Katrina Funds abuse

[skins]

so are you pissed ww2 ended with a treaty....the germans and japanese killed alot more us marines then the terrorists have bozo. i guess you wanted every german and japanese soldier killed? in skins world....wars must end when one side is completely terminated??

 

 

No, you dummy. They end when the other side put their weapons down cause their whipped and cried uncle. Not when the Republican Party is low in the polls and desparate for the sham appearance of any kind of movement or progress in Iraq. You and the rest of the GOP pansies may think it is ok to give a free pass to scum who blow up children and kill our soldiers, I do not.

Edited June 16, 2006 by skins

[dmarc117]

No, you dummy. They end when the other side put their weapons down cause their whipped and cried uncle. Not when the Republican Party is low in the polls and desparate for the sham appearance of any kind of movement or progress in Iraq. You and the rest of the GOP pansies may think it is ok to give a free pass to scum who blow up children and kill our soldiers, I do not.

 

 

 

you and the rest of the libbies didnt even want to go in the 1st place!!!!!

[SuperBalla]

Yer boys, the Republican Senators, talked today about how the Iraqi proposal to give amnesty to the insurgents is a good idea. You on board for that?

 

 

 

I have to give you credit for mentioning the draft before. It might be a great idea to get America serious about this war. I think America is sac leached by too many that oppose the Gubbamint simply because it is their right to do so. I am a fortunate person to not be oppresed by the Gubbamint and I frankly don't have a problem with them shelling every house in Afghanistan until Osama is HOG tied in front of our embassy.

 

 

So...to answer yer question I don't support amnesty. Those that were or are loyal to the murderous faction instigating the attacks on civilians and US forces should die where they are caught. The games/compromises are over with terrorists. I hope the Gubbamint and US Forces never forget that day, 9-11 since sometimes some seem to forget, and that they see to it that those that even whiffed of the scent of terror, received justice.

Edited June 16, 2006 by SuperBalla

[thecerwin]

Al Qaeda wasnt in Iraq before we invaded. We created an insurgency and a 40 year problem and you dummies still wont send enough troops to get the job done.

 

So was Al Qaeda in Iraq before the US or not? I have heard they were there before us.

[AtomicCEO]

I frankly don't have a problem with them shelling every house in Afghanistan until Osama is HOG tied in front of our embassy. justice.

 

 

Iraq, Balla. Our majority of troops are in Iraq. We know for a fact that Osama is not in Iraq.

 

We kinda forgot about Afganistan until the Taliban started taking power back, then we started dropping bombs on them again. Whoops!

 

Bush's priorites are:

1. Covering his ass

2. Diverting tax dollars to his friends who will pay him back when he is out of office

3. Avoiding the public

4. Iraq

.

.

.

176. Osama Bin Laden... but not before midterms. Fear is the motivation to vote GOP. Gotta nab that coward vote. "Please! Take my freedoms! Destroy the country! Just don't let the bad men get us... "

[AtomicCEO]

So was Al Qaeda in Iraq before the US or not? I have heard they were there before us.

 

 

Honestly, there was some Al Qaeda in Iraq.

 

There was also some Al Qaeda in Florida.

There was also some Al Qaeda in Morocco, Toronto, Malaysia, Germany, Egypt, Serbia, Lithuania, and Brazil.

 

That's not why we attacked Iraq. Bush claimed that Saddam was going to give his WMDs (which didn't exist) to Al Qaeda (which he had no history of cooperating with). It was a complete fabrication. Saddam had more meetings with Donald Rumsfeld than he had with any Al Qaeda members.

[untateve]

 

 

There was also some Al Qaeda in Florida.

 

 

 

everyone picks on florida. we're good people. we do not give comfort to the enemy.

[AtomicCEO]

everyone picks on florida. we're good people. we do not give comfort to the enemy.

 

 

I'm watching you, terrorist.

[tbimm]

Talk about a full on highjacking

[skins]

So was Al Qaeda in Iraq before the US or not? I have heard they were there before us.

 

 

No, they had no real presence for the simple fact that Saddam didnt allow other powers in his country. Zarqawi was in the north in a Kurdish/Iranian controlled area that Saddam did not control and when we invaded he was not even Al Qaeda. He was a competitor of Bin Ladin who joined up with him for brand recognition.

[Randall]

Cheney kept saying Zarqawi was in Iraq, but he was in northern Iraq protected by our No Fly Zone. Cheney said he was in Bagdad, but he went there only to go to the hospital. It's BS because Saddam and Al Qaeda hated eaqch other almost as much as us.

 

Read the 911 Report. It's in there.

 

In 2004 NBC reported that the Pentagon wanted to kill Zarqawi 3 times, but the White House killed it because it would hurt the war plans in Iraq.

 

"But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

 

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

 

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

 

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

 

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

 

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

 

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

 

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

 

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

 

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

 

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Randall