Para_Frog 1 #1 March 27, 2008 Link It's treason kids... But go ahead with your defense of these mooks.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #2 March 27, 2008 There's only one possible response to that: Now defend away. "Wait! That's COMPLETELY different!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #3 March 27, 2008 His trip was paid for by the DoD. Not Iraqi intelligence. That was super weak assed for you Bill. You're better than that. Next. Att. not treason, e.g. Pointless, like Rummy's, but not treason.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #4 March 27, 2008 > His trip was paid for by the DoD. And he shook hands with Saddam Hussein, and promised our enemy military support. To be specific, he promised "to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to Iraq." We ended up selling him military hardware and chemical weapons agents. Comparing that to a trip to try to stop a war is truly pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #5 March 27, 2008 I didn't compare it. You did. I contrasted it. They are completely different.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #6 March 27, 2008 >They are completely different. Of course. You hate one group, so they are traitors. The other guy - the one who actually DID give aid to our enemy - you support. So, in your mind, they have nothing to do with each other. In order for you to see the parallel, imagine that Al Gore had been in that picture. Imagine how much your blood pressure would rise, and how much righteous indignation you would feel. Think about how many times you'd post about what a traitor he was. Now compare that to your reaction to the original story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #7 March 27, 2008 You're just mad because your money sent Rummy. You're missing the point...because you hate one group...yadda yadda If you've read my posts, you will see that I dislike about 99% of all pols, regardless of party. I am an Isolationist and a Libertarian. I have no problem arming our enemies to slaughter each other. If we end up facing them ourselves, against our weapons; I opt for overwhelming, lopsided force. What I do have a problem with is empowering them to fight us by accepting their money simply to go make the opposing party look bad. Spare me your politician with a heart of gold bullshit. Why weren't those guys in Somalia or the Balkans?- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #8 March 27, 2008 Quote Link It's treason kids... But go ahead with your defense of these mooks. I think we should invade ourselves over the matter. The crime wasn't the money laundering of the visit but the fact that we didn't listen to them upon their return. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 March 27, 2008 QuoteLink It's treason kids... But go ahead with your defense of these mooks. Treason? QuoteJustice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam. Treason? They didn't know anything about it being financed by Hussein. Nobody in the North American Continent except Al-Hanooti knew about the funding. At least not for about six years. Treason? How do you accuse someone of "treason" when they had no idea? Treason? WTF???? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #10 March 27, 2008 Useful idiots. Typical to just hop right on in bed with whoever seems to agree with you (not you, lawrocket) politically without checking into who's footing the bill. Tools making propaganda really really easy.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #11 March 27, 2008 QuoteTypical to just hop right on in bed with whoever seems to agree with you (not you, lawrocket) politically without checking into who's footing the bill. It's taken the authorities 6 years to find out who funded it, but they should have been able to uncover the entire conspiracy before they went? How? QuoteTools making propaganda really really easy. "During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration's claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction." Is it still propaganda when you are correct?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 March 27, 2008 Well, that's the problem with it. Checking into who is footing the bill is pretty difficult. It means opening investigations that can take months of intense auditing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 March 27, 2008 QuoteThere's only one possible response to that: Now defend away. "Wait! That's COMPLETELY different!" You cannot pass up an opportunity to use a misleading premise to defend those you believe in. I guess dates, and or circumstances have no meaning to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #14 March 28, 2008 Since it was anti-war, it would seem they got far better intel than Bush had. When it came to the WMDs we now KNOW that Saddam wasn't as big a liar as Bush.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #15 March 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteTools making propaganda really really easy. "During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration's claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction." Is it still propaganda when you are correct?Of course! Don't let the facts get in the way of a good bash! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
