I'm sad to say, Walter, no it's not . . .
Oh, the humiliation . . .
Lord have mercy on a boy from down in the boondocks!
Okay here's some more stuff related to UN opinon, etc. - some directly related; some just interesting.
This because Setanta apparently doesn't accept testimony from the Democrat appointed delegate to the UN or Clinton's Secretary of State who obviously neither have a clue about world opinon.
Anyhow I have to get to work now, but this should provide some insights until I can dig up more. So far I haven't found a nice neat list of who did and who didn't believe Saddam had WMD, but piece by piece, I believe I can support my opinion. Depends on how much you guys want to read.
Foxfyre wrote: Depends on how much you guys want to read.
Until "almost all" :wink:
Wouldn't it be easier to form an opinion after you've read, rather than forming an opinion and then having to go find all the info to support it?
??
That would require independent thought, and preclude adherence to a politcal agenda, Jer. Not bloody likely . . .
Who cares about the rest of the world, the US has the right to liberate iraq without the approval of anyone else.
Depends on how you define "right"
Apparently, Habibi, the right of main force . . .
Wow, I think we all know Fox is dense, but I've also come to the conclusion that all the rest of you trying to convince Fox is also dense. LOL When will you learn that Fox's brain is fixed and unmovable? LOL Even after the bi-partisan senate intelligence committee (the majority in this committee being republicans) came out with their report last week that Iraq does not have WMDs or had any relationship with al Qaida, and it was a failure of intelligence, all of you are still trying to argue opposing points. At this point, it should be understood that the majority of the countries that refuted Saddam's WMDs was spot on! Those that claimed otherwise were wrong. So what the fxck are you arguing about? If false information came out of the mouths of babes before 2004, it's still false - so goes the logic.
What's up with this rash of insults these days? I've lost count of how many times Fox has been called dense, Karzak has been called many names, and heck, even MY name has been getting soiled again lately?
Is it the fact that the liberal arguements have just been failing a higher rate than usual? Is the upcoming re-election of Bush causing the aggravation?
Bush is an aggravation, but that's another issue! LOL The party that doesn't want government intrusion is the party that 1) instituted the Patriot Act, 2) tries to legislate "no gay/homosexual marriage," and 3) legislated against stem cell research. This is the party that believes in limiting government, but 1) has built up the largest deficit in three years from a large surplus and mortgaged our children, 2) privatized much of our military that left our military short-handed, 3) and gave non-bid contracts to the vp's old company. This government got us involved in Iraq for dubious reasons that was never confirmed by good intelligence, and resulted in almost 900 of our military getting killed, and spending almost $200 billion of our treasure. Aggravation you ask? Yes, a thousand times, yes, by this president and administration.
When the loyal opposition has to resort to changing the subject or dishing out personal insults, I just assume I won.
Fox, In your wildest wet dreams.
Well at least I don't have to attack somebody to have any argument at all C.I.
You've won . . . did you think of this as a contest . . . what a pathetic attitude . . . not surprising, however . . .
Wow, this thread is getting vicious. I should check in here more often.
Another bad news for Bush and company.
**********************************
Bush Heads Toward Defeat on Gay-Marriage Measure
1 hour, 55 minutes ago
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s bid to amend the Constitution to ban same sex-marriage headed toward defeat on Tuesday, with Democratic foe John Kerry (news - web sites) accusing him of divisive election-year politics.
Proponents scrambled to win the support of half of the 100-member Senate, but both sides said the measure seemed certain to be blocked on a procedural vote on Wednesday.
If its mostly Republicans backers are unable to get 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote on passage, the proposal will likely be dead for the year. But proponents vowed to try again next year.
"You've got to put senators out there and get a vote total, and then people will say, 'Hey, we disagree,"' explained Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and a leading backer of the measure. "People will react."
Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but split on whether a constitutional ban is needed. Surveys also find voters believe a host of other issues are more important -- such as health care, education and national security.
Republicans forced consideration of the proposed amendment two weeks before Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, will receive his party's presidential nomination at the Democratic national convention in Boston.
Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) of North Carolina, oppose same sex-marriage, but argue amending the Constitution is not the answer.
Like many Democrats, they say it should be left up to the states to define marriage. They also accuse Republicans of pushing the measure merely to rally their social-conservative base.
Republicans contend gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, which they say is a pillar of civilization, and should be outlawed for the sake of children.
KERRY OPPOSES AMENDMENT
At a fund-raiser in Boston on Monday night, Kerry alluded to the gay-marriage debate as a symbol of what he characterized as a divisive Republican president.
"Values aren't talking about peoples' rights and opening the door of opportunity, and then you turn around and for political purposes in the middle of a campaign, you bring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States just to divide America," Kerry said.
For a proposed constitutional amendment to become law, it must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives and then ratified by 38 of the 50 states.
The House is to consider a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in September, but it is also expected to fall far short of the needed votes.
Bush in February called on the U.S. Congress to approve such an amendment after Massachusetts' highest court ruled gay couples had a right to wed and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
These actions helped spawn lawsuits across the nation, including ones calling on other states to recognize same-sex marriage.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, quoted Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s wife, Lynne Cheney, as telling CNN on Sunday that she too believes the matter should be left up to the states.
"We ought to listen to her advice," Daschle said.
Daschle faces a tough re-election campaign in South Dakota where his Republican challenger, John Thune, began airing ads last week in support of the proposed amendment. Daschle said like most residents in his state, he opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the matter should be left up to the states.
(Additional reporting by David Morgan)
Was there a fight?
Were any Canadian teenagers injured?
