cicerone imposter wrote:woiyo, You wouldn't understand what it meant if your life depended on it. But for the others, I'm sure no explanation is needed.
You are correct as I do not think much of you and your silly opinions.
You can sit your little candy a$$ out in LA LA land and criticize the efforts of all our dead civilians who died for no reason and military people for having the courage to take a stand.
But please... do chirp on, little one.
woiyo wrote:
"...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...and criticize the efforts of all our dead civilians who died for no reason and military people for having the courage to take a stand."
Logic is completely missed by this one sentence. You wouldn't understand why, but most people reading your post understands clearly why you're the one making "silly" statements. A serious question for you. Are you a teenager?
Are you looking for somebody to look up to?
woiyo wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:woiyo, You wouldn't understand what it meant if your life depended on it. But for the others, I'm sure no explanation is needed.
You are correct as I do not think much of you and your silly opinions.
You can sit your little candy a$$ out in LA LA land and criticize the efforts of all our dead civilians who died for no reason and military people for having the courage to take a stand.
But please... do chirp on, little one.
When will you EVER learn? LA LA land is LA, and Hollywood. If you look at the map as to what parts of the state are "Blue", and what parts of the state are "Red", you will notice that the decided "Red" parts of the state are through the central valley and through what you refer to as "LA LA LAND". So you just called your Republican brothers candy assees!! You should be ashamed of yourself Woiyo, calling your brothers in arms names like that
Anon
Intrepid wrote:Are you looking for somebody to look up to?
Intrepid,
I'm starting to think you're seriously in love with William Shatner!!
Anon
woiyo wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:woiyo, You wouldn't understand what it meant if your life depended on it. But for the others, I'm sure no explanation is needed.
You are correct as I do not think much of you and your silly opinions.
You can sit your little candy a$$ out in LA LA land and criticize the efforts of all our dead civilians who died for no reason and military people for having the courage to take a stand.
But please... do chirp on, little one.
It's interesting how some here wrap themselves in the shroud of 9/11 and act as if that this gives them a credibility that others lack. And this one is based on living in or near NY?
Anon-Voter wrote:Intrepid wrote:Are you looking for somebody to look up to?
Intrepid,
I'm starting to think you're seriously in love with William Shatner!!
Anon
Well, it was either that or the Grim Reaper. You seemed to have that one all tied up. Bill ain't so bad.
cicerone imposter wrote:At my age? Get serious.
The irony seems to have been missed on you.
I miss irony all the time; so what's your point?
Never mind. It would almost certainly be lost anyhow.
You're the one that's lost if you can't even explain what you mean. At least I offered to listen.
Congressman Conyers Calls on the President to Publish the Hadley Memo
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday March 30, 2006
Conyers Calls on the President to Publish the Hadley Memo
Congressman John Conyers today called on president Bush to make publicly available a memo submitted to him by Stephen Hadley in October 2002. This memo clearly explained to the president that the Departments of State and Energy both rejected White House claims that Iraq was seeking materials to build a nuclear weapon. This is a very important document revealing the administration's efforts to build a case for war based on Iraq's nuclear threat to our country when overwhelming evidence disputed this claim. The text of the letter follows:
Dear Mr. President:
I write to ask that you release publicly an October 2002 memorandum that informed you that the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with assessments that Iraq was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons materials. The memorandum was submitted to you by then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.
Throughout the past several years, you have claimed frequently that Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. In fact, during your 2003 State of the Union Address, you stated, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Shortly after this speech, the United States invaded Iraq, but no nuclear weapons materials have been located.
According to National Journal, you were aware prior to the 2003 State of the Union that Iraq did not possess such materials. In summarizing a National Intelligence Estimate for you in October 2002, Mr. Hadley noted that, while many agencies believed the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons." In short, these two intelligence agencies disagreed with your State of the Union assertion.
I am certain you would agree that, as we enter the fourth year of the invasion, it is important for the American people to understand exactly what set of circumstances led to your authorization of military action. For that reason, I ask that you release Mr. Hadley's memorandum.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Blue,
Oh yea,
He's gonna publish that one alright!!
Anon
We can't expect the terrorists to tell the truth.
So how can we expect Moussaoui to be telling the truth?
By my last recollection he is a terrorist.
Or he could be a nut case.
Quote:He knew. He lied. 2,749 people died.
2,996 died. And yup, GWB knew because his government planned it.
