Over the past few weeks, this site has been bombarded with articles and comments questioning the honesty of the Bush Administration in regards to the lack of any WMD’s having been found in Iraq to date. Each article contains the same argument as all the other articles on the same subject, though worded only slightly different. Why the need for this? If your case were strong enough, wouldn’t only a couple of articles making the same points be required? Those who continue to press this issue have taken the attitude of “Tell a lie often enough, and people will believe it.” This is where their hope exists.

Of course, if you suggest this to them, they respond that you are only trying to distract from the importance of the point which is being made. This tactic on their part is meant to divert the attention from considering the motives behind their own actions, a pale attempt to prop-up their own weak argument, effectively the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

It is suggested that we are to believe that the “Bush Junta” planned and carried out the attacks on our country that occurred September 11, 2001. We are told that the planes were flown by remote control, that explosives were placed in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in order to ensure the destruction of the building, that a missile or a plane was flown by remote control into the Pentagon, that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was also done by remote control, that the families who received cell phone calls placed by people on board the planes describing hijackers are people who have been manipulated into telling lies, that the families who were allowed by the NTSB to hear the recording made by the black box on the ill-fated flight were listening to a recording concocted by the government. We are told that this vastly complicated event was managed down to the last “t” being crossed and the last “i” being dotted by a handful of bureaucrats and involving a host of what could only have been hundreds, and more likely thousands, of willing participants which have all remained loyally silent to this day.

And yet, with a year having passed from when Bush named Iraq one of the three “Axis of Evil” countries until the land engagement actually started, these same individuals did not plan the Iraq War down to the last “t” being crossed and the last “i” being dotted. That these same individuals, who so carefully planned and carried out 9/11, and with everything on the line, somehow missed making sure that without a doubt large stockpiles of WMD’s would be found in Iraq immediately following the end of the war if not during.

These two scenarios that we are being asked to believe do not match up with each other. Individuals at this level who go to all the time and effort to “pull off” an event like 9/11, do NOT miss something as simple as making sure WMD’s are in place at the right time and at the right moment.

Until these Bush hating, left-wing, conspiracy ridden shills can provide for us undisputed documented evidence showing that the current administration planned and carried out 9/11, and until they can satisfactorily explain why these same individuals who so carefully planned and carried out 9/11would not have ensured that WMD’s were found immediately after the war in Iraq, there is no motive for reasonable people to take into consideration anything they put forth.

Bush said he had intelligence information indicating that there were WMDs in Iraq. He used that to justify an unprovoked agression against another country. Not only do we know that he DID NOT have such intelligence information, we also know that he did not find the weapons.

Bush lied.

Case closed.

Impeach the bastard.

"Bush said he had intelligence information indicating that there were WMDs in Iraq. Not only do we know that he DID NOT have such intelligence information, we also know that he did not find the weapons."

Answer the question:

"That these same individuals, who so carefully planned and carried out 9/11, and with everything on the line, somehow missed making sure that without a doubt large stockpiles of WMD’s would be found in Iraq immediately following the end of the war if not during."

They planned 9/11 and pulled it off marveously. Why didn't thay make sure that without a doubt WMD's would be found in Iraq? How hard could that have been?

the sceene is set, the media ready and we can hardly wait.

One truck load of VX coming up. Where do you want it?

Well, Patton (are you named in honor of the great general who slapped hospitalized soldiers and consorted with Nazis after WWII?) let me set you straight on a few things. First of all, not all opponents of Bush believe that the US carried out the 9/11 attack or allowed it to happen; if you followed left publications or websites you would know that there is a huge debate on this and would not be displaying your ignorance on this board. Secondly, the Bushites obviously did not have the freedom to roam around Iraq planting weapons of mass destruction before the invasion. What would they do - parachute a nuclear bomb or supply of anthrax into the desert, where it could be found by the Iraqis and used against the invading US forces? If you believe Bush's excuses for the invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq you are a self-evident fool - the type who believed Hitler when he claimed that every nation he attacked was getting ready to invade Germany.

"Secondly, the Bushites obviously did not have the freedom to roam around Iraq planting weapons of mass destruction before the invasion."

Too easy.

Who said anything about "before". What about "after"? As our military gradually took more and more of the country under its control, the CIA trucks carrying the "Iraqi produced WMD's" could have easily planted them. And that's just from a civilian observation. Who knows what sinister, covert ways our government could have "planted" those WMD's to be found at just the right time.

...the poster who does no credit to the names he has appropriated poses a lollapalooza of a whopper in his/her very argument. The attempt to link together the discrediting of the Bush Junta's Big Iraq Attack and 911.

Arguments on the two topics can be linked but not in the way the poster attempts. And 911 culpability does not even need to come up in discrediting the Bush Junta's arguments for conducting the Invasion and Conquest of Iraq.

Bush, Cheney, et. al., asserted with certainty, and repeatedly, that Saddam posed an IMMEDIATE threat by possession of banned weapons which he was going to give to Al Qaeda any moment.

1. Saddam Had no such weapons and therefore assertions that the Junta had intelligence proving their existence is thus false.

2. Saddam's Regime was a Secular Regime and an anathema to Al-Qaeda - Osama Bin Forgotten was no friend, or ally, of Saddam.

Bush lied, Cheney lied, Wolfowitz lied, Rumsfeld lied.

The premise of the Iraq Conquest was a lie from beginning to end.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT. It really is that simple.

.......... how did the same beaucrats who so carefully planed and carried out 9/11 miss something so simple as making sure that WMD's were found? Minds that are so sinister as to plan out 9/11 or, if you do not believe they planned out 9/11, would take advantage of such as event as 9/11, would also be so sinister as to make sure beyond a doubt that WMD's would be found in Iraq just like they said they would.

A team of sinister minds like this wouldn't miss something that obvious. They wouldn't have made it this far with such poor planning and oversight. And no reasonable explanation otherwise has been demonstrated.

why does the 'discovery' have to be immediate?

It would be better to use the media washed find at the most opportune time. Perhaps an unfortunent accident involving mass casualties?

"First of all, not all opponents of Bush believe that the US carried out the 9/11 attack or allowed it to happen"

Yes we do believe this. Openly join the other shills on this board and stop pretending to be one of us.

We didn't mind letting that hotel full of Marenes get wasted did we?

This would be perfect PR for the new improved war on terror.

"why does the 'discovery' have to be immediate?"

Not sure who your question was aimed at, but it would be best answered by those who insist that Bush lied and no WMD's exist, and they would also be the same one's who are more likely to believe that the US government intentionally allowed a truck bomber to kill marines in Lebanon.

Or those who claim they are confused. There are many unanswered questions about 9

/11, such as the failure to scramble fighter jets, Bush's lingering in a school to discuss pet goats after he had been given the news about the first Tower hit, the expertise with which pilots trained on Piper Cubs and on computer screens flew huge jet aircraft right into their targets, the run on airline stocks prior to the attacks, the quickness with which the towers collapsed, and others. I don't regard the debate on these issues as closed. However, none of this has anything to do with the fact that Bush lied about knowing that Iraq had WMDs that threatened the United States, or that he knowingly used this lied to justify an invasion that was no more legal than Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939.

And what the devil does the explosion that killed hundreds of sitting duck marines during their occupation of Lebanon more than twenty years ago have to do with anything that we have been discussing here?

...that the Truck Bomb attack in Lebanon has nothing to do with this argument and that is the point. It was used as vehicle to assert the absurdity that the Government allowed that particular bombing to happen and thus an oblique attempt to discredit the other valid arguments by implication. PR Shill tactics.

Now if one were to argue that Israeli Intelligence knew in advance about the Truck Bomber and witheld the intelligence to allow it to happen and thus engender animosity towards Arabs well...I have seen that argument advanced - no conclusive proof of it though.

"However, none of this has anything to do with the fact that Bush lied about knowing that Iraq had WMDs that threatened the United States, or that he knowingly used this lied to justify an invasion"

However, it does have everything to do with an administration who has been accused of either having planned 9/11 or using it to their advantage, and this same administration not having the foresight to make sure WMD's would definately be found just like they said it was there.

Even your comments regarding the flight schools, stock purchases, Bush at the school, fighter jets and the like reaks with suggestions that Bush had a hand in all these events. For Bush to do that, he would have to be evil and sinister in nature. People who are that evil and sinister in nature are going to make sure WMD's are where they said they were just like they said they were. Details like missing WMD's are not something they and their team are going to overlook when insuring their "lie" will be believed.

"Bush lied about knowing that Iraq had WMDs that threatened the United States"

Everybody knows Saddam had WMDs -- everybody on the Security Council (Res 1441), Hans Blix, Saddam himself admitted it after the defection of his son-in-law, etc. That's not the issue. Where are they? The equivalent of about 5 trailers full of stuff. Tough to find. Requires people telling where it is. Just like what the defectors did in the past.

Why does it pose a danger to the West? Oil. Saddam's WMDs (the government was chiefly concerned with the nuclear threat) would allow him to pull off his dream. Taking over the Middle East. The thought of that alone would raise oil prices.

If you really want to know what people in the CIA and NSA were thinking, simply read Pollack's book.

...they did.

However, Al Martin has a column up from a Pentagon Whistleblower who asserts that there was an operation to plant "evidence of WMDs® (2001 The White House) but that the team was killed by "friendly fire". If true it is sadly ironic and most just.

Diogenes wrote:

"I have seen that argument advanced - no conclusive proof of it though."

No shit, Sherlock. If there had been conclusive proof of ANY of your ridiculous conspiracy fantasies, then they would no longer be ridiculous conspiracy fantasies -- they'd be called something else: objective reality.

The Israelis had made no secret that they wanted US forces out of Lebanon before the explosion and, in one well-publicized incident, Israeli and US forces had come very close to the use of force when a young American officer refused to allow an Israeli column to advance into an area that had been declared off limits to them. The Israelis finally backed off, but claimed that the American officer had been "drunk." At another point, a source in the Israeli government told the press that the Israeli army was strong enough to "crush" the Marines stationed in Lebanon if it chose to do so. Does any of this prove that the Israelis allowed the truck bombing to take place? No. Does it indicate that speculation that they may have allowed it is nonsense? No.

"Everybody knows Saddam had WMDs -- Where are they?"

A sinister, lying Bush Junta who knowingly lied about WMD's would make damn sure that when the troops starting searching for them, they would be found. Details like that are not left out of the playbook. That they have not been found lends to us a more clear picture that Bush did not lie.

I have yet to see anyone argue that one of the reasons for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was the free flow of oil at market prices that the threat of him taking over the Middle East posed. It was not, however, the only reason.

The US imports 58% of its oil. Of the imported oil, the top three countries are Saudi Arabia, Canada and Mexico. Iraq is #7 with only 3.9%. The US and the other 6 countries only slightly turn up their spickets and Iraq becomes unnecessary. It was not about the control of oil. Purchasing power IS control. As the largest buyers of oil in the world, the US already controls the oil.

SOMO, Iraq's state oil marketing company, announced its first sale of crude oil. Ten million barrels went to Respo and Cepsa of Spain, Turkey's Tupas; Italy's ENI; France's Total and the U.S. held Chevron Texaco. This doesn't sound like the U.S. domination of the world oil supply predicted by so many opponents of the war. How many who claimed "war for oil" will now admit that the Iraqi oil has finally been turned over to the real winners of the war, the Iraqi people.

That they have not been found lends to us a more clear picture that Bush did not lie.

Taking words out of context won't help you.

Liars cover their tracks. Liars make sure WMD's are found whether or not they were ever "really" there to begin with. Details like that are not overlooked when scripting the BIG LIE.

...of lice and verming oftimes go astray.

According to a breaking story on Al Martin's Web Site a Pentagon Whistleblower has come forward saying that there was a team in Iraq to plant evidence, but that they were killed by friendly fire.

How ironic.

The cover-up of THE BIG LIE would never be left to such chance. Plan B & C & D & E......... would be in place and ready to roll.

Al Martin reported it. It must be true. Who can argue with that. hehehehe

We are told that the Bush Junta is evil and sinister. We are told the evil and sinister Bush intentionally lied about WMD's. Yet, we are not to believe this same evil and sinister Bush would make for damn sure that without a doubt WMD's would show up in Iraq, whether they were "really" ever there or not.

Until these Bush hating, left-wing, conspiracy ridden shills can provide for us undisputed documented evidence showing that the current administration planned and carried out 9/11, and until they can satisfactorily explain why these same individuals who so carefully planned and carried out 9/11would not have ensured that WMD’s were found immediately after the war in Iraq, there is no motive for reasonable people to take into consideration anything they put forth.

If Bush had found WMD's in Iraq, that would have proved that he had not lied. And the fact that he did not find WMDs in Iraq also proves that he did not lie. Heads Bush wins, and tails he also wins. My guess is that he will eventually come up with something he claims is a WMD. However, it will have to be skillfully put together because people like UN arms inspectors or disloyal French Government arms experts will be on the lookout for fraud. Or maybe he is planning to use the option that these WMDs have obviously been moved to Syria or Iran, so the US has to invade these countries, in self-defense, of course. Whatever Bush does or does not do, we can be sure that people will appear on this board to defend him, out of stupidity, out of cynicism, or because they get payed to defend him and to disrupt boards like this one.

You got to be kidding me. Is that where you get your info?

"To access this news service, a monthly subscription of only .95 is required. That's the same price as Wall Street Journal online -- except Al Martin Raw is packed with REAL useful and useable information about How the Real World Works."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

...when you are unable to refute the argument attack the source however you may.

This can include innuendo.

Character assasination.

Mockery (as in this case).

It can take many forms. Recognize it for what it is: The last defense

for the indefensible.

BUSH LIED, CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

"If Bush had found WMD's in Iraq, that would have proved that he had not lied. And the fact that he did not find WMDs in Iraq also proves that he did not lie. Heads Bush wins, and tails he also wins."

We've been told by some that if WMD's are not found that means Bush lied, but if they DO find WMD's, that means Bush had them planted. Heads Bush loses, and tails he also loses. How is that any different?

The point being made is that those on your side of the aisle claim Bush is evil and sinister. I'm pointing out that THE BIG LIE of WMD's is not something that is left to chance if in fact it is a lie. You'd have to have a political death wish to intentionally lie about WMD's knowing they aren't REALLY there, and then not do anything to cover your tracks. And not just "A" plan to ensure WMD's show up, but many plans to make sure WMD's show up. You can't leave that to chance, no way, not in this lifetime. It's just too big a risk to take.

Or you can always go pay some scam artist .95 per month of your hard earned dollars to have him fill you up with bullshit.

I get my bullshit for free, right here on IMC.

"...when you are unable to refute the argument attack the source however you may.

This can include innuendo.

Character assasination.

Mockery (as in this case).

It can take many forms. Recognize it for what it is: The last defense for the indefensible."

"Of course, if you suggest this to them, they respond that you are only trying to distract from the importance of the point which is being made. This tactic on their part is meant to divert the attention from considering the motives behind their own actions, a pale attempt to prop-up their own weak argument, effectively the voice of one crying in the wilderness."

Redundancy. Repost your tripe until they believe it.

Dosn't chage the fact that some con-man suckers you out of .95 every month just by telling you what you want to hear. Send me that cash and I'll tell you how GWB worships Satan and roasts babies alive over a spit, while dancing to the music of their screams.

Don't be a sucker for that Al Martin bullcrap. My website is far more informative and much more comparable to the Wall Street Journal than his.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

idiot.

Exactly Freddie. Diogenes did just as Patton LeMay said he would.

We are presented and asked to believe a story from Al Martin's website without question. Yet a story from the "corporate controlled media" is dismissed immediately as being unreliable without question or explanation by these same ones.

Two different agendas

pick a card.

Al Martin obviously has an agenda, but Patton Lemay doesn't have one, other than pointing out inherrent leftist hypocrisy.

Before GW2, the Bush administration were 100% sure of WMD storage locations in Iraq.

After GW2, no WMD was found in those locations.

Whether they lie on WMD or not, this shows the imcompetent on thier infomation gathering.

If they really lied about WMD, they failed to find WMD simply shows that this adminstration is both arrogrant and stupid - stupid enough not to plant one or simply too scare to plant one.

Never heard of him.

He is the patriotic American that wrote this article.

So, who cares what he thinks?

That article is a pallid attempt to use absurdities to trivialize.

And I suspect that you are him. I hear the sound of one hand clapping ones self on the back.

Yours is a pallid attempt to discredit an honest effort to show you why YOU are a hypocrite.

Patton LeMay sounds to me like a combination of two World War II/Cold War neanderthals - General Patton and Air Force General Curtis LeMay, the guy who designed the firebombing of Japanese civilian areas because he saw how effective the firestorms caused by British incendiary bombing were in massacring people in Dresden and correctly reasoned that they would be even more effective against the wood and paper housing of Tokyo when released in great quatities from the new B-29 bomber. Anyone who would use a handle fashioned from the last names of those two loons should raise a red flag right away. LeMay, by the way, later went on to run as George Wallace's running mate in the 1968 Presidential election and embarrassed even the ultra-reactionary Wallace by stating in a speech that the American public has to get over its fear of nuclear war.

The pro and anti Bush forces are not making the same argument that Bush is ring/wrong whether he finds WMDS or not. This is because there never were any WMDS; if there were the UN weapons inspectors would have found them; towards the end Saddam was giving them free access everywhere, including his personal living quarters. One would have to assume that the inspectors were either imbeciles or Iraqi agents not to find any of the weapons under those circumstances. When the inspectors argued forcefully that there was no justification for war, what possible reason was there to accept the word of a clown like Bush when he claimed that war was necessary? Of course, in his view the war was necessary - not to find weapons but to gain control of Iraqi oil away from the Iraqi government and away from French and Russian companies who had contracts there.

F.F.,

If everything here is B.S., why do you spend SO MUCH TIME trying to discredit the info? Surely if the info was unbelievable people would see through it for themselves. Why waste your valuable time here when you could be fighting 'evil-thinkers' elsewhere? Aren't your superpowers going to waste, Batman?

That we should immediately reinstate Hussein to power.

Oooops. Sorry Mr. Hussein. Our bad....

You must have mistaken ME for someone else. I've NEVER posted in this forum before today.

Why spend anytime de-bunking items that are BS? If they are BS, shouldn't the average reader be able to determine this? Why do you feel the need to bash this site?

The United States should withdraw its troops, make a public apology and public pledge of massive war reparations for the illegal invasion, and turn the administration of Iraq over to the United Nations, which would presumably station UN troops (with no US contingent) there until a temporary civilian government is installed. The Baath Party should be guaranteed the right to participate in any elections, all Iraqi officials and soldiers being held by the US should be realeased at once, and all "wanted lists" of Iraqis repudiated by the US Government. France and Russia should be reimbursed for any money they lost during the war, and any of their oil equipment that was destroyed or damaged during the invasion should be replaced or repaired by the US free of charge. Bush himself should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and any US servicepeople, particularly high ranking officers, who are suspected of committing war crimes should be handed over to the World Court for trial.

Americans are dumb man. paranoid fuckers.

and its not even as if their country is that great.

everyone lives in lame ass suburbs

life is so dull and boring in america.

and everybody dresses the same.

even if saddam did have nukes and he wanted to use them im sure there are more worthwile targets in this world. like the south pole for example. theres more life there than in american suburbs.

"This is because there never were any WMDS; if there were the UN weapons inspectors would have found them;"

Yet no one on this site prior to the war starting made an argument that troops or inspectors would not find WMD's. No one in the UN made the argument that they believed Iraq did not possess any WMD's. Only after the fact, and even then after only having given them approximately three months, have the leftists shills made the claim they knew there were no WMD's all along.

I have every reason to believe that in time they will be found. Ours has become a country of instant gratification. On TV, a crime takes place, clues are found, and the case is solved in 30 minutes. If the same thing doesn't happen in real life, the nay-sayers immediately chirp up.

The question regarding the "control" of oil has already been answered to the satisfaction of reasonable people in a previous posting.

"The United States should withdraw its troops, ...."

An excellent example why people who believe like this cannot be permitted to take a leading role in the political arena.

You must also believe in the tooth fairy, the story of Noah's Ark, that the moon is made of green cheese, and the theory of Manifest Destiny.

And how are you going to not permit us? By voting? Or perhaps by more forceful means - like Franco, Hitler and Pinochet?

Let me get this straight.

You want the Ba'ath Party free to run in any elections. Yoiu are aware, aren't you, that they are responsible for the deaths of many Iraqis? The rape squads? The plastic shredders? Any of this ring a bell?

You want the UN to run the interim government...the same UN that opposed the war in order to continue its highly-profitable oil-for-food program, converniently overlooking the fact that none of the humanitarian aid got to its intended recipients. Any of this ring a bell?

You want France and Russia reimbursed for the losses incurred due to the war...the war they opposed because their lucrative oil contracts were signed by Saddam himself, and would be void if Saddam were removed. Any of this ring a bell?

You want Bush impeached and US military personnel tried for war crimes...despite the fact that, in truth, Bush has committed no impeachable offenses, and the Ba'ath Party and Republican Guard committed worse atrocites than during combat than US forces are even capable of. Any of this ring a bell?

What I'd like to know, Meyer...why are you such an unapologetic, even proud, supporter of a terrorist regime? What went so horribly wrong in your life that you feel the need to side with evil?

That's what I'd like to know.

You and your kind will never be allowed to take a leading role in the political arena because you will never be more than a lunatic fringe element, stewing in your own hatred, vilifying all that is right with America, blaming your own failures and inadequacies on others.

Deal with it.

Patton wrote: "Until these Bush hating, left-wing, conspiracy ridden shills can provide for us undisputed documented evidence showing that the current administration planned and carried out 9/11, and until they can satisfactorily explain why these same individuals who so carefully planned and carried out 9/11would not have ensured that WMD’s were found immediately after the war in Iraq, there is no motive for reasonable people to take into consideration anything they put forth."

Of course they can't provide any of that Patton. These folks are CRAZY. They're not just a debate team on the opposite side of the argument. They really are CRAZY!

Anyone with half a brain can see that we've made more forward progress in foreign affairs since 9/11 than at any time since WWII. GW Bush is shaping up as a great President. He had more noteworthy achievements in his first year than Bill Clinton has had in his entire lifetime.

These CRAZY people are in denial of the facts.

Silence, jester.

Only the King has a brain here.

Anybody not abiding the royal law must be supporting Saddam.

Are these dissenters hung yet?

Silence, conservative.

Only the IMCers have a brain here.

Anybody not abiding the Party Line must be supporting Hitler.

Are these dissenters banned yet?

"And how are you going to not permit us?"

By assisting in marginalizing you as you continue to permit your own distorted opinions marginalize yourself.

Your whole diatribe is both bizarre and demented.

Fortunately for the rest of us, you're not in charge and your outre platform will NEVER come to fruition.

In short, your blather serves for no purpose other than to make yourself feel better.

I've read quite a few of your bloviations, and while entertaining, they transmit feelings of deep seated ill-will and depravity.

Meyer London, you need to seek help. ASAP.

Ah, we all know that speaking out for peace and social justice is a clear sign of depravity - just check the writings of Goebels and you will see that spelled out. As for ill will, to that I will plead guilty - ill will towards the militarism, xenophopia, authoritarianism, parochialism, hatred if immigrants, enjoyment of violence and outright fascist sympathies that you have demonstrated on this forum.

Well done indeed Meyer,

You seemed to have amassed quite a following of trolls! I hear fire is good to keep away trolls. Truth is fire.

Say, Daveman, has anyone ever told you that you sound like the second coming of Agnew? It must be gratifying to model yourself successfully on such a great-hearted and progressive leader.

By the way, concerning your rants about ideas like mine and those who agree with me never having a chance of winning, I can remember way back in 1966, listening to your counterparts of that era saying the same thing about people who opposed the Vietnam War. I'd be careful about making predictions like that if were you. Sevicemen who expressed doubts about the war back then were routinely sent to the base psychiatrist so he could help them to see that their weird ideas stemmed from basic immaturity and emotional conflicts. Maybe you should see such a person and try to find out why you seem to be stuck in a time warp and believe that this is still 1958. Don't tell him that you think that space aliens put you there, though, it may result in your being hospitalized and released from the service without a very good pension.

All of those thing you claim to oppose are those things you actively seek to impose upon the rest of us, Meyer London.

You are a hypocrite of the highest order. And your rants only serve to further marginalize your twisted understructure.

Feel free to justify your bullshit accusations of me with ANY quoted references. You libelous bitch.

Careful, he might stomp his feet and bang his head on the wall!

“ill will towards the militarism, xenophopia, authoritarianism, parochialism, hatred if immigrants, enjoyment of violence and outright fascist sympathies that you have demonstrated on this forum.”

This seepage makes me laugh. Let’s try to figure out what this idiot is so peeved about, shall we?

Militarism. Sometimes militarism is justified. I can’t think of a time I’ve advocated it in which it wasn’t justified. But you're free to argue otherwise. Not that I care what you think.

Once on IMC I even said that, should these American anarchists ever become a significant force in America, the military should be invoked to quickly cut off their heads.

Militant? Yep. But so’s the Constitution of the USA. I only said in my words, exactly what the founding fathers said in theirs.

Xenophobia? Get the hell out of here. I challenge you to produce a quote of MINE that justifies this accusation.

Parochialism? Get the hell out of here. I challenge you to produce a quote of MINE that justifies this accusation.

Authoritarianism? Hell yeah. I discipline my kids. You wanna act like a child, I'll treat you like one. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Obviously your mother was a permissive liberal parent. I’m not. Deal with it.

Hatred of immigrants? You are a libelous son-of-a-bitch.

Enjoyment of violence? Only against Fifth Column Leftists.

Outright fascist sympathies? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Eric threw a hissy? Yeah. That’s what I did. “Threw a hissy”. Whatever gets you through the day.

We must be charitable; Eric is upset because one of the postings reminded him that George Wallace lost in 1968. That memory is almost as bad as the death of Francisco Franco.

Sheepdog and Brian, these fellows (and I do think they are all male) at least have two useful useful functions - they provide a few laughs at their own expense and they show clearly the reactionary, primitive urges that underlay all the pious Bushite talk about democracy and freedom.

Too bad you can't back up your libelous claptrap with cold hard facts. But then again, you wouldn't know a fact from a factoid.

Eric: 'Enjoyment of violence? Only against Fifth Column Leftists. '

This statement makes you a sadist, Airic. ANYONE who enjoys violence, for any reason, is a sadist. You should be removed from society with extreme prejudice.

Yeah, Meyer, these clowns are a laugh and a half! They do take the bait nicely, though. I notice they parrot Bushspeak and excuses that are also pitched in the mainstream media. I wonder: do they get their ideas from the media or are they just duplicating the media's efforts to distort the truth?

I'll wear that remark like a badge of honor.

Since when to fishies bait whalers?

Since when do fish go after whalers? Since I came along, Muthafuqa. This fish you CIA/FBI a$$holes haven't netted yet, but everytime you try, a hole is chewed in the net and soon the other fish know how you trawl and escape.

And everyone knows, if the whalers don't produce, they will be de-commissioned. Have to earn your keep now, don't you patsies?

The original post sums up perfectly the utter nonsense that brings so many here to mock.

It's sad. There is no discussion here because the shills and deluded can't see past there own fantasies.

The belief in any of the many assinine theories about Bush et.al being behind 9-11 is simply a red flag of some level of mental illness.

Seriously. There is simply no other plausible accounting for believing in something which ALL evidence contradicts.

Muslims attacked us on 9-11. We've prooved it. They admitted it. To deny that is insanity.

That said, I for one love to mock those who choose to carry on with this delusion.

Targets. Each and every one of you.

"Say, Daveman, has anyone ever told you that you sound like the second coming of Agnew? It must be gratifying to model yourself successfully on such a great-hearted and progressive leader.

Nope. And nope. Try again.

"By the way, concerning your rants about ideas like mine and those who agree with me never having a chance of winning..."

You honestly think you do? Tell me...how will you achieve it? Got any workable, concrete plans?

"I can remember way back in 1966, listening to your counterparts of that era saying the same thing about people who opposed the Vietnam War."

Psst...that was 37 years ago. Check a calendar.

"Sevicemen who expressed doubts about the war back then were routinely sent to the base psychiatrist so he could help them to see that their weird ideas stemmed from basic immaturity and emotional conflicts."

"Basic immaturity and emotional conflicts"...yup, seems you've perfectly summed up the anti-war crowd.

"Maybe you should see such a person and try to find out why you seem to be stuck in a time warp and believe that this is still 1958."

Uh, I don't. 2003, remember? The voices in your head need to be calibrated.

"Don't tell him that you think that space aliens put you there, though, it may result in your being hospitalized and released from the service without a very good pension."

I don't belive in aliens...and if I did, I wouldn't blame all my troubles on them. That's the Left's gig, blaming others for your own inadequacies and failures.

So, gutless coward, do you have anything pertinent to say about the original post? NONE of the leftie shills have been able to refute it.

"I don't belive in aliens..."

Why not? You believe in God, don't you? Do you only choose to believe in fairy tales?

Gosh.

You're an idiot.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Daveman is menstruating again.

...or are you just being pointlessly stupid, like ususal?

Out of Midol, davie?

...the pointless stupidity wins out again.

...are you describing the "ususal" content of your postings davie?

Your frustration also caused you to miss an "s" in the title.

What reason do I have to be frustrated?

By the way: there should be a comma after "postings".

Something about "glass houses" come to mind...

When my whore wife (sorry) is out having sex with black transsexuals, i like to take a stroll down to the local gay bathhouse to get it on.

Being around all those men in the AIrforce gets me so hard, i just want to be manhandled!!!!!

Don't like the taste of your own medicine?

...projects his own preferences on others.

You, sir, are a nincompoop.

How was it at the bath house? Did you see Eric?

Lefts lies have caught up with them.

You are in serious need of some critical thinking skills.

up up and away

in my beautiful

mt beautiful balloon

I'm mentally unstable.