

Batch # 12-06-84 (2 each)

6. Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)

Batch # 05-14-79 (2 each)

Avirulent, suitable for preparations of diagnotic antigens

7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)

Batch # 03-84 (3 each)

Highly toxigenic

8. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564)

Batch # 03-02-79 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779)

Batch # 04-24-84S (3 each)

10. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916)

Batch #08-14-80 (2 each)

Agglutinating type 2

11. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124)

Batch #07-84SV (3 each)

Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lecithinase C.J. Appl.

12. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185)

Batch #01-14-80 (3 each)

G.G. Wright (Fort Detrick)

V770-NP1-R. Bovine Anthrax

Class III pathogen

13. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578)

Batch #01-06-78 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

14. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581)

Batch #04-18-85 (2 each)

15. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945)

Batch #06-21-81 (2 each)

16. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855)

Batch # 06-21-71

Class III pathogen

17. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213)

Batch #3-84 (2 each)

18. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397)

Batch # 08-18-81 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

19. Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450)

Batch # 08-02-84 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

20. Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455)

Batch # 02-05-68 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

21. Brucella melitensis Biotype 1 (ATCC 23456)

Batch # 03-08-78 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

22. Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458)

Batch # 01-29-68 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

23. Clostribium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763)

Batch # 8-83 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

24. Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415)

Batch # 02-02-84 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

Date : August 31, 1987

Sent To : State Company for Drug Industries

Materials Shipped:

1. Saccharomyces cerevesiae (ATCC 2601)

Batch # 08-28-08 (1 each)

2. Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serotype typhi (ATCC 6539)

Batch # 06-86S (1 each)

3. Bacillus subtillus (ATCC 6633)

Batch # 10-85 (2 each)

4. Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (ATCC 10031)

Batch # 08-13-80 (1 each)

5. Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536)

Batch # 04-09-80 (1 each)

6. Bacillus cereus (11778)

Batch #05-85SV (2 each)

7. Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228)

Batch # 11-86s (1 each)

8. Bacillus pumilus (ATCC 14884)

Batch # 09-08-80 (2 each)

Date : July 11, 1988

Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped

1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 11303)

Batch # 04-875

Phase host

2. Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus (ATCC 45031)

Batch # 06-14-85

Plant Virus

3. Plasmid in Agrobacterium Tumefaciens (ATCC 37349)

(Ti plasmid for co-cultivation with plant integration vectors in E. Coli)

Batch # 05-28-85

Date : April 26, 1988

Sent To: : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57236) Phage vector

Suggest host: E coli

2. Hulambda14-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57240) Phage vector

Suggested host: E coli

3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57242) Phage vector

Suggested host: E. coli

Date : August 31, 1987

Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 23846)

Batch # 07-29-83 (1 each)

2. Escherichia coli (ATCC 33694)

Batch # 05-87 (1 each)

Date : September 29, 1988

Sent To : Ministry of Trade

Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240)

Batch # 05-14-63 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938)

Batch # 1963 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

3. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629)

Batch # 10-23-85 (3 each)

4. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009)

Batch # 03-30-84 (3 each)

5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705)

Batch # 06-27-62 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

6. Brucella abortus (ATCC 9014)

Batch # 05-11-66 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

7. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388)

Batch # 06-01-73 (3 each)

8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966)

Batch #05-05-70 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium botulinum Type A

Batch # 07-86 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

10. Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018)

Batch # 04-83 (3 each)

11. Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019)

Batch # 03-88 (3 each)

Date : January 31, 1989

Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

1. PHPT31, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT)

Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57057)

2. Plambda500, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

pseudogene (HPRT) Chromosome(s): 5 p14-p13 (ATCC 57212)

Date : January 17, 1989

Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

(HPRT) Chromosomes(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57237) Phage vector;

Suggested host: E. coli

2. Hulambda14, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57540), Cloned from human lymphoblast, Phase vector

Suggested host: E. coli

3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase

(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57241) Phage vector;

Suggested host: E. coli

Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control has compiled a listing of biological materials shipped to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. The listing covers the period from October 1, 1984 (when the CDC began keeping records) through October 13, 1993. The following materials with biological warfare significance were shipped to Iraq during this period.

Date : November 28, 1989

Sent To : University of Basrah, College of

Science, Department of Biology

Materials Shipped:

1. Enterococcus faecalis

2. Enterococcus faecium

3. Enterococcus avium

4. Enterococcus raffinosus

5. Enteroccus gallinarium

6. Enterococcus durans

7. Enteroccus hirae

8. Streptococcus bovis

(etiologic)

Date : April 21, 1986

Sent To : Officers City Al-Muthanna,

Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,

Baghdad, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid

(non-infectious)

Date : March 10, 1986

Sent To : Officers City Al-Muthanna,

Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69 House 28/I,

Baghdad, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid #A2

(non-infectious)

Date : June 25, 1985

Sent To : University of Baghdad, College of

Medicine, Department of Microbiology

Materials Shipped:

1. 3 years cultures

(etiologic)

Candida sp.

Date : May 21, 1985

Sent To : Basrah, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

1. Lyophilized arbovirus seed

(etiologic)

2. West Nile Fever Virus

Date : April 26, 1985

Sent To : Minister of Health, Ministry of

Health, Baghdad, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

1. 8 vials antigen and antisera (r. rickettsii and r. typhi) to diagnose rickettsial

[AROCES]

Apart from being an incredibly weak argument, it is hopelessly untrue.

Untrue???

You mean Saddam is not really a Tyrant but a victim???

No, they are too busy trying to survive his defective son and voting by 90% that their lives were better under Hussein.

Sure, so they hanged Saddam and has not driven us out of their country.

Now that is a more solid statement than your poll of probably Saddam goonies and supporters.

And they ASKED for a new freedom and ASKED for a new Iraq? Please tell me when and where.

I saw Iraqis celebrating when Saddam fell, I saw brave Iraqis voting for a new govt inspite of threat from those who you think represent the Iraqis and I saw them hang the one responsible for your poll of 90% very happy Iraqis then.

I highly suggest you reconsider your source of knowledge, it really does not seem to reflect reality.

Well, it's obvious that Kofi is your only defense for our village idiot in the oval office. Too bad you can't defend George on his own demerits.

Don't need to. All you folks been trying to bring him down from day 1 and have thrown hundreds of accusations. And for 8 years all your hard evidence got you nowhere and ended up here in UM.

You wish . . .

"The U.S. Army trained 19 Iraqi military officers in the United States in offensive and defensive chemical, biological and radiological warfare from 1957 to 1967, according to an official Army letter published in the late 1960s." They were trained in the use of chemical and biological warfare at the USA army's Chemical School at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/012803gsn.htm

Like I have said before. The United States tried to influence Saddam and obvioulsy it failed. We try to help him militarily in the hope that he would be friendly to the western world but the guy is a nut case. As you can see we tried everything with him

Edited June 3, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

Untrue???

You mean Saddam is not really a Tyrant but a victim???

Sure, so they hanged Saddam and has not driven us out of their country.

Now that is a more solid statement than your poll of probably Saddam goonies and supporters.

I saw Iraqis celebrating when Saddam fell, I saw brave Iraqis voting for a new govt inspite of threat from those who you think represent the Iraqis and I saw them hang the one responsible for your poll of 90% very happy Iraqis then.

I highly suggest you reconsider your source of knowledge, it really does not seem to reflect reality.

I saw Iraqis celebrating when Saddam fell, I saw brave Iraqis voting for a new govt inspite of threat from those who you think represent the Iraqis and I saw them hang the one responsible for your poll of 90% very happy Iraqis then.

I highly suggest you reconsider your source of knowledge, it really does not seem to reflect reality.

Sure, so they hanged Saddam and has not driven us out of their country.

Now that is a more solid statement than your poll of probably Saddam goonies and supporters.

I saw Iraqis celebrating when Saddam fell, I saw brave Iraqis voting for a new govt inspite of threat from those who you think represent the Iraqis and I saw them hang the one responsible for your poll of 90% very happy Iraqis then.

I highly suggest you reconsider your source of knowledge, it really does not seem to reflect reality.

Like I have said before. The United States tried to influence Saddam and obvioulsy it failed. We try to help him militarily in the hope that he would be friendly to the western world but the guy is a nut case. As you can see we tried everything with him

You mean Saddam is not really a Tyrant but a victim???

The question is not whether Hussein was a tyrant or not, but how we used a tyrant to serve our own ends and then turned around and accused him of being ruthless for killing 500,000 Iranians with the weapons we helped to supply and trained his men how to use. This is the event that you claim never happened.

Moreover, why Hussein? Will you dare deny that Kim Jong-il is a greater threat to the world? Or how about Bush's bosom buddy, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who has bottomless pockets to support the Wahhabi movement is the center of Islamic terrorism? How about Muammar al--Qaddafi, Libya or Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe? Since this invasion was for (excuse me as I laugh) humanitarian reasons, why not invade Rwanda, or Sierra Leone? Let's remember that Charles Taylor was still in power at that time and no one gave attention to the deaths he caused.

Throughout all that Bush continued to rant and spread his own particular brand of propaganda against Hussein. Saddam could attack the U.S. with drones and chemical weapons. Military people laughed but the public was more naive. There was also the charge that he killed about 5,000 Kurds with gas. The gas attack happened on March 16, 1988 and for the next few days there was no news coverage of the event.

Reuters filed a story four days later and stated, ""where Iran has accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Kurds."

The U.N. investigated the event and condemned the use of gas in the Iraq/Iran war but the report clearly stated that Iraq's use of chemical warfare could not "be verified."

In January 2003, the New York Times reported, "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds."

Sure, so they hanged Saddam and has not driven us out of their country.

Now that is a more solid statement than your poll of probably Saddam goonies and supporters.

I saw Iraqis celebrating when Saddam fell, I saw brave Iraqis voting for a new govt inspite of threat from those who you think represent the Iraqis and I saw them hang the one responsible for your poll of 90% very happy Iraqis then.

I highly suggest you reconsider your source of knowledge, it really does not seem to reflect reality.

I saw films that were later reported to have been staged. And with the typical Bushovic logic you want to compare the vote of the people four years ago when the people had hope that the invasion would bring benefits with a vote dealing with the conditions of today. I have given you many references to the source of my information. I am still awaiting your first.

Don't need to. All you folks been trying to bring him down from day 1 and have thrown hundreds of accusations. And for 8 years all your hard evidence got you nowhere and ended up here in UM.

Exactly for that reason in "The World's 20 Worst Living Dictators," by David Wallechinsky George Bush is listed as No. 21. Dictators insulate themselves from criticism and punish those who do criticize him. He also surrounds himself with party-aligned mental robots who cannot see fact but support his evils no matter to what extent they range.

Like I have said before. The United States tried to influence Saddam and obvioulsy it failed. We try to help him militarily in the hope that he would be friendly to the western world but the guy is a nut case. As you can see we tried everything with him

"Influence?" With chemical arms and instruction? And why do you continue to speak of Hussein in the present tense? Do you know something the rest of us don't know?

[AROCES]

The question is not whether Hussein was a tyrant or not, but how we used a tyrant to serve our own ends and then turned around and accused him of being ruthless for killing 500,000 Iranians with the weapons we helped to supply and trained his men how to use. This is the event that you claim never happened.

Moreover, why Hussein? Will you dare deny that Kim Jong-il is a greater threat to the world? Or how about Bush's bosom buddy, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who has bottomless pockets to support the Wahhabi movement is the center of Islamic terrorism? How about Muammar al--Qaddafi, Libya or Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe? Since this invasion was for (excuse me as I laugh) humanitarian reasons, why not invade Rwanda, or Sierra Leone? Let's remember that Charles Taylor was still in power at that time and no one gave attention to the deaths he caused.

Throughout all that Bush continued to rant and spread his own particular brand of propaganda against Hussein. Saddam could attack the U.S. with drones and chemical weapons. Military people laughed but the public was more naive. There was also the charge that he killed about 5,000 Kurds with gas. The gas attack happened on March 16, 1988 and for the next few days there was no news coverage of the event.

Reuters filed a story four days later and stated, ""where Iran has accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Kurds."

The U.N. investigated the event and condemned the use of gas in the Iraq/Iran war but the report clearly stated that Iraq's use of chemical warfare could not "be verified."

In January 2003, the New York Times reported, "We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds."

It is clear that mass graves is not enough for you to stop defending or arguing for Saddam, who was hanged by the very same people who you think prefer him.

There are those who wept when he was hanged, you are not alone at least.

I saw films that were later reported to have been staged. And with the typical Bushovic logic you want to compare the vote of the people four years ago when the people had hope that the invasion would bring benefits with a vote dealing with the conditions of today. I have given you many references to the source of my information. I am still awaiting your first.

You now have to move your argument to the Conspiracy and fairy tale section.

Of course you have to post your source for they are mostly on blogs that no one really pay attention to but those obssess with Bush. It's like a drug that you keep taking to make you feel good.

And my source are simply actual events and facts that we all know that you folks try to discredit with blogs, conspiracies and gossips.

Exactly for that reason in "The World's 20 Worst Living Dictators," by David Wallechinsky George Bush is listed as No. 21. Dictators insulate themselves from criticism and punish those who do criticize him. He also surrounds himself with party-aligned mental robots who cannot see fact but support his evils no matter to what extent they range.

Then blame the Democratic Congress for making the dictator Bush. You know very well Congress needs to just say yes to Bush for him to be a legit dictator, right?

"Influence?" With chemical arms and instruction? And why do you continue to speak of Hussein in the present tense? Do you know something the rest of us don't know?

Nope, just instruction and mostly defensive instruction. Sorry, I get lazy to proof read.

But the truth is like Evis, Saddam is still alive.

Edited June 3, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

It is clear that mass graves is not enough for you to stop defending or arguing for Saddam, who was hanged by the very same people who you think prefer him.

There are those who wept when he was hanged, you are not alone at least.

You now have to move your argument to the Conspiracy and fairy tale section.

Of course you have to post your source for they are mostly on blogs that no one really pay attention to but those obssess with Bush. It's like a drug that you keep taking to make you feel good.

And my source are simply actual events and facts that we all know that you folks try to discredit with blogs, conspiracies and gossips.

Then blame the Democratic Congress for making the dictator Bush. You know very well Congress needs to just say yes to Bush for him to be a legit dictator, right?

Nope, just instruction and mostly defensive instruction. Sorry, I get lazy to proof read.

But the truth is like Evis, Saddam is still alive.

It is clear that mass graves is not enough for you to stop defending or arguing for Saddam, who was hanged by the very same people who you think prefer him.

There are those who wept when he was hanged, you are not alone at least.

Oh, let's revert to the old Joe McCarthy line, "If you're not with me, you're a pinko." If I refuse to support the mass murders of George Bush, I must be supporting Saddam Hussein. And incidentally, the Iraqis did not, exactly, hang Hussein themselves. U.S. military authorities would not permit his attorney access to him for the preparation of his trial. periodistasenguerra.blogspot.com/2007/12/ms-sobre-el-juicio-bilal-hussein.html - 106k -

An army of military attorneys were on hand to assist with the prosecution. Evidences against Hussein were not compiled by Iraq, Iran, Saudi or Kuwait . . . .rather by the U.S. (See the report of By David J. Scheffer

Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues). Hussein's lawyers were mysterious killed. A judge was killed under equally mysterious circumstances. Without the influence of the U.S., the question of whether or not the Iraqi court would have found him guilty is a matter of speculation. As much as you wish it was true, Iraq was a minor player in the conviction or execution of Saddam Hussein.

You now have to move your argument to the Conspiracy and fairy tale section.

Of course you have to post your source for they are mostly on blogs that no one really pay attention to but those obssess with Bush. It's like a drug that you keep taking to make you feel good.

And my source are simply actual events and facts that we all know that you folks try to discredit with blogs, conspiracies and gossips.

The BBC will be interested to know that they are merely a blog in your opinion as they raised the question about the validity of the staged statue toppling.

news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm

The Los Angeles Times and the Seattle Times will be delighted to hear that they are merely blogs as they reported that the statue toppling was fake.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...5_statue04.html

Then blame the Democratic Congress for making the dictator Bush. You know very well Congress needs to just say yes to Bush for him to be a legit dictator, right?

You need to contact the major wire services as quickly as possible. They will be very interested to learn that Bush has had a Democratic Congress for the past eight years.

[AROCES]

Oh, let's revert to the old Joe McCarthy line, "If you're not with me, you're a pinko." If I refuse to support the mass murders of George Bush, I must be supporting Saddam Hussein. And incidentally, the Iraqis did not, exactly, hang Hussein themselves. U.S. military authorities would not permit his attorney access to him for the preparation of his trial. periodistasenguerra.blogspot.com/2007/12/ms-sobre-el-juicio-bilal-hussein.html - 106k -

An army of military attorneys were on hand to assist with the prosecution. Evidences against Hussein were not compiled by Iraq, Iran, Saudi or Kuwait . . . .rather by the U.S. (See the report of By David J. Scheffer

Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues). Hussein's lawyers were mysterious killed. A judge was killed under equally mysterious circumstances. Without the influence of the U.S., the question of whether or not the Iraqi court would have found him guilty is a matter of speculation. As much as you wish it was true, Iraq was a minor player in the conviction or execution of Saddam Hussein.

Like I said, you need now to move to the conspiracies and fairy tale forum.

The BBC will be interested to know that they are merely a blog in your opinion as they raised the question about the validity of the staged statue toppling.

news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_3502000/3502633.stm

So when It's BBC it is suddenly a fact? As you indicate they raised the question, meaning they are fishing.

You need to contact the major wire services as quickly as possible. They will be very interested to learn that Bush has had a Democratic Congress for the past eight years.

Huh??? You seem confused now, that is common when you make accusations base on nothing.

[Dr. D]

Like I said, you need now to move to the conspiracies and fairy tale forum.

So when It's BBC it is suddenly a fact? As you indicate they raised the question, meaning they are fishing.

Huh??? You seem confused now, that is common when you make accusations base on nothing.

Like I said, you need now to move to the conspiracies and fairy tale forum.

Oh, so you deny that the U.S. had more than 40 military attorneys at Saddam's trial? You deny that the U.S. did not influence the court? You deny that the evidences used at the trial were not assembled by the U.S.? You deny the statements of David J. Scheffer, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues? You can tell us who killed Hussein's lawyers? You deny that they were murdered?

And I need to go to conspiracies and fairy tales forum?

So when It's BBC it is suddenly a fact? As you indicate they raised the question, meaning they are fishing.

How conveniently you forget the L.A. Times and Seattle Times . . . hmmm. I guess a truck load of Pulitzers doesn't mean anything to you . . . . they all just yellow journalists when they write about your favorite mass killer.

Huh??? You seem confused now, that is common when you make accusations base on nothing.

You're the one saying "Huh?" and claiming that I'm confused. So you honestly remember that Bush has had a Democratic Congress for the past eight years? After all, it was you who wrongly stated that the "Democratic Congress" would have been responsible for him being the dictator he is.

[AROCES]

Oh, so you deny that the U.S. had more than 40 military attorneys at Saddam's trial? You deny that the U.S. did not influence the court? You deny that the evidences used at the trial were not assembled by the U.S.? You deny the statements of David J. Scheffer, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues? You can tell us who killed Hussein's lawyers? You deny that they were murdered?

I can't deny it and you can't prove it. But the Iraqis can speak for themselves and so far they don't echo you or talk like you do.

Why are you the one so angry at your stories and not the Iraqis????

See, you really have to move on to the Conspiracies and fairy tale forum.

How conveniently you forget the L.A. Times and Seattle Times . . . hmmm. I guess a truck load of Pulitzers doesn't mean anything to you . . . . they all just yellow journalists when they write about your favorite mass killer.

Same they were fishing as well and as you can see the story died and didn't fly. But there are still a very few like you is trying to make it take off believing it will still fly.

You're the one saying "Huh?" and claiming that I'm confused. So you honestly remember that Bush has had a Democratic Congress for the past eight years? After all, it was you who wrongly stated that the "Democratic Congress" would have been responsible for him being the dictator he is.

Well, there were Democrats in congress and if they allowed Bush to be a dictator then that is their fault.

Why don't you just admit that when you don't get your way you call it dictatorship and when you get your way you call it as the voice of the American people.

And when you loose an election you got cheated and when you win it is the voice of the American people.

It is simply believing in something that isn't so.

Edited June 3, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

I can't deny it and you can't prove it. But the Iraqis can speak for themselves and so far they don't echo you or talk like you do.

Why are you the one so angry at your stories and not the Iraqis????

See, you really have to move on to the Conspiracies and fairy tale forum.

Same they were fishing as well and as you can see the story died and didn't fly. But there are still a very few like you is trying to make it take off believing it will still fly.

Well, there were Democrats in congress and if they allowed Bush to be a dictator then that is their fault.

Why don't you just admit that when you don't get your way you call it dictatorship and when you get your way you call it as the voice of the American people.

And when you loose an election you got cheated and when you win it is the voice of the American people.

It is simply believing in something that isn't so.

I can't deny it and you can't prove it. But the Iraqis can speak for themselves and so far they don't echo you or talk like you do. Why are you the one so angry at your stories and not the Iraqis????

See, you really have to move on to the Conspiracies and fairy tale forum.

I can't prove it? If you had followed the trial with any interest, you would have known what Wikipedia now reports, "Hussein's defense repeatedly argued for a delay in the proceedings, insisting that it had not been given evidence secured by the prosecution, had not been given sufficient time to review any prosecution documents, but so far these submissions have received no response from the court. International human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN bodies such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the Iraqi Special Tribunal and its legal process did not meet international standards for a fair trial. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan declined to support the proceeding, expressing similar concerns over fairness as well as over the possibility of a death sentence in the case."

I am certain that the U.S. controlled press in Iraq would report the Iraqi's view of anything. That is done by the Brits and they do a pretty good job, covering things that are forgotten in the U.S.

I won't say that you should be in conspiracies or fairy tales but with your disregard for truth and fact, you would definitely qualify for Bush's cabinet.

Same they were fishing as well and as you can see the story died and didn't fly. But there are still a very few like you is trying to make it take off believing it will still fly.

So when the newspapers don't report something like Bush's mafia taking 8,000 pages from Iraq's arms report, it is because it is not news. When they do report something, it's because they are fishing. Yes, you would definitely qualify for the Secretary of False Information.

Well, there were Democrats in congress and if they allowed Bush to be a dictator then that is their fault.

Why don't you just admit that when you don't get your way you call it dictatorship and when you get your way you call it as the voice of the American people.

And when you loose an election you got cheated and when you win it is the voice of the American people.

It is simply believing in something that isn't so.

So all of the bills that were passed by the Republican majority were passed at the fault of the Democrats? I have said nothing about getting my own way. I have not mentioned an election. Your assumptions are based upon what you hoped I would say, not anything I actually said.

The voice of the American people says that three out of four do not like Bush. But then, I suppose that was only in blogs or in some award-winning newspaper that was "fishing" for stories. Your logic is about as credible as Bush's.

[AROCES]

I can't prove it? If you had followed the trial with any interest, you would have known what Wikipedia now reports, "Hussein's defense repeatedly argued for a delay in the proceedings, insisting that it had not been given evidence secured by the prosecution, had not been given sufficient time to review any prosecution documents, but so far these submissions have received no response from the court. International human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN bodies such as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the Iraqi Special Tribunal and its legal process did not meet international standards for a fair trial. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan declined to support the proceeding, expressing similar concerns over fairness as well as over the possibility of a death sentence in the case."

I am certain that the U.S. controlled press in Iraq would report the Iraqi's view of anything. That is done by the Brits and they do a pretty good job, covering things that are forgotten in the U.S.

I won't say that you should be in conspiracies or fairy tales but with your disregard for truth and fact, you would definitely qualify for Bush's cabinet.

You have a long list, but the most important and the one that matters most is not on your list. The Iraqis themselves.

And as always my source are the facts itself, the Iraqis don't echo you and your assorted groups so you cling to conspiracies like controlling the press in a world wide web era.

So when the newspapers don't report something like Bush's mafia taking 8,000 pages from Iraq's arms report, it is because it is not news. When they do report something, it's because they are fishing. Yes, you would definitely qualify for the Secretary of False Information.

A report is nothing really unless there is a continuation to it.

Seems like it's you who been had and been listening to false information. Think about it, what you believe in always gets ignored.

The voice of the American people says that three out of four do not like Bush. But then, I suppose that was only in blogs or in some award-winning newspaper that was "fishing" for stories. Your logic is about as credible as Bush's.

And the Democratic controlled congress had an 11% approval ratings. I think the people are just generally not happy with just about everything.

Edited June 3, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

You have a long list, but the most important and the one that matters most is not on your list. The Iraqis themselves.

And as always my source are the facts itself, the Iraqis don't echo you and your assorted groups so you cling to conspiracies like controlling the press in a world wide web era.

A report is nothing really unless there is a continuation to it.

Seems like it's you who been had and been listening to false information. Think about it, what you believe in always gets ignored.

And the Democratic controlled congress had an 11% approval ratings. I think the people are just generally not happy with just about everything.

You have a long list, but the most important and the one that matters most is not on your list. The Iraqis themselves.

And as always my source are the facts itself, the Iraqis don't echo you and your assorted groups so you cling to conspiracies like controlling the press in a world wide web era.

Strange . . . . you insist that the Iraqis must be heard but when they do speak and 90% of them say that their lives were better under Hussein . . . . it becomes a few radicals inspired by liberals . . . . so on and so on with the usual Bushovic rhetoric.

And the Democratic controlled congress had an 11% approval ratings. I think the people are just generally not happy with just about everything.

Again, the only defense is found in comparison. The Democratic Congress did not make Bush the worst president in American history. You cannot deal with the issue itself. Bush is the most unpopular president in history and he well deserves it. Intelligent Americans recognize his incompetence, his errors and lies and they have voiced their opinion. The thread is not about the Congress.

And as always my source are the facts itself, the Iraqis don't echo you and your assorted groups so you cling to conspiracies like controlling the press in a world wide web era. [/b]

Facts? I have failed to see one yet. These are facts . . .

MOST IRAQIS FAVOR IMMEDIATE U.S. PULLOUT

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

IRAQIS OUT OF PATIENCE

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

IRAQIS WANT U.S. OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78921

IRAQIS WANT US OUT

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009578

POLL SAYS MOST IRAQIS WANT US OUT

www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29poll.html

IRAQIS SAY THEY WERE BETTER OFF UNDER HUSSEIN

www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

LIFE BETTER UNDER HUSSEIN

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3084957.ece

THE IRAQIS WERE BETTER OFF UNDER HUSSEIN

www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=62434

(a voice directly from Iraq)

IRAQIS NO BETTER OFF WITH HUSSEIN GONE

dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2004/mar/22/iraqis-no-better-off-with-huss

[AROCES]

Strange . . . . you insist that the Iraqis must be heard but when they do speak and 90% of them say that their lives were better under Hussein . . . . it becomes a few radicals inspired by liberals . . . . so on and so on with the usual Bushovic rhetoric.

Tell me what is more credible, a poll of a thousand Iraqis or the millions of Iraqis not driving us out of Iraq?

No matter how sacred you want that poll to be, it's still a poll.

No country really lives, die, rule or goes by the poll.

Again, the only defense is found in comparison. The Democratic Congress did not make Bush the worst president in American history. You cannot deal with the issue itself. Bush is the most unpopular president in history and he well deserves it. Intelligent Americans recognize his incompetence, his errors and lies and they have voiced their opinion. The thread is not about the Congress.

And Bush did not make the Present Democratic Congress the worst approval rating ever in American History.

The legacy of a President is decided by historians, not really by his enemies.

Facts? I have failed to see one yet. These are facts . . .

MOST IRAQIS FAVOR IMMEDIATE U.S. PULLOUT

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

IRAQIS OUT OF PATIENCE

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

IRAQIS WANT U.S. OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78921

Yes, they want us out and the Iraqis is very clear with that.

But when they say so, not when you say so.

[The Silver Thong]

Expatriate

I have to chuckle a little here as many have tried what you are trying now, and quite frankly when dealing with Aroces you have stepped into his pile of poo. He never posts anything that back's his angle nor is anything he says, nothing but pure right wing opinion that he spouts day and night. He will never post a link nor a source to back himself, nor will he post a link that refutes your own link. His ability to debate is of his own opinion and nothing you say will change his view EVER! I will give him credit for his convictions but will never give credence to his convictions.

You are putting up a great debate, but Aroces will never change his stance. He is a longtime member and many have tried. I think he might be a Manchurian candidate and Bush has him in his pocket/arsenal. I stick my tongue out at you Aroces but I will say you keep this interesting if not a bit on the nutbar side of things. You say black and Aroces will say white. You say I like my coffe black, he will say prove it. He has a great argument and it reminds of this " i'm rubber and your glue, what ever you say to me bounces of me and sticks to you" LOL

Keep up the good fight, but I do believe Aroces will where down what is trying to be said and you will just drop talking to the guy. I will admit, it is fun getting him going LOL

[AROCES]

Expatriate

I have to chuckle a little here as many have tried what you are trying now, and quite frankly when dealing with Aroces you have stepped into his pile of poo. He never posts anything that back's his angle nor is anything he says, nothing but pure right wing opinion that he spouts day and night. He will never post a link nor a source to back himself, nor will he post a link that refutes your own link. His ability to debate is of his own opinion and nothing you say will change his view EVER! I will give him credit for his convictions but will never give credence to his convictions.

You are putting up a great debate, but Aroces will never change his stance. He is a longtime member and many have tried. I think he might be a Manchurian candidate and Bush has him in his pocket/arsenal. I stick my tongue out at you Aroces but I will say you keep this interesting if not a bit on the nutbar side of things. You say black and Aroces will say white. You say I like my coffe black, he will say prove it. He has a great argument and it reminds of this " i'm rubber and your glue, what ever you say to me bounces of me and sticks to you" LOL

Keep up the good fight, but I do believe Aroces will where down what is trying to be said and you will just drop talking to the guy. I will admit, it is fun getting him going LOL

So, Expatraite now has a cheer leader. Got your pom poms?

Or are you coming to his rescue?

Edited June 4, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

Tell me what is more credible, a poll of a thousand Iraqis or the millions of Iraqis not driving us out of Iraq?

No matter how sacred you want that poll to be, it's still a poll.

No country really lives, die, rule or goes by the poll.

And Bush did not make the Present Democratic Congress the worst approval rating ever in American History.

The legacy of a President is decided by historians, not really by his enemies.

Yes, they want us out and the Iraqis is very clear with that.

But when they say so, not when you say so.

Tell me what is more credible, a poll of a thousand Iraqis or the millions of Iraqis not driving us out of Iraq?

No matter how sacred you want that poll to be, it's still a poll.

No country really lives, die, rule or goes by the poll.

How ridiculously convenient it is for you to ignore the numerous articles with direct quotes, including an article from an Iraqi magazine . . . . no, climb back under the rock and talk about polls.

And Bush did not make the Present Democratic Congress the worst approval rating ever in American History.

The legacy of a President is decided by historians, not really by his enemies.

Again, this thread is not about the Congress. The voice came from deep under the rock . . . .

Yes, they want us out and the Iraqis is very clear with that.

But when they say so, not when you say so.

They have said so and intelligent people have listened.

[AROCES]

How ridiculously convenient it is for you to ignore the numerous articles with direct quotes, including an article from an Iraqi magazine . . . . no, climb back under the rock and talk about polls.

Quotes and Articles from magazines does not represent eh entire Iraqi people, they have voted and they have the freedom to drive us out of their country if they want to.

Imagine what a daily protest like a People Power will do?

Way more powerful than apoll or an article, right?

Again, this thread is not about the Congress. The voice came from deep under the rock . . . .

And it's not about conspiracies.

They have said so and intelligent people have listened.

Yup, that is why we are still in Iraq.

[Dr. D]

So, Expatraite now has a cheer leader. Got your pom poms?

Or are you coming to his rescue?

Some people recognize the value of good arguments supported by references.

Too bad you don't.

[Dr. D]

Quotes and Articles from magazines does not represent eh entire Iraqi people, they have voted and they have the freedom to drive us out of their country if they want to.

Imagine what a daily protest like a People Power will do?

Way more powerful than apoll or an article, right?

And it's not about conspiracies.

Yup, that is why we are still in Iraq.

Quotes and Articles from magazines does not represent eh entire Iraqi people, they have voted and they have the freedom to drive us out of their country if they want to. Imagine what a daily protest like a People Power will do? Way more powerful than apoll or an article, right?

I don't know . . . I am debating with someone who offers no support for their "arguments." At any rate, tell me by what means the Bush mafia is getting information from "the entire! Iraqi people? The ones they haven't killed, that is.

And it's not about conspiracies.

Quite true. . . it's about George W. Bush . . . a topic you have avoided up to this point. Hiding behind the Congress, conspiracies, fairy tales, the Iraqi people's choices . . . but nothing to really defend this idiot. Could it be that it can't be done?

Yup, that is why we are still in Iraq.

What a dream that is. We are there because we entered a military nightmare with no exit plan. The war was conducted just like Bush has conducted his business affairs as a private citizen (complete failure), and HIS war is a failure, as well. It was ill-conceived, illegal, based upon lies and has devastated America. That spells failure to most thinking people.

[AROCES]

I don't know . . . I am debating with someone who offers no support for their "arguments." At any rate, tell me by what means the Bush mafia is getting information from "the entire! Iraqi people? The ones they haven't killed, that is.

Do you see hundreds of thousand of Iraqis marching on the street wanting us out???

There you go, what more support do I need?

And it's not about conspiracies.

Quite true. . . it's about George W. Bush . . . a topic you have avoided up to this point. Hiding behind the Congress, conspiracies, fairy tales, the Iraqi people's choices . . . but nothing to really defend this idiot. Could it be that it can't be done?

Defend what? All you have is he did this and he did that?

You have members of congress who wanted to bag him ever since, why are they ignoring your proofs then???

What a dream that is. We are there because we entered a military nightmare with no exit plan. The war was conducted just like Bush has conducted his business affairs as a private citizen (complete failure), and HIS war is a failure, as well. It was ill-conceived, illegal, based upon lies and has devastated America. That spells failure to most thinking people.

The Democratic Congress can easily cut the funding for the war and that will be it, so you been barking at the wrong tree.

[Dr. D]

Do you see hundreds of thousand of Iraqis marching on the street wanting us out???

There you go, what more support do I need?

Do you see hundreds of thousands of Americans marching in the street wanting Bush out? No, but that does not diminish the fact that 75% of them want exactly that. You can never prove anything by what DOESN'T happen. A responsible person offers evidences from what DOES happen. But again . . . as usual . . . no evidences, no references, no anything to support your empty claims. And obviously I am not alone in recognizing this.

Defend what? All you have is he did this and he did that?

You have members of congress who wanted to bag him ever since, why are they ignoring your proofs then???

Even the worst political analyst recognizes that the Congress understands that this white house vermin has little time left and it is best to wait until he is gone, fumigate and move on. That does not mean that the proofs are wrong or non-existant. It means that Congress wants what is more expedient. The people, however, want this ignorant waste out . . . thus the very low rating of the Congress.

The Democratic Congress can easily cut the funding for the war and that will be it, so you been barking at the wrong tree.

Again, to understand anything about politics or its process, it must be recognized that the Congress is waiting to see what the next Democratic president wants to do with the mess Bush is leaving him. Hopefully there will be a withdrawal and an immediate attention given to domestic problems.

The blind support of someone so incredibly and obviously unqualified to be president demands no less than therapy. To even suggest that he has done a responsible job as president defies all logic and awareness of fact.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Expatriate

[The Silver Thong]

So, Expatraite now has a cheer leader. Got your pom poms?

Or are you coming to his rescue?

LOL I don't think he's the one needing rescueing shish boom ba

[AROCES]

Do you see hundreds of thousands of Americans marching in the street wanting Bush out? No, but that does not diminish the fact that 75% of them want exactly that. You can never prove anything by what DOESN'T happen. A responsible person offers evidences from what DOES happen. But again . . . as usual . . . no evidences, no references, no anything to support your empty claims. And obviously I am not alone in recognizing this.

Nope, the Americans simply reelected Bush. Remember we were already in Iraq when Bush got reelected.

And same thing with the Iraqis, they voted for a government that wanted the US Military not to leave yet.

You have the poll and then the election, then you find out how accurate the pooll is.

How is that for evidence.

Even the worst political analyst recognizes that the Congress understands that this white house vermin has little time left and it is best to wait until he is gone, fumigate and move on. That does not mean that the proofs are wrong or non-existant. It means that Congress wants what is more expedient. The people, however, want this ignorant waste out . . . thus the very low rating of the Congress.

Oh, sudddenly you understand why we can just wait for Bush's term to end instead of cutting the funds to end the war ASAP! LOL

I thought 90% of the Iraqis wants us out now and wants the Batthe party back??? Want to tell the Iraqis then they have to wait for Bush term to end?

You starting to contraadict yourself now, see what I mean when you believe in things that isn't so?

Again, to understand anything about politics or its process, it must be recognized that the Congress is waiting to see what the next Democratic president wants to do with the mess Bush is leaving him. Hopefully there will be a withdrawal and an immediate attention given to domestic problems.

So Congress will wait and see?

What about the 90% Iraqis??? And your poll that saya Americans wants us out of Iraq now and hate Bush????

Now you giving excuses why we should not pull out yet. LOL .

Edited June 4, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

Nope, the Americans simply reelected Bush. Remember we were already in Iraq when Bush got reelected.

And same thing with the Iraqis, they voted for a government that wanted the US Military not to leave yet.

How is that for evidence.

What a distorted sense of logic! The Iraqi election was three years ago! According to you nothing has changed since then . . . public opinion is a stagnant thing that never changes with time. Typical Bushism . . . confusing illusion with fact.

I thought 90% of the Iraqis wants us out now and wants the Batthe party back??? Want to tell the Iraqis then they have to wait for Bush term to end?

You starting to contraadict yourself now, see what I mean when you believe in things that isn't so?

So when there is no legitimate argument, invent something . . . another typical Bushism. Just because the Iraqis want the U.S. out does not mean they want the Batthe Party back. How can you possible conclude something like that? The question of whether or not they were better off under Hussein does mean that times were good back then, only that they are much worse now.

So Congress will wait and see?

What about the 90% Iraqis??? And your poll that saya Americans wants us out of Iraq now and hate Bush????

Now you giving excuses why we should not pull out yet. LOL .

Have a little problem defending the indefensible, do we? More inventions and distortions of the truth? Where did I quote a poll saying tht Americans want us out of Iraq now? The poll I quoted was that the IRAQIS wanted the U.S. out of Iraq now. And where did I quote a poll dealing with a hatred of Bush???