In todays headlines, Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence. Republicans are reportedly outraged that Ohio will send Jerry Springer to the Democratic National Convention as a delegate.

Film at 11.

<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001931010_iraqdig17.html' target='_blank'>Powell admits his speech that helped lead us to war was "inaccurate and discredited." </a>

Although honor is something very few in the Dubya administration know anything about, there is at least one person whose honor has never been questioned. Is it any surprise that the only man of honor is also the only one who ever had the guts to get shot at?

Powell could change the world if he would tender his resignation and run for vice president on the other ticket.

He's too loyal to do that. But... dang it... it would be cool. And it isn't like he's going to be busy the next four years. It sure looks like he will resign after the election.

C'mon Powell. DO IT NOW!

Hell, I'd just be happy if he talked his son into resigning the FCC position.

I mean, Kid Rock's "Cowboy" was on the other day (still in heavy rotation in Memphis, oddly enough) and half the $%^$ing song's now bleeped out! Jesus Christ, what in the hell is going on around here?

I did hear Stern that morning, shouting "F the FCC," "F GW Bush" and "F Clear Channel! You suck!" Glad to know I can start listening to him again. He was quite the jingo-man for awhile. . .

Oddball Wrote:<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001931010_iraqdig17.html' target='_blank'>Powell admits his speech that helped lead us to war was "inaccurate and discredited." </a>

Well as long as Saddam is not killling mass people I could care less...We needed to take care of this guy PERIOD

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001931010_iraqdig17.html' target='_blank'>Powell admits his speech that helped lead us to war was "inaccurate and discredited." </a>

Well as long as Saddam is not killling mass people I could care less...We needed to take care of this guy PERIOD

Who is next? The world is full of despots. Despite having installed many of them, we have neither the resources nor the will to remove them all.

Only a fool would excuse their government lying to them to go to war based on the rationale that the end justifies the means...particularly with the sort of "ending" this one is having.

Oddball Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001931010_iraqdig17.html' target='_blank'>Powell admits his speech that helped lead us to war was "inaccurate and discredited." </a>

Well as long as Saddam is not killling mass people I could care less...We needed to take care of this guy PERIOD

Who is next? The world is full of despots. Despite having installed many of them, we have neither the resources nor the will to remove them all.

Only a fool would excuse their government lying to them to go to war based on the rationale that the end justifies the means...particularly with the sort of "ending" this one is having.

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html' target='_blank'>Looks like we found some weapons of mass destruction that arn't there according to people like Oddball</a>

$150 billion.

Seven hundred Americans dead.

One shell.

Priceless.

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:

Oddball Wrote:<a href='http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001931010_iraqdig17.html' target='_blank'>Powell admits his speech that helped lead us to war was "inaccurate and discredited." </a>

Well as long as Saddam is not killling mass people I could care less...We needed to take care of this guy PERIOD

Who is next? The world is full of despots. Despite having installed many of them, we have neither the resources nor the will to remove them all.

Only a fool would excuse their government lying to them to go to war based on the rationale that the end justifies the means...particularly with the sort of "ending" this one is having.

<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html' target='_blank'>Looks like we found some weapons of mass destruction that arn't there according to people like Oddball</a>

Quite a stockpile, foolio, isn't it?

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
-Ari Fleischer

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
-Condi Rice

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have"
-GW Bush

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
-GW Bush

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
-Kenneth Adelman

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
-Donald Rumsfeld

Shall we post quotes from Democrats saying the exact same thing from the 90's all the way up 'till the point is wasn't popular to support the war?

RebelKev Wrote:Shall we post quotes from Democrats saying the exact same thing from the 90's all the way up 'till the point is wasn't popular to support the war?

What exactly would you hope to prove by doing that?

Oddball Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Shall we post quotes from Democrats saying the exact same thing from the 90's all the way up 'till the point is wasn't popular to support the war?

What exactly would you hope to prove by doing that?

The sheer hypocrisy of Democrats.

:ownd:

UCBearcats1125 Wrote::ownd:

The question -- for myself and for a lot of other Democrats -- was never about whether or not Saddam had WMDs.

The real question was whether or not the United States was ever in imminent danger of attack from Iraq or agents acting on behalf of Iraq.

The United States was never in such danger. That's clear.

No included today's most important news headlines:

Jacko may be convicted for child molestation, film at 11.

Scott Peterson brutally killed his wife and now he wants off, film at 11.

Some say too little carbs can be bad for your diet, film at 11.

Oh yeah, the president spoke, there's an election process going on and find out if feng shui is right for you!! :laugh:

Get your statistics right, 700 americans dead, try nearly 4000.

Oh wait your not counting the WTC I guess civilians don't count.

RebelKev Wrote:Shall we post quotes from Democrats saying the exact same thing from the 90's all the way up 'till the point is wasn't popular to support the war?

I thought that your intention was to show that this shell proved that Iraq had WMD stockpiles in sufficient quantities to prove the claims of the Bush administration's that led us to war? Guess not...

SDSundevil Wrote:Get your statistics right, 700 americans dead, try nearly 4000.

Oh wait your not counting the WTC I guess civilians don't count.

The WTC attack and Iraq are 100% unrelated. Even the Chimp-in-Charge has managed to come out with that obvious truth.

But thanks for letting us know who, exactly, makes up that 55% of Americans who still believe Saddam and OBL were in cahoots prior to 9/11. :wave: