The old grey lady is taking on water and listing to port.
There's 2 likely scenarios for what happened to the explosives.
A) In the 6 months leading to the war Saddamn moved it out of there.
B) The stuff was still intact when we got there and the IAEA seals not broken and it was looted after the invasion. Somehow 40 Semis happened to evade our aircraft, checkpoints or other methods of detection and the stuff vanished.
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.     John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.  Â Â Â Â "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."     Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.     Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.     The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.     The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.     Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.     The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.     Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.     Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.     "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."     The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.     A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.     The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.     "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.     The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.     According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.     It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.     A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.     The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.     A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.     However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.     The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.     Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.     The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.     Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.     The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.     Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.     "Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.     Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.     The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.     Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.     The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.     Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.     The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.     Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
I answered your question about capturing bin laden directly when you asked a couple of days ago. I said straight forward no and no to your two questions. Why can't you answer a simple question?
Because at his core Rick is a democrat and to be a democrat you have to be dishonest either blatantly or through evasion.
Documents Show Iraqis May Be Overstating Amount of Missing Material
 Oct. 27, 2004 — Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from
the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.
Another Concern
The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
True. The retraction is always more subdued than the allegations. I wouldn't break out the party hats down at the Kerry campaign. Bush is up in national polls this week except one. And the MSM is no longer the only source of info. Nice job of coordinating it though ya gotta give em credit for that.
Bush, due in a large part to fraud, will lose Ohio. He will also lose New Hampshire. He would have to carry both Wisconsin and Iowa to offset those loses and carry all the other states he did in 2000. It just doesn't add up.
And just because you think Kerry will win, doesn't mean the system is no longer a "Republican Form of Democracy".
You are right. It has the form it just doesn't have the substance.
IfKerry wins, you can cry all you want.Â
We will all cry if that happens just the timing will be different.  It won't make any diference to the outcome, it will just be so much wasted time and emotion. But if Gdubbya wins, I will understand you... just a little bit better .
How so?
If Kerry wins this, I'm gonna be the biggest bitch in the world.
Who you kiddin? We'll all be bitchin for 4 more years no matter who gets in there. Of course that's after the standard 'I told you so's' are out of the way first.
Rick, I gave Gdubbya a LOT more than 1 month... But he failed anyway.
Have you decided to become a fiction writer?
Jethro, I am certain that you would be HAPPY to see Gdubbya re-elected, and I doubt that you will decry the system as you now do, if he DOES win, even though you say now that the whole system is broken.
The confidence in the system is broken thanks to democrats.
 We should also
OUTLAW
527's.
I see you don't have any respect for the first amendment
I could start a 527tomorrow, make millions in donations, and lie about anything at all... ANYBODY CAN.
That is the price of freedom. But I am sure we don't agree as to what 527's were lying. Â Â
You answered exactly as I said you would. Try locating some SCRUPLES, when you're searching for your new confidence,in America.
Can you make any less sense? I believe the Swift Boat Vets were truthful on most accounts. Their free speech shouldn't be squelched just becuase people like disagree with them.
They (527's) interfere with OUR right NOT to be LIED to or taken for granted, as VOTERS.
You don't have such a right. Man get a copy of the Constitution and read it. It is this kind of viewpoint that causes me to say liberals are a danger to freedom.
Oh and, I sent a message to someone this morning and PREDICTEDthat that was what you would answer(to the previous post?), and THAT is what you now "cannot understand".
I made a mistake You can make even less sense than before.
What does that have to do with what we were talking about?
I might believe that except you castigate Bush, and not Osama.
Are you high Crabby?
No, are you? Do you actually believe the bozos on this board trying to paint me as being stoned all the time? I probably smoke less marijuana than you do.
Were you high when you voted?
Were you?
Cuz that's illegal ya know?
what's illegal? being intoxicated when you vote? I did not know that. I thought it was possession that was illegal.
No. I haven't been "high" since around 1987 I believe.
Do you actually believe the bozos on this board trying to paint me as being stoned all the time?
I come to that conclusion from your own posts. I've yet to meet someone anti-drug law that isn't a stoner.
I'll admit I could be wrong on that assumption. I guess there is a liberty issue there that some could be "defending".
I probably smoke less marijuana than you do.
Maybe. I can honestly say I can't count on one hand the number of times I've tried it.
I was young and stupid I guess.
Maybe you've never tried it or are like me and tried it just a few times. Or truly believe it's a persons right to be a stoner. I can respect that stance even if I don't agree with it. I guess I don't exactly understand your motivation.
I can't recall if I've ever asked, but is that the situation? When what the last time you smoked dope, and what age were you?
what's illegal? being intoxicated when you vote? I did not know that. I thought it was possession that was illegal.
Actually, it's not "illegal" (Other than public intoxication...), but a poll challenger can ban someone who's under the influence from voting. They simply aren't in their right mind if they're intoxicated.
How do you do that? Because I think a law that tells people what the can or cannot do with their own body is wrong? Do you also think all the anti-abortion people give birth on a regular basis?
I've yet to meet someone anti-drug law that isn't a stoner.
You should get out more.
BTW, I support people right to own guns, but I have never ownd own myself nor do I have any desire to do so.
I guess I don't exactly understand your motivation.
I don't want a government telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body. It's pretty simple really.
Or truly believe it's a persons right to be a stoner.
It's a person's right to do whatever they want with their own body. As long as you don't interfere with someone else's right, you can do what you want. It's called individual freedom.
"But you will know it for a fact it's a political stunt if Bush/Pakistan get Bin laden in the next couple of days? "
I said it would take a lot of convincing to make me anything but dead certain.
"Even if the opportunity did arise between now and then, they would be smart to hold off until after Tuesday."
So the greatest mass murderer of Americans should be allowed to breath the clean air of freedom for even one day, based on political considerations?
The old grey lady is taking on water and listing to port.
There's 2 likely scenarios for what happened to the explosives.
A) In the 6 months leading to the war Saddamn moved it out of there.
B) The stuff was still intact when we got there and the IAEA seals not broken and it was looted after the invasion. Somehow 40 Semis happened to evade our aircraft, checkpoints or other methods of detection and the stuff vanished.
So the greatest mass murderer of Americans should be allowed to breath the clean air of freedom for even one day, based on political considerations?
Either way, it's going to be read into a number of ways if and when it happens.
Yep. It's a shame too.
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
    John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.
 Â Â Â Â "The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
    Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
    Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
    The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
    The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.
    Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.
    The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
    Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
    "That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
    The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
    A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
    The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
    "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
    The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
    According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
    It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003.
    A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.
    The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.
    A small portion of Iraq's 650,000 tons to 1 million tons of conventional arms that were found after the war were looted after the U.S.-led invasion, Mr. Shaw said. Russia was Iraq's largest foreign supplier of weaponry, he said.
    However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
    The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.
    Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.
    The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
    Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
    The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
    Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
    "Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
    Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
    The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.
    Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.
    The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.
    Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.
    The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military "plastic" high explosive.
    Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
I answered your question about capturing bin laden directly when you asked a couple of days ago. I said straight forward no and no to your two questions. Why can't you answer a simple question?
Because at his core Rick is a democrat and to be a democrat you have to be dishonest either blatantly or through evasion.
Oops. Sorry John.
From 377 tons to 3. Oops, Way to go NYT.
Discrepancy Found in Explosives Amounts
Documents Show Iraqis May Be Overstating Amount of Missing Material
 Oct. 27, 2004 — Iraqi officials may be overstating the amount of explosives reported to have disappeared from a weapons depot, documents obtained by ABC News show.
The Iraqi interim government has told the United States and international weapons inspectors that 377 tons of conventional explosives are missing from the Al-Qaqaa installation, which was supposed to be under U.S. military control.
But International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by ABC News and first reported on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" indicate the amount of missing explosives may be substantially less than the Iraqis reported.
The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on "declaration" from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.
But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency's inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.
The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from
the facility long before the United States launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March 2003.
The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration's poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq.
Another Concern
The IAEA documents from January 2003 found no discrepancy in the amount of the more dangerous HMX explosives thought to be stored at Al-Qaqaa, but they do raise another disturbing possibility.
The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility.
Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Oct 28, 2004 at 07:04am.]
But it doesn't matter, Rob, the damage has been done. The worst part is the UN, the NY Times and the Kerry campaign will be proud of what they did.
True. The retraction is always more subdued than the allegations. I wouldn't break out the party hats down at the Kerry campaign. Bush is up in national polls this week except one. And the MSM is no longer the only source of info. Nice job of coordinating it though ya gotta give em credit for that.
Holding the view that the UN, the Times and Kerry being proud of what they have done isn't pessimistic.
Bush, due in a large part to fraud, will lose Ohio. He will also lose New Hampshire. He would have to carry both Wisconsin and Iowa to offset those loses and carry all the other states he did in 2000. It just doesn't add up.
The fraud is very disconcerting no doubt.
The electoral process is a fraud and a sham. It has been all along. It should be expected, just like most of the rest of life.
Voting, and trying to CHANGE things, is a responsibility for citizens in this or any Democracy. The day we all drop-out, is the day "THEY" have won.
 Just because you can vote doesn't mean the system is democratic.
And just because you think Kerry will win, doesn't mean the system is no longer a "Republican Form of Democracy".
You are right. It has the form it just doesn't have the substance.
IfKerry wins, you can cry all you want.Â
We will all cry if that happens just the timing will be different.
 It won't make any diference to the outcome, it will just be so much wasted time and emotion. But if Gdubbya wins, I will understand you...
just a little bit better
.
How so?
If Kerry wins, you can cry all you want. It won't make any diference to the outcome, it will just be so much wasted time and emotion.
I know some Democrats that could have used advice like this the last presidential election.
If Kerry wins this, I'm gonna be the biggest bitch in the world.
I'm gonna whine and cry all the way to 2008.
I might even put out my own album, "Commander in Thief".
:-)
[Edited by on Oct 28, 2004 at 04:57pm.]
If Kerry wins this, I'm gonna be the biggest bitch in the world.
Who you kiddin? We'll all be bitchin for 4 more years no matter who gets in there. Of course that's after the standard 'I told you so's' are out of the way first.
[Edited by on Oct 28, 2004 at 05:04pm.]
I gave Bush one month after inaguration without criticism
I think I made it as far as his 'drive' down Pennsylvania Ave.
[Edited by on Oct 28, 2004 at 05:14pm.]
I'm sure I wasn't too kind to Dubya. I never wanted him to begin with.
I kinda like him now. Now that I see his picture alongside Kerry.
:-)
Rick, I gave Gdubbya a LOT more than 1 month... But he failed anyway.
Have you decided to become a fiction writer?
Jethro, I am certain that you would be HAPPY to see Gdubbya re-elected, and I doubt that you will decry the system as you now do, if he DOES win, even though you say now that the whole system is broken.
The confidence in the system is broken thanks to democrats.
 We should also
OUTLAW
527's.
I see you don't have any respect for the first amendment
I could start a 527tomorrow, make millions in donations, and lie about anything at all... ANYBODY CAN.
That is the price of freedom. But I am sure we don't agree as to what 527's were lying.
 Â
He mocks the United States with every appearance.
You answered exactly as I said you would. Try locating some SCRUPLES, when you're searching for your new confidence,in America.
Can you make any less sense? I believe the Swift Boat Vets were truthful on most accounts. Their free speech shouldn't be squelched just becuase people like disagree with them.
Now WHYcan't they find that shithole?
Maybe because he is in Iran?
They (527's) interfere with OUR right NOT to be LIED to or taken for granted, as VOTERS.
You don't have such a right. Man get a copy of the Constitution and read it. It is this kind of viewpoint that causes me to say liberals are a danger to freedom.
Oh and, I sent a message to someone this morning and PREDICTEDthat that was what you would answer(to the previous post?), and THAT is what you now "cannot understand".
I made a mistake You can make even less sense than before.
Yet Nixon called KERRY a "Traitor". HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
See, Nixon wasn't always wrong.
"[it was] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." - Osama bin Laden
"[it was] easy for us to provoke and bait this administration." - Osama bin Laden
and all we had to do was kill 15,000 civilians and spend 150 billion dollars.
[Edited by molegrass on Nov 2, 2004 at 04:09pm.]
Once again crabhole lowers the pathetic bar.
Yea sure.
Osama is Crabby's hero.
no more so than Bush. they are birds of a feather.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
yea...that's what's happened.
no more so than Bush. they are birds of a feather.
I might believe that except you castigate Bush, and not Osama.
I didn't realize Osama was the President of your country.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02
I didn't realize Osama was the President of your country.
He's not.
So I guess it's ok to be a terrorist.
As long as he's not our president of course.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02
What does that have to do with what we were talking about?
Are you high Crabby?
Were you high when you voted? Cuz that's illegal ya know?
No, are you? Do you actually believe the bozos on this board trying to paint me as being stoned all the time? I probably smoke less marijuana than you do.
Were you?
what's illegal? being intoxicated when you vote? I did not know that. I thought it was possession that was illegal.
DUH!!!
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
"Were you high when you voted? Cuz that's illegal ya know?"
Ya gonna tattle on him?
No, are you?
No. I haven't been "high" since around 1987 I believe.
Do you actually believe the bozos on this board trying to paint me as being stoned all the time?
I come to that conclusion from your own posts. I've yet to meet someone anti-drug law that isn't a stoner.
I'll admit I could be wrong on that assumption. I guess there is a liberty issue there that some could be "defending".
I probably smoke less marijuana than you do.
Maybe. I can honestly say I can't count on one hand the number of times I've tried it.
I was young and stupid I guess.
Maybe you've never tried it or are like me and tried it just a few times. Or truly believe it's a persons right to be a stoner. I can respect that stance even if I don't agree with it. I guess I don't exactly understand your motivation.
I can't recall if I've ever asked, but is that the situation? When what the last time you smoked dope, and what age were you?
what's illegal? being intoxicated when you vote? I did not know that. I thought it was possession that was illegal.
Actually, it's not "illegal" (Other than public intoxication...), but a poll challenger can ban someone who's under the influence from voting. They simply aren't in their right mind if they're intoxicated.
Ya gonna tattle on him?
I would if I was aware of it.
Damn straight I would!
How do you do that? Because I think a law that tells people what the can or cannot do with their own body is wrong? Do you also think all the anti-abortion people give birth on a regular basis?
You should get out more.
BTW, I support people right to own guns, but I have never ownd own myself nor do I have any desire to do so.
I don't want a government telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body. It's pretty simple really.
It's a person's right to do whatever they want with their own body. As long as you don't interfere with someone else's right, you can do what you want. It's called individual freedom.
Then why did you suggest it was?
This from someone who assumes that everyone who opposes drug laws is a stoner.
You understand that some states passed medical marijuana reforms, right?
Using your reasoning, all those voters were stoners.