State of the Union Address

[woodlawn]

>All they can do is

>trot out all the tired cliches: Bush is an idiot, he can't

>talk, he's held hostage to the Radical Right (whoever THAT

>is), he's trying to make Daddy happy, Clinton has a superior

>intellect (but not smart enough to realize that all hell is

>going to break loose if it comes out that an intern, young

>enough to be his daughter, is eating his ass in the bathroom

>off the Oval Office), he hates gays, he's a warmonger, he's in

>the pocket of Enron, he's only for the rich, he longs for the

>return of Jim Crow, he's for torturing puppies, blah blah

>blah.

 

 

It's true that the juvenile namecalling in several of the posts here is not a substitute for true political argument and only indicates that the people indulging in it aren't capable of making any valid points.

 

It's not true, however, that all of the Democrats' accusations against Bush are baseless. His economic policies do benefit the rich; while Bush is in favor of tax cuts, he seems to favor cutting only those taxes that are paid by wealthier citizens, and not those that are paid by lower-income citizens such as the payroll tax. He is pursuing a policy of making war on a weaker nation when there are clearly alternatives that do not involve as much bloodshed. He opposes affirmative action even though (as Nicholas Kristof revealed in a recent NYT column) he would not have gotten into Andover without affirmative action. It should also be mentioned that West Point uses a system to insure racial diversity in its entering classes that is almost identical to the system Bush is opposing at Michigan, and yet Bush seems to have no problem with that. And Bush has consented to arresting and imprisoning American citizens without charge, hearing or legal representation. These are all very serious issues and can't be dismissed as mere partisan carping.

 

 

>The Dems are in such a swivet, that their collective skirts

>are over their heads and they're all tangled up. They can't

>stand the fact that a C student from Yale is whooping their

>sorry asses.

 

 

Now who's engaging in juvenile namecalling?

 

>The speech was great, and, Bush is on track to become one of

>the greatest Presidents in American history. Just remember, I

>told you so.

 

You haven't really told me anything other than stating a bunch of conclusions without providing any facts to support them. And I must say I find the implication that supporting one politician over another makes one 'patriotic' to be deeply offensive. And un-American.

[Guest countryboy76]

Well, I was only able to sit through parts of it and all I heard were mostly a bunch of words. There were no specifics about anything, anything that he had accomplished or was planning on accomplishing to better anyone.

 

I'm self employed and thanks to the economy I earned about $10,000 less this year. So that $1,100 tax break, while nice, just doesn't do the job. I would have rather heard Mr. Bush tell me how he is going to fix the economy, rather than telling me howI can fix the economy by going out and spending that extra tax money he is giving me.

 

As for his desire to help 'aids stricken' Africa, 15 million is an awful lot of money to spend on spreading the word of abstinence thoughout Africa.

 

When it comes to the foreign policy he has done a pretty good job of alienating everyone. For some reason Mr. Bush thinks all he has to do is point his finger at someone and say they are evil, and that is all he needs to launch war against them. Basically I didn't hear anything that let me know he had a clue when it came to foreigh policy. While the majority of the World community supported Mr. Bush when he went after Bin Laden, I don't think they are all going to sit by and watch while he attacks Iraq.

 

CB76

[Chuck50]

BTW FFF I love your new Avatar HUGS Chuck:9

[Luv2play]

I tried to respond yesterday but kept getting an error message. Let's see if this works. On making Iraq a base for American power in the mid-east, I just don't think it will fly. This is a big country, with three major ethnic/religious groups all antagonistic to each other. Like Israel, it is a creation of the Western powers (yes I know the UN established Israel)but I think it folly to imagine that the Arab community will stand for American control of Iraq and its oil resources. The alternative of deposing Saddam and then leaving the country to its own devices with some sort of peace keeping effort will probably end up worse than Afganistan, which ain't looking great these days either.:-(

[ad rian]

>I may not approve

>of all that Bush is doing but I trust him to do the best he

>can. I think that Saddam Hussein is trying to get away with

>the same things Hitler did in the 30's when we had "peace in

>our time"; remember that little phrase?

 

If you or your pal W have any proof of that whatsoever please put it on the table. I can't see how he has done anything worse than North Korea or Israel.

 

BTW, just back from a swing through Minneapolis. I unimpressed with their escort scene, but gratified to see the "No to the War in Iraq" signs on so many street corners! If only their sex was as good as their politics!

[woodlawn]

>>I may not approve

>>of all that Bush is doing but I trust him to do the best he

>>can. I think that Saddam Hussein is trying to get away with

>>the same things Hitler did in the 30's when we had "peace in

>>our time"; remember that little phrase?

>

>If you or your pal W have any proof of that whatsoever please

>put it on the table. I can't see how he has done anything

>worse than North Korea or Israel.

 

To the best of my knowledge neither the government of North Korea nor Israel deals with its political enemies by having their female relations raped, one of the many atrocities of which Saddam has been accused by organizations such as AI and HRW. In a recent biography of Saddam by a British journalist ('King of Terror'), Iraqi refugees are quoted as saying that prisoners at some of his prisons are actually given a written menu of the tortures that are available to be used on them and asked which ones they would prefer. So far as I have read even the Nazis didn't do that.

 

I think what the poster is referring to when he references Hitler is Saddam's ambitions to dominate neighboring countries. Since he has attacked two of those countries during the past twenty years the fact that he has such ambitions seems pretty clear.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>I am sorry but the fact that he liked blow jobs does

>not excuse things like making policy with the defense

>secretary and chief of staff while Monica is humming away and

>thinking that is funny is not the actions I want my president

>to take. This man is one button away from a nuclear war and

>you approve of these actions! Not in my lifetime. I think

>Clinton and his wife are both disgusting.

 

So now we've drug Al Sharpton into a serious debate about the Puppet in the White House's speech. Give me a break. When the tired racist and homophobes can't go any place else, they drag Hilary, Bill's blow jobs and that idiot Al Sharpton into the fray. Personally, I don't like being represented by a closet racist who defends Bob Jones University, who appoints an Attorney General who has said on many occasions that he thinks practicing homosexuals are going to hell, who wants to infringe on the civil liberties the homophobes pretend to respect under the guise of protecting us (personally, I think he wishes we were dead), who wants to make moral judgments a political matter i.e. abortion et al. Fuck that shit. I have never met a true conservative who's anything but a selfish fuck, and I doubt I ever will.

[Guest fukamarine]

There seems to be some gay members on this board who delight in Clinton bashing because he liked to get his dick sucked by female interns.

 

Now answer this truthfully. If YOU, as a card carring fag, were elected President, and there was a hugely hunky gay male intern, ready willing and able to suck your dick in the oval office, would you turn it down? I bet you wouldn't and those that claim they would are just fooling themselves.

 

So leave Clinton alone guys, he didn't do anything that most of us wouldn't do, if circumstances presented themselves.

 

Did you hear what Andy Rooney said about Monica lately?

 

"Monica turned 28 to-day! How time flies - it seems like only yesterday she was crawling around the White House on her hands and knees"

[ad rian]

>I think what the poster is referring to when he references

>Hitler is Saddam's ambitions to dominate neighboring

>countries. Since he has attacked two of those countries

>during the past twenty years the fact that he has such

>ambitions seems pretty clear.

 

Hmmh, I suppose you have never heard of Lebanon or Palestine or Iraq? That's just for starters, but we could go back to 1968 if you want to. We have gone down this road before, but please note that it is Israel that sold WMD to apartheid South Africa, not North Korea or Israel. Bomb Baghdad if you want, but bomb Tel Aviv at the same time. I just have to believe that you will get the support of the UN General Assembly if you act in that morally consistent manner, and you won't have to worry about the anachronistic racist and imperialistic UN Security Council

[ad rian]

>In a recent biography of Saddam by a British journalist

>('King of Terror'), Iraqi refugees are quoted as saying that

>prisoners at some of his prisons are actually given a written

>menu of the tortures that are available to be used on them and

>asked which ones they would prefer. So far as I have read

>even the Nazis didn't do that.

 

While I don't agree with Dershowitz on much these days, at least he is honest about the nature and extent of torture in Israel. Try Amazon.com.

[woodlawn]

>There seems to be some gay members on this board who delight

>in Clinton bashing because he liked to get his dick sucked by

>female interns.

 

I haven't been bashing Clinton, but the incident you mention would be an excellent reason to do so if I were so inclined. In this day and age there are few things a politician could that would be more foolish that having sex with someone who works for him.

 

>Now answer this truthfully. If YOU, as a card carring fag,

>were elected President, and there was a hugely hunky gay male

>intern, ready willing and able to suck your dick in the oval

>office, would you turn it down? I bet you wouldn't and those

>that claim they would are just fooling themselves.

 

Don't be absurd. Do you have any idea what it's like to be involved in a political campaign? Aside from being confined to a hospital with a serious illness, it's the most unpleasant experience I can think of. After going through the incredible ordeal of a presidential campaign, only a blithering idiot would jeopardize everything he had achieved at such a cost just to get a blowjob.

 

>So leave Clinton alone guys, he didn't do anything that most

>of us wouldn't do, if circumstances presented themselves.

 

Please speak for yourself. Perhaps straight people would like to believe that all gay men are sex-obssessed morons, but it just isn't so.

[woodlawn]

>We have gone down this road before,

 

 

The reason we have gone down this road before is that you take every opportunity to insert negative remarks about Israel into every possible thread, even those, like this one, that have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. By now I think just about everyone who reads these boards understands your motives for doing so. I don't know whether you've ever heard this old Chinese saying: "If you're already in a hole, stop digging."

[phage]

>Please speak for yourself. Perhaps straight people would like

>to believe that all gay men are sex-obsessed morons, but it

>just isn't so.

 

Absolutely correct. I’m a HUGE Clinton fan and can overlook his faults, but the whole Monica thing was just sheer stupidity and can’t be excused with an “anyone would have done it”.

 

I have an extremely attractive young man working for me right now. I will admit that I’ve had some impure thoughts about him, but I would never ever let anything happen. I don’t care if he got naked and climbed on my desk -- it just wouldn’t be worth it. And all I’ve got to lose is a middle-management corporate wage-slave position, not the Presidency!

[dick_nyc]

The difference is that Bob Jones didn't demand that the politicians come and kiss his ring before he would support them. The difference is that at least Bob Jones has been honest in his dealings with the public even though you may not like him. That could never in a million years be said about Sharpton, Clinton, Hillary, Jesse Jackson. The issue is not racism when I mention these people. The issue is honesty and that you will never find with the group I mentioned. There is a big difference.

[dick_nyc]

Yes I would because I was taught never get your butter the same place you get your bread. In other words, if you do punch the intern, they you are by definition committing sexual harrassment because you really don't know if the hunky intern is turned on by you or by your job. If you can't see the difference, try talking to the men who were screwed up by the Tailhook incident. What they did was not one tenth as bad as what Clinton did and they were booted out of their jobs, lost their pensions and had their reputations ruined, all with the express support of Clinton and his wife.

[VaHawk]

100% RIGHT ON!!!!! I just love the fact that the new head of the Presidential AIDS council is from Bob Jones University. A man who has consistently called AIDS a gay plague. Of course both he and his wife are infected with AIDS, but thru blood transfusions. There was an article in the Washington Post last week when the appointment was made that went into all of this. It seems, that he went to his web page and deleted all references to gay, so it looked as if he was just saying "plague'. Unfortunately for him, the Post got to his web page before he could delete the word gay!

 

More Republicans and more homophobes in charge of our nation!

 

All this from a man who has always lived off his daddy's money, influence and connections. A man who is willing to kill untold thousands of people, yet had his daddy buy him a stint in the Texas National Guard, so he could avoid going to Vietnam, when he couldn't meet the minimum intelligence requirements to get into the National Guard. I know no one could possibly believe he got into the Ivy League on his intelligence!! Jesus Christ, the man can't even string 4 words together and make a coherent statement!

 

I believe the only gay people who could possibly support Republicans are those who are totally self-centered on their own personal economic agenda, as what other reason would they have?

 

:-(

[VaHawk]

What the heck is your point??? I think it speaks volumes for Clinton that the only thing Republicans can sling at him is that he got a damn blow job! SO WHAT!! Perhaps Monica was just a Republican plant? Who else would keep a cum stained garment in dry cleaner bag for month's afterward? Clinton is certainly not the first and most likely not the last president to have sex in the White House. After all, some people find power to be an irresistable aphrodisiac and who is more powerful in the entire world, than the American president?

 

And what a total crock of bull shit, that most gays would resist some gorgeous hunk throwing himself at them! LOL, what planet are you living on?

[Flower]

NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY.........

 

>Malpractice insurance cost is out of control. It is getting to

>the point where doctors cannot afford to practice. We (in the

>US) live in a sue them, sue you environment. The attorneys are

>killing us with frivolous lawsuits. I feel sad for the person

>who has AIDS and his/her doctor won't try certain treatments

>for fear of legal action. Nothing wrong with capping

>malpractice suits. I guarantee you that the lawyers will begin

>to look elsewhere for their jackpot courtroom victories.

 

I can understand the general public buying into this statement and mantra of the insurance companies. You need to know however that independent research organizations (Rand corporation is one of many such groups) have documented that nationwide, on average, jury verdicts are down and have been going down steadily for the last 12 years as has the number of personal injury lawsuits even filed--malpractice and otherwise. THAT MEANS PLAIN AND SIMPLE THERE IS NO LITIGATION CRISIS OR OUT OF CONTROL JURY VERDICTS ON THE WHOLE. Certainly there are exceptions, but those go both ways.

 

Furthermore, malpractice premiums have gotten much higher in last couple of years, NOT BECAUSE OF (THE LOWER) JURY VERDICTS OR (LESS) LAW SUITS, but due to insurance companies suffering from the bad market (they have had their reserves heavily invested understand) and economy just like the rest of us, and from a well, and independantly documented increase in actual malpractice. The difference is, when you and I lose money in the stock market, we say, "shit, we lost money in the stock market--that was really stupid" or some variation. When the insurance companies lose money, they blame it on the trial attorneys and jury verdicts, knowing that the vast majority of their shareholders NEVER read the yearly reports showing where the money went, but seem mollified when the blame is "obviously the trial attorneys and unregulated and out of control jury verdicts."

 

The same thing happened in the mid-late 70's when the insuarance companies lost their shirts in the stock market--they raised premiums so high that doctors in California started striking until they got special legislation putting a "cap" on malpractice verdicts, attorney's fees and others regulations designed (ostensibly) to encourage settlement early on of meritorious suits and discourage unmeritorious ones. Well, the regulations and verdict cap then made it feasible for the malpractice insurance companies to take virtually any case they wanted to a jury trial -- and they wanted to try most of them--not settle, thus creating higher costs, but in the long run discouraging even meritorious lawsuits for malpractice. IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WITHOUT EXCEPTION, REFUSE TO WAIVE A JURY TRIAL -- that's because in the malpractice arena, they win most of their trials with juries, even ones they should lose sometimes --NOT the perception they are trying to sell to the general public, btw.

 

A CAP means that an intoxicated or sleepy doctor can amputate the wrong leg; take out the good rather than bad kidney; create a paraplegic or quadriplegic through negligence and never have to pay more than $250,000. (California) or if the federal proposal is used, $350,000. Substitute you or yours in that equation and tell me you are fan of "caps."

 

In all of this, nothing was ever done to attempt to address the cause of the malpractice--only stop or make onerous the lawsuit for damages after the damage was done.

 

So when you say "the attorneys are killing us with frivolous lawsuits", I am empathetic with your belief, wrong as it may be, since that is exactly what the defense and medical industry have strived to make you and others like you believe. Even the doctors, for the most part, believe the false assertions, but the insurance companies, trial attorneys, and independent researchers know the true (but sad) state of affairs.

 

When the insurance industry, with the help of the Republican Party, and dupes like W, completely reform and eliminate the civil jury trial, they will have eliminated one of the strongest vestiges of freedom this country has, as well as a keystone in the many protections the Constitution promised all of us.

 

SO, If you are going to buy into it, at least get your facts straight.

[Flower]

>It is surprising, if not sad, that the excellence of what

>President Bush has done globally and domestically escapes the

>comprehension of several people here, who, fail to grasp what

>the majority of Americans applaud the President for and for

>which he has gained the attentition and support of other world

>leaders.

 

SERIOUSLY, now -- and I'm not being sarcastic nor condescending, but could you PLEASE ENUMERATE AND ITEMIZE each of the actions that bring forth such unabounding praise as this: "the excellence of what President Bush has done globally and domestically..."

 

I am truly curious at WHAT this man has done that could so impress you. I REALLY want to know--honest--this is not a joke.

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

I mean just fill in the blanks for my edification--if you can. :+

[Flower]

RE: SOTU and how it hits home

 

I'm truly sorry for your loss. Hope you have friends and family you can talk to and share your grief with -- it really helps, so don't hold it in.

[Flower]

> Bush is an idiot, he can't

>talk, he's held hostage to the Radical Right (whoever THAT

>is), he's trying to make Daddy happy, Clinton has a superior

>intellect (but not smart enough to realize that all hell is

>going to break loose if it comes out that an intern, young

>enough to be his daughter, is eating his ass in the bathroom

>off the Oval Office), he hates gays, he's a warmonger, he's in

>the pocket of Enron, he's only for the rich, he longs for the

>return of Jim Crow, he's for torturing puppies ....

 

Right on, FFF -- but I never heard about the puppies x( -- is that purhaps why you switched?

}(

[ad rian]

>The reason we have gone down this road before is that you take

>every opportunity to insert negative remarks about Israel into

>every possible thread, even those, like this one, that have

>absolutely nothing to do with Israel. By now I think just

>about everyone who reads these boards understands your motives

>for doing so.

 

I'll stop digging when Israeal stops torturing and occupying. You and the other on-line zionists here should know by now that name-calling and inuendo won't disuade me from mentioning inconvenient FACTS about Israel here or anywhere else. It really is a bit much to think that you can have a pristine conversation about Iraqi WMD and expect nobody to point out the similarities - hus far unrefuted -to Israeli WMD programs. That's taking ethnic sentiment a bit too far!

[ad rian]

>I think that Saddam Hussein is trying to get away with

>the same things Hitler did in the 30's when we had "peace in

>our time"; remember that little phrase?

 

 

See OP Ed from today's NY Times:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

 

January 31, 2003

A War Crime or an Act of War?

By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

 

ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

 

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

 

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

 

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

 

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

 

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

 

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

 

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

 

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

 

 

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

 

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

 

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

 

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

 

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

 

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

 

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

 

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

[woodlawn]

>I'll stop digging when Israeal stops torturing and occupying.

>You and the other on-line zionists here should know by now

>that name-calling and inuendo won't disuade me from mentioning

>inconvenient FACTS about Israel here or anywhere else. It

>really is a bit much to think that you can have a pristine

>conversation about Iraqi WMD and expect nobody to point out

>the similarities - hus far unrefuted -to Israeli WMD programs.

> That's taking ethnic sentiment a bit too far!

 

 

I'm afraid the only person here who is motivated by 'ethnic sentiment' is you. Of all the countries on earth that possess WMD's Israel is one of the last and least, so the only reason to keep bringing them up is your well-known dislike for the ethnicity of the people who live there. If you are determined to portray yourself as a jew-baiter, I don't suppose there is anyone here who can stop you, so go right ahead.

[ad rian]

>Of all the countries on earth that possess

>WMD's Israel is one of the last and least, so the only reason

>to keep bringing them up is your well-known dislike for the

>ethnicity of the people who live there.

 

Sorry, my friend, that ain't going to work. Israel remains the only country in the world to sell WMD to apartheid South Africa, and no amount of name-calling is going to change that. There simply is no other country on earth that has ever acted with such irresponsibility wrt WMD - not Iraq, nor North Korea. It's a shame that you are so blinded by your Zionism that you can't even now condemn Israel for that. Truly amazing! Such arrogance, such ignorance!

 

There is a reason why Israel is treated exceptionally from time to time. It's because it does exceptional things. Of course, this time around it is Iraq that it being treated exceptionally thanks to your tribesmem, despite the fact that its record with WMD pales into insignificance when compaed to that of Israel. But then again the Iraquis don't have a body of sanctimony6 million deep to wrap themselves in, I suppose! What a desecration of the memory of your ancestors!