Comments on: Last Refuge Of Scoundrels

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:03:41 +0000

And even more Saddam docs: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony_docs.asp

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:03:28 +0000

You just pulled a switcheroo — unconsciously,maybe?

Hussein/bin Laden ties

wouldn t they charge Hussein with complicity in 9/11?

Saddam Hussein s government and al-Qaeda had no ties.

Three different things.

Also, where were these documents?

Why weren’t they released?

Who benefits from releasing them?

Who benefits from keeping them a secret?

If they back up Bush, why keep them a secret until now? (If you were Bush, and you had control of the documents)

If they make Bush look bad, why release them now (If you’re Bush, and you have the control of the documents)?

It is is fairly obvious, but not conclusive, that the Democrats did everything they could to keep the documents under wraps, because they bolster his case, but they couldn’t prevent their publication any longer.

The Democrats are screwed.

By: Diamond LeGrande

Diamond LeGrande — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 03:03:15 +0000

We know that the Bush Administration has no evidence of Hussein/bin Laden ties. How do we know?

Hussein is in American custody and on trial. If the Bush Administration had any evidence of Saddam Hussein/Usama bin Laden ties, wouldn’t they charge Hussein with complicity in 9/11? I know I sure as hell would. I’d put him on the stand and force him to confront such evidence. That after controlling Iraq for THREE YEARS and having access to the Iraqi Government’s archives the Bush Administration has yet to produce any evidence against Saddam Hussein in this area pretty much proves the obvious: Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda had no ties.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:03:06 +0000

And the hits just keep on comin'!: http://tinyurl.com/hs47w

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:03:17 +0000

I meant before you dismiss the value of these documents… There’s plenty of time between now and NOV 2006 to ruin any chance the Dems had of gaining any House or Senate seats.

As they say in the British military, “WAAAIT for it!”

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:03:10 +0000

“I strongly recommend you bide your time”

They’ve had three years to make the case.

There is no case.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:03:26 +0000

That’s Sen. Clinton he’s talking about, not Pres. Or is she out of bounds, too?

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:03:03 +0000

It’s that the OCD compels you to connect Clinton with every discussion.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 10:03:06 +0000

And by selective, do you mean they only released the documents that had been translated and declassified?

Or do you have some evidence that they are being hand picked for release by, I don’t know, the Barvarian Illumunati again?

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:03:57 +0000

If you leftists are so proud of clinton, why do you get your panties in a twist everytime someone mentions him?

By: Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:03:59 +0000

You mean like the 120 redacted pages in the Clinton Justice Department Barrett report scandal& .

Who is this Clinton you speak of? The name sound familiar, and yet…

By: goatchowder

goatchowder — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:03:39 +0000

Heh. I propose the Goatchowder’s Law– a corollary to Godwin’s Law–, which is that all debates continue until someone mentions Clinton (or blowjobs), at which point the first person who does so loses, and the debate is over.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:03:26 +0000

Who’s been trying desperately to sell to the American people the idea that al quaeda and Iraq were not connected?

The question to ask is not, “Why didn’t the Republicans?” We know why they wanted to.

The question is, “Who benefits if they are not released?”

That’s who would have fought every effort to have them released.

By: drpedro

drpedro — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 00:03:21 +0000

You mean like the 120 redacted pages in the Clinton Justice Department Barrett report scandal….

Seems like the dems are awfully good and preventing the release of embarrasing records based on their past history.

By: buma

buma — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:03:42 +0000

Makes you get nostalgic for a good ol’ Orange Alert, the erstwhile strategy for propping up Bush’s numbers.

By: Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:03:58 +0000

Frank, if the administration thought this was authentic, why would they wait nearly four years to let us in on the secret?

The contempt this administration has for the intelligence of the American people is beyond measure.

By: duros62

duros62 — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:03:37 +0000

The dubious authenticity meme& Where was that during the RatherGate kerfluffle?

That was CBS, not ABC. Maybe they like corroboration better over there.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:03:14 +0000

If there were ANY, and I mean Any chance these documents
could tie Saddam to AQ, do you think Richard Perle and Associates
would have to work hard to get them released?

If you think they wouldn’t be trottin ‘em out with confetti choked
parades of self-congratulation, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn
I can let you have cheap.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:03:57 +0000

Oh no! The dubious authenticity meme... Where was that during the RatherGate kerfluffle? There are thousands of documents. This time, I strongly recommend you bide your time. http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 20:03:05 +0000

I thought patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel, not making shit up to justify several thousand corpses sacrificed to the military-industrial complex?