Bishop Romney and the high holy church of flip floppery.

[Oldstyle]

Bullshit.

Link that quote.

Bullshit? You don't even remember the drivel you post here...do you? Does this sound familiar?

Post #35 in the "Romney 2007: It's not worth spending billions of dollars trying to catch bin laden" thread.

"Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
__________________
It really is that simple."

Unlike yourself and the people you copy from, Sallow...I don't take things out of context either to give them a different meaning.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq (That was under control of the Baathists). And Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States.

But Al Qaeda planned and executed 9/11. Prior to that..they were involved in the Khobar Towers..and quite possibly the first bombing of the WTC..even though republicans tried to link it to Iraq. They blocked Clinton's efforts to get the guy.

That make sense to you now?

Are you kidding me? You make one of the dumber posts I've seen on here, saying the there was no Al Qaeda prior to our invading Iraq and then you come back and try and give me a history lesson on a subject that you obviously know squat about?

Unlike yourself, I'm quite aware of both the history of Al Qaeda and the timeline of their conflict with the US.

As for Iraq being a threat? I guess if you don't count a country being run by a sociopath who has a history of both using weapons of mass destruction and invading his neighbors and is actively seeking a nuclear weapon a "threat" then your statement about Iraq would be correct but since Saddam Hussein WAS a socialpath with a history of using WMD's and invading his neighbors and was actively seeking to make his country a nuclear power then you'd simply be parroting left wing talking points that have no basis in reality.

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit? You don't even remember the drivel you post here...do you? Does this sound familiar?

Post #35 in the "Romney 2007: It's not worth spending billions of dollars trying to catch bin laden" thread.

"Prior to the conquering of Iraq..there were no Al Qaeda or any general threat to the United States.
__________________
It really is that simple."

Unlike yourself and the people you copy from, Sallow...I don't take things out of context either to give them a different meaning.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq (That was under control of the Baathists). And Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States.

But Al Qaeda planned and executed 9/11. Prior to that..they were involved in the Khobar Towers..and quite possibly the first bombing of the WTC..even though republicans tried to link it to Iraq. They blocked Clinton's efforts to get the guy.

That make sense to you now?

Are you kidding me? You make one of the dumber posts I've seen on here, saying the there was no Al Qaeda prior to our invading Iraq and then you come back and try and give me a history lesson on a subject that you obviously know squat about?

Unlike yourself, I'm quite aware of both the history of Al Qaeda and the timeline of their conflict with the US.

As for Iraq being a threat? I guess if you don't count a country being run by a sociopath who has a history of both using weapons of mass destruction and invading his neighbors and is actively seeking a nuclear weapon a "threat" then your statement about Iraq would be correct but since Saddam Hussein WAS a socialpath with a history of using WMD's and invading his neighbors and was actively seeking to make his country a nuclear power then you'd simply be parroting left wing talking points that have no basis in reality.

You post this with a straight face, I assume.

Because it's laughable to say the least. You know the history? Really?

It was Osama Bin Laden and the muj that were hoping to act as defenders in Saudi Arabia from the onslaught of the Iraqi military. Get this, and I know it's a shock to you, but Osama Bin Laden thought Saddam Hussien was an "Infidel". There "might" have been an Al Qaeda presence in the parts of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussien..but that's because it wasn't controlled by the Iraqi government. And Hussien's "sociopathic" history of using WMD's was fostered by our very own government. The Iraq/Iran war was a proxy war where both sides were supplied by the same people..the US (and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union).

Who the fuck are the sociopaths now?

 

[Sallow]

I still can't believe they brought something from, ALEC BALWIN...

man scraping the bottom of the barrel these days..

In what world is Baldwin "The bottom of the barrel". He's an A-Lister enjoying some pretty good recent success.

He's actually thinking of throwing his hat into the political ring.

oh goody..You all want to talk about other's character, yet you champion a man who was a wife beater and degraded his daughter...

you people will cuddle with any low life if they put down someone you don't like

Laughable to say the least.

Gingrich anyone?

 

[Oldstyle]

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq (That was under control of the Baathists). And Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States.

But Al Qaeda planned and executed 9/11. Prior to that..they were involved in the Khobar Towers..and quite possibly the first bombing of the WTC..even though republicans tried to link it to Iraq. They blocked Clinton's efforts to get the guy.

That make sense to you now?

Are you kidding me? You make one of the dumber posts I've seen on here, saying the there was no Al Qaeda prior to our invading Iraq and then you come back and try and give me a history lesson on a subject that you obviously know squat about?

Unlike yourself, I'm quite aware of both the history of Al Qaeda and the timeline of their conflict with the US.

As for Iraq being a threat? I guess if you don't count a country being run by a sociopath who has a history of both using weapons of mass destruction and invading his neighbors and is actively seeking a nuclear weapon a "threat" then your statement about Iraq would be correct but since Saddam Hussein WAS a socialpath with a history of using WMD's and invading his neighbors and was actively seeking to make his country a nuclear power then you'd simply be parroting left wing talking points that have no basis in reality.

You post this with a straight face, I assume.

Because it's laughable to say the least. You know the history? Really?

It was Osama Bin Laden and the muj that were hoping to act as defenders in Saudi Arabia from the onslaught of the Iraqi military. Get this, and I know it's a shock to you, but Osama Bin Laden thought Saddam Hussien was an "Infidel". There "might" have been an Al Qaeda presence in the parts of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussien..but that's because it wasn't controlled by the Iraqi government. And Hussien's "sociopathic" history of using WMD's was fostered by our very own government. The Iraq/Iran war was a proxy war where both sides were supplied by the same people..the US (and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union).

Who the fuck are the sociopaths now?

You keep changing your story as you go, Sallow. First you said there was no Al Queda prior to our invading Iraq...now you say that they may have existed there but only in areas not controlled by Saddam. The truth is that Al Queda has existed since 1988 when Bin Laden formed the group to carry on jihad not just in Afghanistan against the Soviets but elsewhere around the world. That's a full 13 YEARS before 9/11 and 15 YEARS before our invasion of Iraq.

Yes, the US supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons. At the time he was viewed as a useful ally against the Iranians. When it became clear however that he was himself, just as dangerous to stability in the region, we stopped backing him. By the time he had invaded Kuwait we were actively seeking to remove him. It's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory which oft times ends up with our supporting people we shouldn't. That's been the case many times throughout history...from the Arabs supporting Germany in WWII to the Irish resistance flirting with Hitler for the same reasons in their struggle against the British.