Bush committed to tracking al-Qaida

[Heracles 417]

What is the cause / source of hatred? Does Bin Laden want to bomb the US because of Bush? Maybe it's because of walmart because he hates corporations.

That was a mistake. i am not as worldly as an American liberal.

Steve take note of the following video. Filmed in blue states..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually, the real reason he hates us is because of INGDirect. Interest is haram, you know. High interest is haramer.

Apparently he is a fan of many post 80's Hollywood epics. He also really like porn. Clearly Islam and the American liberal lifestyle and beliefs are in harmony.

I can't blame him. Porn is so likeable.

That is what I mean. American liberals have contributed so much to this nation, to this world, to this universe, to this freakin galaxy. The hippies and their ethics where and are the beacon of humanity. It is written by Ahmeck the great himself. "There will be a time when a group of people, a group of like-minded collective morons, will criticize a war. A war fighting for somebody else's freedom. While they use drugs and paaaaaaaaarty. Because this each to their own live free attitude is the will of the universe..". Further reading reveal that blogs in the near future would help cure disease and famine. as with the changing of a light globe.

Did your mom take LSD?

[Heracles 417]

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We should support our President and his courageous effort to bring Bin Laden to justice.

What courageous effort are you talking about specifically?

To condemn ones courage, standing in an audience of bystanders only shows ignorance.

Amen, brother Marc! Show that spineless excuse of an American what it REALLY means to be a red blooded American. I'm not afraid to say I love you, brother Marc. You are my idea a true American!

They must be sellin "love" at walmart again.

LOL...right you are, brother! Just admit, Marc...you're really a nice person underneath that heartless exterior.

I think your strobe light and black light are burnt-out. I think a kool-aid stand might be in order. To know me is to love me.

Slick Willie said that same very thing to Monica.

You must have been a silent observer.

Hooooo, boy! You sly devil! LOL...doesn't it feel good to be selectively impartial?

[GaryC 7]

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

Ouch! Ok, I think we need to step back a little now. No personal attacks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

Who is Ahmeck the great?

[Heracles 417]

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

Ouch! Ok, I think we need to step back a little now. No personal attacks.

Yes it was uncalled for but happens all the time with Liberals. Usually someone conservative, with opposing views, is on the receiving end.

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

Who is Ahmeck the great?

It was a joke dude..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

Ouch! Ok, I think we need to step back a little now. No personal attacks.

Yes it was uncalled for but happens all the time with Liberals. Usually someone conservative, with opposing views, is on the receiving end.

Did your mom take LSD?

no but your wife must of.

Who is Ahmeck the great?

It was a joke dude..

Oh, but the part of the hippies and their live for yourself...what was it? Which part of it is true?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Behave, children

[Heracles 417]

Oh, but the part of the hippies and their live for yourself...what was it? Which part of it is true?

That was a general statement. I never personally attacked or attack anyone.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Wherever this thread went wrong, I suggest that you all cool it before this thread get's locked and members get put on notice for breaking the TOS.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Boo-yah, watch out bud. Your takin the bait.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Downing Street Memo

Some background

Sorry thats not a copy.

Wikipedia's basic premise is built on a pseudo-intellectual concept of collective contributions, on the mistaken belief that since there are lots of people constantly contributing and reviewing entries, they will somehow come out accurate. Chairman Mao would have been proud. Wikipedia cheerleaders believe that the old traditions of mainstream media (fact-checking and professional editing) lack merit, and that an entry that is written by an anonymous contributor, and subsequently reviewed and edited by many other anonymous contributors, will be inherently superior. It's rather like getting a hundred monkeys in a room together and expecting them to produce "Hamlet."

You might get a copy of the original since its so wellknown.

http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/nlsblog070306/

Here is the text of what was leaked to the Times. ####### me backwards if it doesn't say the exact same thing.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING

From: Matthew Rycroft

Date: 23 July 2002

S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(B) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(B) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

© CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Edited August 7, 2007 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

...and wouldn't it be a blast (pun) if LA were to be wiped out? LOL...that'd show those Hollywood liberal elitists who they're dealing with.

why wipe out their mouthpieces?

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

I think your strobe light and black light are burnt-out. I think a kool-aid stand might be in order. To know me is to love me.

Slick Willie said that same very thing to Monica.

i don't think he said "know".............