As long as we’re dredging up years-old WMD reports, I have proof that Saddam kept a fleet of mobile anthrax botulinum smallpox plague mumps production labs! On trucks!
That’s right, you too can be a Santorum. Post your scoops in the comments.
And you know, chat about whatever.
Sirkowski
Saddam raped my dog. In the butt.
I have pictures.
Perry Como
Saddam has a secret stockpile of gay mexicans armed with jackalopes. I have a “source” inside the “government” that told me it’s “true”.
erg
It would be a great if a really good reporter (like Dana Priest of WashPost) could look at this memo. I asked her during the discussion on the WashPost site today, but she indicated that she didn’t think there was a big store as these were old weapons.
I think a good reporter who looked at the data would probably find that Rick had egg all on his face. Thing is, most good reporters recognize this story to be nonsense, so they don’t even want to waste time on it, since Santorum is such a small fish.
Rush Slimbaugh was pushing the story today that there were Clinton moles in the CIA and the Pentagon sabotaging any attempts at disclosing the real story of WMDs. He also took a shot at Negroponte — the same guy whom Bush appointed as AMbassadaor of Iraq and then Intelligence Czar !! THis is the same Rush Slimbaugh who spent 8 years claiming that everyone hated Clinton in the Pentagon and the CIA
Mark-NC
I understand that we found evidence that Saddam captured a UFO and the ship had a death ray.
We know this because we found an old rusty piece of bent metal that doesn’t look man-made – so it must have come from the space ship.
He was just drooling over an opportunity to use it!
Punchy
Republicans for 3 years–WE DON’T CUT AND RUN, WE DON’T CUT AND RUN….ONLY DEMOCRATS DO….THEY CUT AND RUN…NO TROOP REDEPLOYMENTS, BECAUSE WE’RE REPUBLICANS!!!
General F’in Casey–Yeah, we’re NOW going to cut and run
How in the hell can they announce this in the midst of all the frothy Repubs screaming “we don’t cut and run”??? I’m in a parallel universe…
Krista
Saddam raped Jeff Goldstein’s dog! Or maybe he was raped by the dog. Something like that…
SeesThroughIt
I have insider intel that Saddam had plans to personally spit in every 50th McDonald’s burger.
Punchy: Don’t you get it? If a Democrat reduces troop numbers, that would be cutting and running. If a Republican does it, it’s standing down as the Iraqis stand up. Democrat troop reduction = surrender. Republican troop reduction = a sign of victory. It couldn’t be any clearer, you gay Nazi America hater recreational abortionist.
Justin
Jim McGreevey and his boyfriend are moving in together!
srv
Cheney announces that if we pull out, that they’ll follow us. They’re building a fleet of jihadi submarines or something. We need a remake of Red Dawn – call it Jihadi Dawn.
Perhaps Dick should have thought of this before turning Iraq into a den of terrorists.
Chris
Well, back on April 1st, I ran an exclusive scoop about the discovery of yellow cake in Baghdad. That was fun.
But don’t call me a Santorum, you dirty Cunningham.
srv
Oh, and the Army just raised enlistment age up to your 42nd birthday.
But don’t hold your breath that any republican bloggers you know will be enticed to take that up in this age of existential threats…
Punchy
Comedic genius. I just laughed so hard I think I pulled something.
Richard 23
As this is an open thread, those with favours to ask of R23 can email him at r23_ at hotmail.com. Favors on the other hand will be ignored. By “those,” I mean Krista. ;-) So. There.
As for the topic at hand, Santorum is a joke. What he says is a joke. Full stop. He has only a few months left if PA has the sense God granted a sack of doorknobs.
Richard 23
Doughy Pantload should be signing up any day never.
Krista
Done and done. Check thy e-mail, sir.
Rusty Shackleford
Mmmmmm, yellow cake, aaaarrrrggghh.
t. jasper parnell
Not content with wiretaps the current administration searches bank accounts on a whim. Thank god I stiffed Grandma on her b’day.
t. jasper parnell
“We are not on a fishing expedition,” Mr. Levey said. “We’re not just turning on a vacuum cleaner and sucking in all the information that we can.”So fishing bad vacuuming good, for god sakes don’t tell the fans of Bass fishing tournements or GB’s numbers might fall even farther and faster.
t. jasper parnell
“At first, they got everything – the entire Swift database,” one person close to the operation said.”
See neither fishing nor vacuuming just getting, you know, everything available. A small but key difference. Dontcha feel safer right now knowing that the administration that brought you Brownie points, freedom fries, and Gitmo now have their fingers in various financial pies.
Andrew
Saddam IS Jeff Goldstein.
I’m No scar. Dot com.
Par R
Now for something totally different, how about some news on Congressman Murtha:
“The Los Angeles Times reported last year that Murtha’s brother, Robert, runs a lobbying firm that represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year’s defense spending bill. Another official of the lobbying firm is a former Murtha congressional aide. Murtha is the ranking member of the House subcommittee that appropriates this money.
“Murtha’s role in the culture of corruption also implicates Pelosi herself. Roll Call reported last year that Murtha “reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco.” Pelosi’s nephew, Laurence Pelosi, was an executive of the company that owned the rights to the land. Roll Call also reported that Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of his fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. And the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group, lists Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
“Nor is Murtha a newcomer to the culture of corruption. The Times recalls that after the 1980 Abscam scandal, the FBI named him an “unindicted co-conspirator.”
“Just to be clear, I’m not questioning John Murtha’s patriotism. I’m quesioning his ethics.”
I especially enjoyed being reminded of Murtha’s role in Abscam as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” What a fucking piece of scum!
the Internet
Wow, that stuff on Murtha would seem damning if you didn’t know how to read.
Pb
Are black Muslims the new gay Mexicans? We’ll find out tomorrow! How many black (male, 15-65, etc.) Muslims (of the Caribbean, at that!) are there in the US, anyhow? And was Mike Tyson (AKA Malik Abdul Aziz) in on it too?! Is he creating a flock of mutant suicide pigeon bombers!?! We just don’t know!! That’s why we need to tap your phones!!!
Pb
Par R,
You’re going to present a calm and well-reasoned argument, backed up with impeccable sources, references, and links?
Et tu, spoofe? I hear he’s also implicated in Saddam’s mobile mad cow disease production labs. I got that from your anonymous source from Chik-Fil-A.
Richard 23
ParRot, allow me to humor you. I’m really interested in the damning evidence you have posted without attribution. Please, please give us a link to your assertions about how congressman Murtha’s relatives are so corrupt. That should be really useful; I can finally prove to my liberal foes that he hates the troops. I haven’t seen this info in my local commie pinko Seattle paper. So please, spill.
Richard 23
This might very well be ParRot’s very own reporting. Googling several key phrases has turned up nothing so far. Damn, I was so hoping to read the rest of the article on that traitor Murtha.
Richard 23
Weird. I found this earlier today. I wonder what it means.
Tim F.
Yep, I have searched for the text and found nothing. I really think that Par R pulled that story out of his own ass.
Tim F.
Ah no – he pulled it out of Reverend Moon’s ass. No wonder Par didn’t provide a link.
Richard 23
Yeah Tim, nice call. How did you find that? I kept shooting blanks. Have you found my story on the internets yet?
BTW, you Tim F-d up the link. Here it is.
Pb
A recent editorial? Probably Google News found it for him, then. I didn’t bother–the source was Par R, so it’s guaranteed to be worthless.
Ancient Purple
Here is what the Washington Times is editorializing on.
Compliments of the Prince of Darkness himself.
Give me a break.
Pb
Woo, Novakula is making even less sense than usual, impressive!
First, the Murtha quote he criticizes:
Ok, makes sense to me… and now for the crushing rejoinder!
First, how much under a month are we talking about–a week? A day? And second, when did we go from ‘fly’ to ‘swim’? Nautical miles? Hello??
And finally, the closer takes the cake–what would Novak know about “Serious Democrats”? Or is that shill-slang for “Closet Republicans”?
MikeLucca
Par R, I agree with you on Murtha. The left seems so eager to have a war critic with stature that they have latched onto one of the most crooked guys in the whole Congress. Even Kerry would have been a better choice. His medals may be bogus but at least he’s least he’s not a crook. I guess he doesn’t have to be with his billionaire wife.
chopper
i hear saddam had a shrink ray.
Justin Slotman
Say, Jeff G is linking to Spruiell today. Can he do that as an Online Integrity signer? I know you have to erase your blogroll link to an outer (as John has honorably done), but maybe there’s some bylaw that says you can still link to the guy.
LITBMueller
Par R, I have no doubt that there are quite a few Congress members who are stuffing themselves at the Great Trough of Military Expenditures – from Murtha, to McCain to the greatest gorger of thenm all, Dick Cheney. Many chest-pounding, medal wearing ex-Generals and DoD officials leave the Pentagon and hop right into the private sector. There’s a hell of a lot of money to be made from armed combat, and the administration has been spending like drunken sailors during this occupation (no, we are not at war – we are occupying a nation we already conquered).
Culture of Corruption? No. Ike had it right: the Military Industrial Complex. But, pointing out Murtha’s links to the MIC doesn’t make Bush or the whole Iraq War and Occupation any less of a failed policy.
Jill
Tim: Any chance we can clone you and John a few hundred times? You two are the only conservatives left in the world who haven’t gone completely bonkers with Bush man-love.
demimondian
chopper:
I went looking for your original source for that, and, guess what, this is another Re-up-likin’ jackalope. The original said
At least it explains the weapons of mass destruction reference. Saddam did have weapons that could have been used to destroy any Mass in progress in Iraq. Bombing a church does that very well indeed.
Tim F.
Jill,
I’m flattered that I don’t wear partisanship on my sleeve but I have been a conservative since never. We’re now a bipartisan shop at BJ, as long as you count cranky independent and loony left as two parties.
It’s true that I have worked for Republican candidates before, but 1) I really liked the guy, and 2) you should have seen the Democrat.
Pb
Or, for the readership, cranky left-libertarian and loony and/or spoofy right…
Steve
Hey, the Iraqi government has a peace plan! This deserves a post from John or Tim.
I hope this works out for the best, but the only thing I can guarantee is that we will see some high political comedy as things that the GOP considered unthinkable last week will suddenly become top priority. “Setting a timeline would be the exact same thing as surrendering Hawaii to the Japanese… oh, wait, I meant to say it’s just the right time for a timeline!”
t. jasper parnell
The decision of the NYT and other news outlets to inform the public, American and otherwise, of this Administrations “monitoring” of communication and financial transactions are helping to win the “Great Global War on Terror and/or Extremism and Related Nouns” by forcing terrorists and/or extremists or other related nouns to rely on alternative forms of communication (including but not limited to homing pidgeons, shaving their heads covering scalp with coded messages and then regrowing their hair, or secret winking codes practiced by their supporters in the liberal broadcast media)and the barter economy.
Or
They, as some say, are traitor.
Discuss without the use of profanity or the phrases moonbat, wingnut, or liar. Be sure to show your work.
KCinDC
I finally found an example in the wild of the argument “Journalists are endangering national security by exposing secrets — and it’s not news because everyone already knew about it.” Maybe Captain Ed is a spoof.
t. jasper parnell
I meant without profundity.
slickdpdx
The story being touted the way it is, is ridiculous.
However, I’ve got to disagree with Jill. I don’t see what’s wrong with Bush love or man love.
Darrell
How honest of you not to mention that the Washington Times article references an investigation cited by that well known Bush lapdog paper called the Los Angeles Times.
But if it makes you feel big to dismiss all news contrary to your narrow worldview no matter how credible, then have at it
Not Sanatorum
I cannot be Sanatorum since I had the proper childhood vaccinations.
Tim F.
Darrell, describe in your own words what you think the scandal is here. Characteristically the Wash Times has once again taken a series of ordinary facts and strung together a nefarious story using guilt-by-association and unsupported inferences.
Apparently Murtha committed a crime by receiving a lot of money from defense interests. Gosh, that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his seniority and his legislative focus on defense issues. Nope, must be something sinister going on.
If you take your cues from Washington Times editorial page then you can pretty much guarantee that you are getting played. Fine with me if you have no problem getting played, but let’s be open about it.
Coes
The trucks were there to produce and sell the bio weapons, if they were’nt sold they were destroyed.
The real scoop is the LAB and Dr. WMD. She was freed by the Iraqi courts in a deal with CIA and maybe Plame.
Steve
Yeah, and it was also quite honest of Par to finish up by saying
leaving us to assume “The Times” referred to the Los Angeles Times rather than the Washington Times. That’s a very honest presentation.
I love how Par seems to think being an “unindicted co-conspirator” is absolutely the worst thing ever because the Great Satan Murtha is involved. I imagine he wouldn’t apply the same words to, for example, Karl Rove or John McCain.
Of course, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether Murtha is correct on the war. He could be the scummiest scumbag of all the scummy scumbags in Congress, and he could still be 100% right about the war. But today’s breed of conservatives don’t know how to debate issues on the merits; all they can do is repeat slogans and engage in personal smear jobs. Rather than honestly debate the war, let’s talk about whether Murtha is a good human being or a bad one. Yeah, that’s the way to win, one smear job after another.
Punchy
I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor…
Signed,
Bluto
t. jasper parnell
Bluto,
I am pretty sure it was Pearl Bailey who bombed on Ed Sulivan while singing Mack the Knife in German; plus she was an unidicted co-respondent in Debby Reynold’s divorce from Rudy Valee because he had fallen for Angelina JOlie.
isn’t?
Ancient Purple
Not at all. We are simply honoring the standard you set down. Here, let me refresh your memory:
Link.
Absent a court ruling that Murtha did something illegal, your statement that we need to pay attention to anything the Washington Times says is air pudding.
But, since you are citing the WT and their making hay over Murtha and ABSCAM, when can we expect your attack on McCain, Darrell?
(Hint: Keating 5.)
Pb
t. jasper parnell,
The lynch mob over at Red State is in rare form today, about this financial transaction monitoring story. Or maybe they’re always like that now, I hardly ever go there anymore.
It’s so over-the-top, it’s hilarious, and I guess it’s ok for the d*mn regulars to pseudo-swear, and plot the demise of reporters for, ah, reporting. It almost sounds like something out of Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure:
Incidentally, at what point do idle death threats become death threats, and at what point does a conversation about how best to brutally kill a couple of specific people become a conspiracy plot to commit murder? Is it better if you propose, expect, or hope that the government will do your dirty work for you? Is such plotting a betrayal of fundamental American values, or does it exemplify our freedoms? When did Red State jump the shark? Discuss.
Pb
Ancient Purple,
The law and the ruling isn’t enough–we need VIDEO PROOF!!</DARRELL>
Darrell
Nice strawman Tim. Even the article itself never said there was a definite scandal. It only asked, based on a LA Times investigation and Roll Call reports.. it only asked the question: “It’s odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha’s questionable actions”
Seems like an entirely fair question given the LA Times and Roll Call reports.
Can you imagine the media frenzy if the brother of an outspoken conservative on the appropriations committee was getting big defense contracts like Murtha’s brother had received.. or if the conservative Repub had leaned on Navy officials to give a fat contract (as Murtha is alleged to have done) to a nephew of Bill Frist? Of course they would be all over it. So why aren’t they looking into Murtha?
And you were wrong to dismiss out of hand the Washington Times article which was based on a LA Times investigation and Roll call, as mereley a “Reverend Moon” tall tale, just because it was a Washington Times article that didn’t line up with your narrow views. In fact, your closed minded knee-jerk reaction to the article is a textbook definition of partisan hack.
Ancient Purple
The day after the site went live?
LITBMueller
Yes, both Republican and Democratic Congress people are scum-sucking scummy scumbags who are involved in questionable arrangements with private industry, have violated the public trust, and should be removed from office.
Can the troops come home now? Please?
Darrell
How old are the WMD reports? Aren’t some fairly recent finds which had not been previously reported?
Sounds to me like this is just another example of how Tim and many other leftists tend dismiss all information which conflicts with their preconceived opinions, as they are so emotionally invested with their own narrative that facts and new information be damned. This thread is Exhibit A of that tendency
Perry Como
It looks like it’s time for the running of the Jackalopes again. Must be an election year.
The Other Steve
Darrell writes:
Oh never mind…
**slaps forehead**
Darrell
The NY Times leaks info. on another secret program involving national security. No crystal ball needed to predict that the left will not utter a peep of criticism at those who violated their secrecy oaths to jeopardize national security.. The left will characterize the leakers as noble truth tellers defending our liberties against the criminal Bush regime.
LITBMueller
Yeah, how foolish of us leftists to dismiss nearly 20 year old shells full of gases which have rendered inert and that are about as deadly as Denny Hastert’s McDonald’s-induced farts.
demimondian
Yes, but the Sears Tower Seven were Real HomeGrown Terra-wrists, you know. So says AG Gonzalez, and you and I both know that he would never lie. (The executive branch having the power to declare truth during a time of war.)
I’ll be honest: the STS might be the real deal. But this administration has declared so many false statements that I’m…skeptical.
Ancient Purple
Show us the law and the ruling.
demimondian
It’s almost August, Perry. Bush is building up a market for th main product of his ranch: jackalope parades.
Ohh, boy! More Mother Sheehan stories! I can’t wait!
jg
Sounds to me like this is just another example of how Darrell and many wingnuts tend to inflate all information which tends to confirm their preconcieved opinions.
Darrell do you agree that even if these wmds are bogus, that just having the ‘find’ out there helps the republican elections by making democrats appear to be on the wrong side of the issue? Without discussing the truth of the issue do you see that it can be a means for the right to force democrat action and shape the public’s opinion of democrats? Do you see that this can be a strategy? If you do, do you agree that the left could also see it as that? And react accordingly?
Darrell
From the NY Times article you cite, let’s examine LITBM’s definition of “inert”
Like I said, any and all facts and information which conflict with the preconceived opinions of leftists must be minimized and/or dismissed out of hand
KCinDC
They “contain chemicals that could be dangerous or even lethal to small numbers of people if incorporated in an improvised explosive device or released by other means”? Oh, no, I’d better not let Bush find out about the weapons of mass destruction in the cleaning products under my sink!
Ancient Purple
Since when does small numbers = mass?
jg
Read again what you wrote Darrell. It could be lethal to a small number of people if used as an IED (thats some wmd there). It’s useless as designed but if the terrorists put it in an IED and if the chemical is burned in the explosion it might cause discomfort to a small number of people.
Steve
Oh, yeah, that sort of thing NEVER happens. Any time a Republican engages in shenanigans with defense contracting, the media absolutely destroys them, without fail. Any other tall tales you want to share with us from conservative fantasyland?
It does seem odd to me to cite a detailed L.A. Times investigation as evidence that the media is failing to investigate something. There’s plenty of conservative media, in case you haven’t noticed, and some of them even have better reputations than the Moonie Times. What’s with their odd silence? Are they all secretly Murtha fans as well? Or is there, maybe, no “there” there?
Both parties undoubtedly feed at this particular trough. But if you asked which party is more heavily invested in the parceling out of defense contracts for shady reasons, you’d have to be a fool not to know it’s the Republicans. Just this week, the Senate considered whether to form a special committee to investigate corruption and wrongdoing in the awarding and carrying out of contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq, similar to the Truman Commission established during World War II. Every Republican but Chafee voted no. Maybe it’s because the media already exposes each and every instance of corruption by Republicans, at least on Planet Darrell, so there’s no need!
Where were the calls by conservative organs like the Washington Times for investigations into Murtha, before he became a spokesman for the idea of withdrawal from Iraq? There were none, because Republicans aren’t in favor, as this week’s vote demonstrates, of investigating corruption in defense contracting. They only care about “getting” Murtha on these corruption allegations because he’s against the war.
And they’re mystified that much of the media hasn’t jumped on board their witchhunt. Yeah, go figure.
jg
and if the chemical isn’t burned
Darrell
But the entire point is to find the truth, isn’t it?.. which means not dismissing all facts and information out of hand, just because it conflicts with the left’s emotionally invested positions. Keep in mind that only a small portion of a much larger document/investigation was declassified. There’s a lot more where that information came from. Why not wait and see how this plays out, rather than immediately reacting in knee-jerk fashion trying to minimize adn dismiss the new information? This reaction among the left imo highlights how fundamentally dishonest so many of them are
Steve
You know what this story says to me? Terrorism pretty much is a fucking law enforcement problem. God, I’m so sick of elections being contested on nothing more than sloganeering.
Gus
“Saddam raped my dog. In the butt.”
Is that you, Jeff Goldstein?
Darrell
But LITBM told us all the shells were “inert”. Which is it?.. I get so confused when trying to communicate with leftists
Punchy
Tim? Any chemist besides me wanna chip in? If exploding a chemical and measuring the “danger” it may cause to a small number of nearby people is the definition of a “WMD”…well…I’ve got about 30 diff “WMD”s in my lab right now.
Not to mention, any farmer worth his salt in fertilizer has “WMD”s by that definition, as does anyone with a tank full of gasoline or diesel fuel…
What a crock definition.
Ancient Purple
What new information? These shells are from pre-Gulf war days. Some were found buried along the Iraq-Iran border because they were left or buried there after the war between those two countries.
The Iraqi Group and arms inspectors for this country stated well before the first wave of “shock and awe” that these canisters would turn up but that they were not the WMDs we were looking for vis-a-vis the intelligence used to justify the war.
Or are you going to suggest that “mushroom clouds” are a byproduct of 18-year-old mustard gas canisters?
Steve
What’s with the faux retardation? Do you really think it’s a winning argument?
LITBMueller
You mean, like chlorine, fertilizer, paint thinner, etc., etc.? Almost any chemical can be placed in an exploding shell and be made to cause harm to “small numbers of people.”
A WMD, it is not. It is “inert” in that the chemical has degraded to the point where it will no longer do what it was originally manufactured to do. We didn’t invade Iraq over this old shit. I’m not “dismissing the facts,” I’m dismissing Santorum as a desparate “man-on-dog” nutjob who is trumpeting this crap as “we found the WMD’s! Woo hoo!”
jg
Answer the question Darrel. Do you see that this can be used as a means to attack democrats in an election year regardless of the truth of the claim?
jg
I don’t care what LTBM said or I would have addressed this to him. Go back and read the description given in the article of the wmd that was found. If ‘m’ stands for ‘minimal’ then the term applies but I’m fairly certain the ‘m’ in wmd stands for ‘mass’.
Darrell
Except that those shells didn’t have just “any chemical” like paint thinner in them, they had Sarin and other dangerous substances in them, didn’t they?
Again you are dishonestly trying to minimize the find, facts be damned
Andrew
We’re basically just lucky that would be terrorists are so fucking stupid.
Seriously, they’re going after the Sears Tower and FBI offices? What, was Ft. Bragg too lightly defended for them? And posting about the “FBI” and “Sears Tower” on a Islamist web site surely won’t raise any suspicions. Or trying to order 3 tons of fertilizer.
Richard Clark laid out a convincing scenario where 20 guys with easily available guns could cripple the American economy by attacking a few lightly defended shopping malls. But no, these geniuses have to go big.
jg
Chemical sthat have an effective life and have to be exploded in such a way that the chemicals disperse without burning up in the explosion. Saddam was never any good at that and these shells are past their prime. This is not what we went to war over.
You’re never going to answer my question are you? Too many jackalopes to release.
Andrew
They HAD Sarin in them, 20 years ago. The Sarin breaks down and becomes inert within a few years. Boy, Darrell, you’re putting on a solid stupid show today.
Jim Allen
Dammit, Darrell, you’re a fucking fool, and you’re spoiling Friday for the rest of us. Go the fuck away.
Ancient Purple
Nonsense. You really are a clown, Darrell.
No one is minimizing anything. The article you quoted said that the shells “could” hurt “small numbers of people.”
This is what we went to war for? 2500+ soldiers dead, 15,000+ wounded, 100,000+ civilians killed or wounded, billions and billions of dollars spent on canisters that “could” hurt a “small number” of people?
Good grief, Darrell. Get some perspective.
Even the DoD says these aren’t the WMDs we were looking for.
LITBMueller
Darrell, listen closely: THEY WEREN’T WMDs!!!!! They were no longer filled with “deadly sarin gas” that could wipe out lots of people because the gas had degraded!!!!! You could blow the shit up, but kill about as many people as you can with normal munitiion.
I’m not minimizing – I’m FUCKING READING! Open your eyes! Think! Don’t you think if the Administration had discovered 500 shells of deadly sarin gas they would be trumpeting it all over the world, with Rove leading the charge, yelling “We were right, dammit!”??? But, they’re not. Care to guess why?
John S.
Darrell-
The Defense Department thinks you should shut the fuck up, as you are making an ass of yourself – as usual:
Source
Pardon my gratuitous use of emphasis, but for someone as reading comprehensionally challenged as you, I feel it is neccessary. Not that this will stop you from making your usual retort of leftist malfeasance, facts be damned.
Darrell
Do any of you know for sure how old those shells are, or what condition they were kept in. Rumsfeld said at a press conference earlier that the Sarin that was discovered was still dangerous. But you smart open minded lefties know better, right?
Darrell
Thanks for the ‘compliment’ jackass, but from the info available so far we know that: a) the weapons found still pose a danger, they are not “inert” b) this declassified info. is a tiny piece of a much larger document/investigation
But hey, don’t wait for the facts come in before screaming how this find definitely means nothing. Because the left has already told us that Bush “lied” us into war.
John S.
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT KNOWS YOU IDIOT.
But you know better than the Defense Department, right Darrell?
Andrew
Come on Darrell, you can do it! Just try a little harder. I can feel it coming. Any second now…
Darrell will write the stupidest post in the history on the Internets.
Steve
If we found sand in Iraq, Darrell would go on for days about how terrorists might have been able to kick it in someone’s eyes.
LITBMueller
Well, if being able to read and fully comprehend the English language makes me a “smart open minded leftie,” then sign me up!
The shells are pre-1991 – all of the reports indicate that. I ain’t none too good at ‘rithmatic, but, seems to me, that means them there shells are at least 15 years old.
Try Google – it works pretty darn good.
BTW, gasoline is dangerous if you light it. Should we ban the sale of gasoline? Was the Ford Pinto a WMD?
John S.
What magical info is this you pathetic fucktard?
Source an administration official that asserts the weapons found still pose a danger, in direct contradiction to the OFFICIAL RESPONSE from the DoD.
I’ll wait for you to dig something up.
Darrell
yes Steve, because finding sand or other ‘inert’ substances is the same as finding artillery shells filled with (still dangerous according to Rumsfeld) Sarin..
Pb
Heh, that’d make a headline alright. *WSD FOUND!* Weapons of Small Destruction! As a bonus, we’ll throw in enough enriched nuclear material to manufacture a glowing Mickey Mouse wristwatch!
Punchy
Maybe if you ate it, then smeared the resultant feces on your skin, then sat through a typical Bahgdad afternoon while it caked onto your epidermis while injecting all remaining residue directly into cardiac tissue…then surely you’d get sick for a day or two. So I guess you’re right–it’s dangerous!
John S.
Darrell-
And before you point to this excerpt as ‘evidence’ that these weapons are in useable condition, I’ll save you the trouble of deconstructing that bullshit argument:
This means the weapons in the state they were found it are NOT useable, as the DoD has already stated. In order for them to be rendered a threat, the leftover material inside the shells would have to be reconstituted and used in ANOTHER improvised device.
Wrap your brain around that. It means that as WEAPONS that Saddam would have used, they were and are utterly useless. As recovered munitions, they could be modified for use by INSURGENTS. Although I’m sure in your feeble mind, you cannot see the difference between the two. Or perhaps let what the DoD has stated sink in to that thick skull of yours:
Darrell
Keep on following those marching orders – all new information and facts that contradict preconceived leftist talking points MUST be minimized and dismissed, no matter what.
John S.
And so, in the face of his bullshit argument having been thoroughly destroyed in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, Darrell must resort to the “you’re a poopyhead” defense.
You’re a joke.
jg
darrel you are in rare form today. Forget my question above. You’re answering it with every post you make anyway. YOU are the reason the right is pushing this bullshit story. YOU are the reason wedge issues work so well. YOU are the reason the right is so good at winning elections.
Ancient Purple
Fixed that right up there for you, Darrell.
No need to thank me.
Punchy
MSNBC.com how has the mug shots of the hoods that comprise “The Miami 7”. I’m now convinced that this whole thing was an attempt to pilfer 50 large from some Johnny Jihad with an empty promise of loyalty and a desire for new threads (after all…they asked for uniforms! Hopefully with their team name (Lib City Liberators) on the front and wristbands for all).
If the country is now going to believe these guys are “terrorists”, this is going to set race relations back about 30 years.
Darrell
Yes, and since you are the self-appointed judge of which argument is “destroyed”, enjoy your continued undefeated win streak with another round of self congratulation. It’s a hallmark character trait of the left.
In the meantime, I better get some ice from spanking you gave me.
Steve
A guy like Santorum wouldn’t be pushing the “we found the WMD after all!” line unless he had a constituency willing to believe it.
I assume Darrell hasn’t made up his mind yet on whether 9/11 was an inside job, or whether the Republicans stole Ohio, since “not all the facts are in!”
LITBMueller
Damn you leftists with your “reading” and your “facts.” How dare you minimize the truthiness of the Weapons of Mass Santorum! How do you know that Rick didn’t personally comb the desert, and turn these shells up in some hidden bunker?
jg
What he said.
Pb
Darrell, Master of Projection, Says:
Fixed!
I mean, we all know that Darrell is totally full of shit on this one, but the real question is, how full of shit is he? And, secondarily, why does he bother? I hope you’re getting paid Darrell, because it ain’t worth it.
Here follows information and facts that must be minimized and dismissed by Darrell, no matter what:
No doubt about that. Had enough yet, Darrell?
Krista
I’m just curious as to why Darrell hasn’t yet responded to the many, many times that people have mentioned the DoD official response…
So, does this mean that the Department of Defense is minimizing the facts? They certainly don’t seem to be at all worried about this find. Why are you? Don’t you trust your government, Darrell?
John S.
Yeah, it might help.
In the meantime enjoy your continued inability to respond to any of my statements that make you look like a buffoon with another round of strawmen and “lefties stink” diatribe. It’s a hallmark character trait of yours.
teak111
I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again, the only way to defeat the GOP is with comedy and you guys are doing great. recreational abortionists, that IS funny.
jg
Because the truth of the issue isn’t as important as the lefty reaction in the head of Darrel.
Darrell
Because BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED! that’s why. Even in degraded condition, Rumsfeld and the NY Times say that many of the ‘banned illegal’ weapons are still plenty dangerous.
Funny how Hans Blix & Co. never could find these, because the left told us how well the ‘inspections were working’.
Darrell
I think Saddam hid all those shells with mustard gas and sarin because he had the most honorable of intentions, kind of like those noble truth tellers who leaked to the NY Times details about our classified national security programs.
Pb
Woo. Darrell has gone from spoofy stooge to loony loon, *way* off the deep end there. Maybe I shouldn’t have cited all those facts in a row…
Krista
No, be serious for a second. The official DoD response appears to be that these are defunct weapons that pre-dated 1991. Lefty talking points or memes have nothing whatsoever to do with this. The Department of Defense has stated flat-out that these are not WMDs, and definitely not the WMD stockpile that it was thought that Saddam had. They’re really not at all excited or worked up about this. Why are you?
demimondian
Krista asks:
Because he wants you to talk about the jackalope. If you are fighting the jackalope, you’re still keeping the story alive — and that’s what he wants. If you repeat the story enough, it’ll pass into urban legend and become one of those “I heard it somewhere” stories which are, by their nature, unrefutable.
How do you think advertising works?
jg
But they are not evidence of an active wmd program, they are not the reason we went to war. So what was Santorums goal in bringing up this ‘find’?
Tim F.
Well technically chemical weapons are not weapons of mass desctruction. There is simply no practical way to deliver a chemical weapon in a way that causes the kind of mortality that can be delivered by a well-designed biological or nuclear weapon.
Think about it for a minute. Where does the mass come from in mass destruction? If you deliver the right germ you could theoretically wipe out a city, or worse. Nukes hardly need an introduction. Now ask what sort of mass destruction you get with chemical shells, which are basically area-of-effect weapons with a slightly larger radius than conventional explosives. You could blow up a tanker truck full of VX and it would be a problem for a largish neighborhood, which isn’t much better than what you would get if you filled the tanker truck with ammonium nitrate.
Let’s be clear, chemical weapons are banned for a good reason. They cause indiscriminate casualties and are an absolutely horrible way to die. But they’re still basically tactical battlefield weapons. The only real strategic weapons are nuclear and biological.
In reaction to this:
I would say that for return-on-investment it would be much easier for the terrorist to find an automatic weapon and shoot people. Or, say, make a big bomb and bury it under a road. The meager return you would get from retrofitting twenty-year-old chemicals into a functional delivery device simply doesn’t compensate for the ridiculous level of risk involved in handling the stuff.
LITBMueller
I George W. Bush held a press conference announcing that all loyal Republicans must demonstrate their loyalty to him, the Great Decider, by cutting off one finger, I think Darrell would actually do it.
Scary…
John S.
What a brilliant response. You are now a cheap parody of yourself.
In Darrell’s world, Jeff Gordon would see a stock car on cinder blocks without an engine as a serious threat to his racing career, because with a few months worth of work it could be used to race against him…
Lefties are poopyheads!
Ancient Purple
What does the NYT article on the banking issue have to do with WMDs?
Yup, Darrell and the jackalopes.
TBone
We found WMD, period. I don’t wanna hear any of this “not working” crap either. Are any of you brave Leftists interested in sticking your nose down in one of those barrels and taking a sniff? How would you like Ahmed to pour some of that stuff in your kid’s lunch pail? I thought not. Shut the hell up then. WMD is WMD, whether it is fresh or stale, the stuff will still kill people. There is more WMD material in Iraq to be found, and no amount of your Leftist hyperbole will change that fact. Saddam had it, of that there can be no doubt, and the recent find proves that materials were not all destroyed or accounted for. Where there is one find, there will surely be more, count on it.
Tim F.
So will bullets. Chemical weapons are tactical weapons.
LITBMueller
Ahhhh…. a healthy dose of truthiness from TBone! :)
So, here is the new calculus folks:
– Weapon containing a substance that can kill 1 person = “a weapon”
– Weapon containing a substance that can kill 2 people or more = “a weapon of mass destruction”
Thanks for clearing that up!!! I suppose we should ban handguns now…
Pb
Or empty, for that matter–those shells are big! One good blow to the head might do it…
SeesThroughIt
Fuckin’ tell me about it. Remember that Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos disguise themselves as Bob Dole and Bill Clinton and run for president? Every day, that episode looks less like brilliant satire and more like a documentary of what elections are going to be (minus the space-alien part).
“The politics of failure have failed–we need to make them work again!”
By the way, those shells are absolutely, positively lethal. What if you were to drop one off the roof of a building onto somebody’s head? Sounds pretty lethal to me!
Darrell
Sure, I’ll admit that that what has been discovered so far is not all what we thought Saddam had. Now can you and others on your side admit that there is likely more where this came from, and that this find does demonstrate intent on the part of Saddam? These are after all, supposedly banned WMDS’s, are they not?
Most of the chem weapon manufacturing could be reconstituted pronto once we took our eyes off him.. this discovery imo should lay to rest any lingering doubts of Saddam’s intentions.
Jim Allen
I hope it’s one from his typing hand.
Darrell
You catch that people? mustard gas and sarin are now merely “tactical weapons”. Unbelievable.
Did John Cole really say that Tim F is a ‘reasonable’ lefty?
SeesThroughIt
Ah, man, you beat me to the shell-to-the-head explanation, Pb.
Steve
What the folks on Planet Darrell want us to forget is that they trot out this “we finally found the WMDs!” bs every few months, usually with a cite to WorldNetDaily or CNSNews, and act all surprised when no one buys it.
What makes this latest episode more interesting is that you have actual elected Republicans standing up and acting like it means something. Mind you, it’s just crazy Rick Santorum who is about to get fired by the voters, but still, that does make it different. But you still have the spectacle that the Bush White House, which has suffered no shortage of humiliation from the fact that we didn’t find WMDs, is just sitting there and saying nothing. Isn’t it odd that they won’t speak up to point out that they’ve been completely vindicated?
Jim Allen
No, that’s true. Chemical weapons are not “weapons of mass destruction”, but are only used as tactical weapons.
Tim F.
Would you describe mustard gas as a “strategic weapon?” Really, there are two basic categories of weapon. All you have to do is pick one. Go for it.
Darrell
Well it looks pretty clear now like the ‘discredited’ WorlNetDaily turned out to be right on their claims of WMDs found in Iraq, and the ‘Bush lied’ side wrong, doesn’t it? The disingenous accusations from so many on the left that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s is being exposed for the bullshit it always was.
Steve
Well, no, it doesn’t look “pretty clear,” or even a little bit clear.
“WorldNetDaily was right!” Keep screaming that one.
John S.
No, you blithering idiot.
For the last time, these shells:
But of course, you and tBone know more than Department of Defense.
Darrell
I believe that all but the most extreme consider mustard gas to be a WMD, rather than merely a White Phosphorous-like ‘tactical’ weapon.
Jim Allen
No, they turned out to be wrong. What were found were not WMDs.
Perhaps you and Larry your other brother Darrell should go take a nap.
Darrell
The WorldNetDaily has been running stories for quite a while about WMD weapons discoveries in Iraq. This declassified document would seem to prove them right..Is it really so controversial to point this out?
Steve
The Defense Department says they weren’t WMDs, but Wikipedia disagrees! See, the jury is still out, well actually, it’s “pretty clear” that they are WMDs no matter what the Defense Department says!
Bush didn’t lie after all. In fact, it was clear to any honest observer that we went to war in order to confiscate Saddam’s collection of inert pre-1991 shells. Surely you remmeber all the speeches to that effect.
Tim F.
I didn’t ask whether chemical weapons are commonly lumped with nuclear and biologicals in the general term “WMD,” Darrell. I asked whether you would characterize mustard gas as a “strategic” weapon. Care to try again?
Darrell
Steve, please show us where the Defense Dept ever stated that those shells with Sarin and mustard gas were “not WMDs” as you claim they said. I’ll wait patiently for your reply.
BarneyG2000
Saddam hid his WMD prior to the invasion, but not in Syria:
VIMY, FRANCE – Thousands of people have fled the area surrounding an unexploded weapons stockpile near Vimy, France. Most of it contains lethal mustard gas, now an illegal weapon in war.
Krista
Sure. Old intent.
Prior to 1991, Saddam had all sorts of intent. He demonstrated that intent on August 2, 1990. He was thoroughly trounced, and we’re now finding some of the old, useless weapons from his one stab at glory. There very well might be more. And they will also likely be pre-1991 and useless.
Is this what you guys went to war for? Saddam’s old broken-down toys?
jaime
But I thought they were all covertly shipped to Syria’s Bekaa Valley before the war? Now they’re still in Iraq? I’m so confused. Darrell, your ability to hold 2 opposing bullshit ideas as true astounds me.
Steve
The DoD statement has been quoted about a dozen times in this thread. They flat-out said the shells were not in usable condition.
But Bush never claimed the WMDs would be in usable condition? Is that where you’re going with this?
Krista
Well of course. And we all know that it was Saddam, and not Gavrilo Princip who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Damn liberal media, suppressing truthiness!
Darrell
Tim, you tried to minimize the discovery of mustard gas with your absurd comment that chemical weapons are merely ‘tactical weapons’. I called you on that characterization, and you’re now evading the absurdity of your original statement by asking me to comment about whether or not mustard gas is a “strategic” weapon, when the point is that many Chem weapons are WMD’s (such as the mustard gas and sarin under present discussion), irregardless of how ‘strategic’ they may be. In fact, Saddam has a history of using chemical weapons as a WMD.
Pb
Darrell,
See my list of facts above to find out ‘where this came from’–sure, you might find one or two odd old discarded pre-1991 shells lying around in Iraq now and then, and they might be empty, or they might contain degraded, 15+ year old mustard or possibly sarin gas. So?
Darrell
Again I’ll ask you to substantiate your claim that what was discovered were, according to your claim of what the DoD said, definitely “not WMDs”.
Note to the ignorant: WMDs in degraded condition are still WMDs.
les
In 42 minutes, Sadam could have dug his wmd shells out of the sand, refurbished them into ied’s, built an icbm out of aluminum tubes in the back of a semi and dropped it in New York, fatally smashing 3 winos at early mass. Thank god WPE saved us form the wmds.
Perry Como
And in the case of Mustard Gas, it’s most effective as an area of denial weapon. Kind of like Darrell’s arguments.
Perry Como
So we get five dead US soldiers for each 20+ year old chemical shell found. Hope you are happy with that ratio.
les
And well worth a hundred billion dollar war to find.
Darrell
“one or two odd” = 500+ so far, and that’s from only a small declassified portion of the document.
“Bush lied us into war!”
Tom in Texas
I know it’s no accident these weapons are degraded. Once again Rummy shows his tactical brilliance! In 1980, he deliberately left these shells sitting in the hot sun before selling them to Saddam, knowing full well they would be useless by the time Saddam needed them against us!
Also, we found Soviet chemical weapons dating from the 1980’s in Afghanistan as well. Santorum is pushing an invasion of Russia, since they obviously are harboring WMD’s.
Pb
les,
Sadly, that’s still a more plausible use for them than the ‘centifuge’ bullshit that the Bush administration ran with instead. You know, the imaginary centrifuges that were there to enrich Saddam’s collection of degraded, 15+ year old shells that may or may not contain chemical weapons agents at all, cleverly hidden in small quantities as ‘discarded shells’ littered across ammo dumps in Iraq. That’s why we went to war now, right?
LITBMueller
David Kay:
Cast your minds back…its the 1980’s….Iraq is at war….with Iran….the Reagan administration is financially supporting Saddam Hussein…and our current Sec. of Defense pays a visit to Saddam and is photographed greeting him with a handshake and a smile….
Are you sure you want to keep digging up these old shells, Darrell?
Perry Como
If only. We’ll be lucky to get out of Iraq for less than $1 trillion. But when the debt is sitting at $8.5 trillion who cares!? Spend, spend, spend! Nation build! It’s the conservative way!
Jim Allen
Of course! When he spoke of a “mushroom cloud”, he was talking about real mushrooms! Weapons of Mycologic Destruction!
Pb
Darrell,
Yes…. learn to read:
Which characterizes a *fact* that you’ve been /ignoring/:
No shit. And no surprise that you’re his biggest cheerleader. He must be your role-model or something. Have fun enriching your empty shells inside your aluminum tubes! Just don’t let it turn into a mushroom cloud!
Steve
Huh? Unusable weapons are still weapons? That’s seriously the argument you’re going with?
Enough clowning, please.
Darrell
I see, so this is the position of the left, that good old Saddam changed his ways and gave up his previous intent. That explains why he kept hidden so many programs and all those shells with mustard and sarin. Oh, and the Duelfer report seems to disagree 180 degrees with your characterization of Saddam’s “old” intent. Duelfer report Key Findings:
“Old” intentions, right? Don’t worry Krista, I don’t expect you or others on your side will ever admit how wrong you are in misjudging Saddam.
jg
Just want to point out that I corrected a sentence in there.
‘It’s useless as designed but if the terrorists put it in an IED and if the chemical isn’t burned in the explosion it might cause discomfort to a small number of people.’
Darrel. I’ll stipulate that there might plenty of old munitions that might contain chemical or even bio stuff, thats now useless, spread around Iraq. Still isn’t what we went to war over though is it?
Jim Allen
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it bears repeating. Darrell, you’re a fucking fool, and you’re spoiling Friday for the rest of us. Go the fuck away.
Perry Como
LITBMueller Says:
Yeah, but Kay takes his marching orders from Howard Dean. What would you expect?
Mike in SLO
Don’t people by now realize that responding to Darrell is playing his game? We’re now up to 146 posts-more than half of those between Darrell and people responding to Darrell. He has learned the Rove method very well and you still fall for it every time. Don’t respond and don’t engage. Facts will never change his mind. Engage him and he wins. Ignore him and he gets bored and moves on.
Steve
Dick Cheney told the American people that Saddam had, in fact, reconstituted his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs. He claimed, not that the administration merely believed this, but that they knew it.
The very best Darrell can do is argue that Saddam had the intent to reconstitute these programs at some point in the future. But oh no, don’t you dare say they lied! Only raving moonbats think the threat was exaggerated.
slickdpdx
I agree that this old shells thing is being over hyped, but it is dishonest to act like it is meaningless. It shows they weren’t destroyed – which is of limited importance, but some. It is also dishonest to suggest the Saddam was reformed as opposed to, at best, contained.
Regading Murtha, I believe there is video proof, it being ABSCAM. He didn’t take the bait, but expressed his interest in further discussions. Could have been he wanted more money. Could have been he was brushing the bribers off. If the second scenario was the case, I note that he didn’t report the illegal activity to the relevant authorities. However, that scandal doesn’t have much relevance today and no relevance to the discussion about Iraq.
Dave_Violence
What the hell happened to this blog?
The stuff Colin Powell presented way back when was pretty damed credible and you’re making fun of it? Will it only be credible if Ted Kenneday gets Jane Fonda to play his Adelai Stevenson for him?
SeesThroughIt
Fucking awesome
Darrell
No, there were over a dozen reasons/justifications given in which an overwhelming bi-partisan majority in congress agreed to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq.
Krista
En tous cas, enough about this non-news. Anybody doing anything exciting this weekend? Tim, any sneak peeks at the beer blogging?
Tim F.
And once again you dance around the subject. Incendiaries or high explosives would have been just as effective for wiping out Haditha – Saddam used gas because he wanted to resettle the town without rebuilding it first.
Let’s fast forward a few hundred posts. Eventually you will answer the question and acknowledge that no, in no way can you describe mustard gas as a strategic weapon. You can describe it as a particularly awful tactical weapon but its uselessness as a strategic threat puts it in an entirely different level from the other two categories of WMD which Saddam was alleged, falesly, to have.
Now you ask why bother with nuance when black-and-white simplemindedness suits your purposes so well. As it turns out finding a neglected stash of tactical weapons dating from the Iran-Iraq war does exactly nothing to show that Saddam was a threat to the US. The Aum Shinrikyo cult demonstrated that chemical weapons are about as effective for terrorists, even in the absolutely-ideal environment of a subway station, as a suitcase bomb would have been. Absent any significant threat to America your case for this precious war of yours is as flimsy as it has ever been.
Ancient Purple
2500+ soldiers dead.
15,000+ soldiers wounded.
100,000+ civilians wounded.
$300+ billion spent.
All for 500+ 18-year-old mustard gas canisters that “could” hurt a “small group” of people.
To Darrell, this was all worth it. Your modern neo-con at work.
jg
Were any of those dozen reason wmd? Are these that were found those wmd that were justification?
Darrell
Yes, because Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and many other Dems told him so:
Oh, and CIA director Tenet said it was a “slam dunk” that Saddam had WMDs. So yes Steve, you are a dishonest whackjob for asserting that Bush “lied”
jg
Before the inspectors were let back in. Any quotes from anyone outside the administration dated after 12/2002?
Pb
slickdpdx,
Actually it strongly implies that they almost all *were* destroyed, and that there were one or two shells that got overlooked here and there. As I’ve repeatedly tried to tell Darrell, but his No Fact Zone won’t have any of it.
Yeah, but that’s video proof of innocence–which is totally not what Darrell would want.
Perry Como
Finally! Clinton did it!
Steve
Okay, let’s play the “truth is somewhere in the middle” game.
1. These were munitions that were buried by troops fighting against Iran in the 1980s. There is no evidence that they were buried in any kind of systematic way, no evidence that they were inventoried or that any records existed of where they were buried. More importantly, there is no reason to believe that if and when Saddam reconstituted his weapons programs someday, part of his plan was to dig up these decayed weapons from 20 years earlier. I don’t think the fact that they weren’t destroyed is meaningful at all, and I really find it implausible that Saddam had any nefarious intent with respect to these particular decayed weapons.
2. Who the heck is suggesting that Saddam was “reformed”? I’ve never seen that argument except as a strawman. It’s generally accepted that Saddam had the intent to reconstitute his weapons programs someday in the future, but bad intent has never been viewed as a sufficient justification for war in the history of this country, and we certainly weren’t sold this war on the basis that Saddam intended to rebuild his programs someday. We were told he had already done so.
Tom in Texas
In the interest of leaving Darrell the way we do my crazy uncle Fred at Christmas: ranting on the LaZBoy alone in the living room, may I present the most recent argument from Richard Morin in the WaPo. The headline says it all: Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?:
Umm… the reserchers actually concluded nothing of the sort (the first quote is from the column, the second is a quote from the study’s authors):
McNulty
Apparently not.
Andrew
I think Saddam was actually the reincarnation of Jesus, and that he was testing the morality of Christians in America by hiding WMDs and invading Kuwait. We invaded, and so now we will go to heaven. Praise the Lord.
Krista
Heaven forbid that we should be cynical about politicians. They’re such an ethical, upstanding, trustworthy bunch!
Darrell
Tim, I disputed your absurd statement that Chemical weapons are mereley ‘tactical weapons’. I believe you posted that in an attempt to downplay the significance of any discovery of WMDs in Iraq, and I think many/most other leftists who post here are trying to do the exact same thing – minimize and dismiss all information and facts which conflict with their narrative that Bush “lied” us into war.
I have no desire to engage in a discussion over how ‘strategic’ mustard gas is, especially since neither you, nor anyone else on this thread has attempted to define what ‘strategic’ means in that context. And I never raised any issues over the strategic merits of using mustard gas or any other chem weapons. I am grateful, however, for your weekly posts on the chemical brews found in your fav beers
JoeTx
The argument is not whether these are WMD’s are not, thats just a fools argument. They certainly WERE (key word there folks) at one time. But as Olbermann said last night, its more like Weapons of MILD DISCOMFORT!!!
The right is making these out to be THE “hidden WMD’s” that we went to war for to stop Saddam from using against us and his neighbors. These clearly are NOT the WMD’s this administration told us Saddam was “developing”, and this is NOT the nuclear program that was to be the smoking mushroom cloud over us.
These are some of the many munition stockpiles that the inspectors EXPECTED to find in Iraq based on intelligence that Saddam stored stockpiles to use during the Iran/Iraq war and FORGOT about.
This business about expecting further “declassified” documents to show more revelations is just plan laughable. If we HAD found the WMD’s that JUSTIFIED Bush/Cheney’s actions, they would trumpeted that information from every hilltop and it would NOT have been a news conference by Santorum and only attended by Faux News…
Steve
You can always tell when Darrell is trying to get away with a lie, because he mysteriously forgets to provide a link. Let’s see who actually signed the December 5, 2001 letter to President Bush:
I don’t see anyone named Bob Graham here… but apparently I’m the “dishonest whackjob” anyway. On Planet Darrell, maybe.
Tom in Texas
I do have to say that the Daily Show’s tactic is probably less effective than Fox’s, however — making fun of both sides doesn’t rile up the voters as quick as fearmongering. That being said, I think there’s probably a correlation between young Daily Show viewers outnumbering hard news watchers by some 20 percentage points (48%-23%) and youth voting at its highest percentage in decades.
Darrell
Krista in her post above, when she vigorously disputed Saddam’s intentions to reconstitute WMD programs as being Saddam’s “old” intentions. So no, it wasn’t a strawman as you claim. I’ve read quite a number of other lefties here post the same thing.
Darrell
You appear right, but Joe Lieberman signed it. I can produce a mountain of Dem quotes saying essentially the same thing, warning us of Saddam’s WMD programs. Do you doubt they exist? And yes, anyone suggesting, as you have done, that based on current evidence, Bush “lied” us into war.. that person definitely qualifies as a dishonest whackjob
Tom in Texas
I seriously doubt that anyone here actually knows the answer to this, but is it even possible to reconstitute degraded mustard gas? If I find a buried shell in Malmedy, can I use it in Paris?
les
Geeze, in all the hoorah above, I almost missed it; Darrell made an accurate statement:
“Bush lied, people died.”
I didn’t know the D-man was capable.
Pb
The other Bob Graham! Maybe he’s one of the Bob Grahams of the center?
jg
Thats not what she said. You have to be trying real hard to find any implication that she said he no longer had any intention to pursue wmd.
Steve
Absolute bullshit. Krista said that these 20-year old munitions are evidence of Saddam’s old intent, but prove nothing about his intent at the time we invaded. By your logic, if I say this apple on my desk is not evidence of Saddam’s intent to reconstitute his nuclear program, I’m denying Saddam had any such intent. What a load of crap.
It’s a sure sign of a flawed argument when you have to misrepresent your opponents’ positions as consistently as Darrell does.
Tom in Texas
Darrell;
While these shells do not prove that Bush lied, and no lefty seems to be using it as evidence of such, neither do these shells prove Bush was forthright in his speeches and dealings prior to war. All these weapons prove is that in the 1980’s Saddam had weapons. We knew this. We sold them to him.
LITBMueller
Apparently, liberals are lying, cheating, scummy bastards…unless they tell you what you want to hear.
Seriously, though: yep, both Republicans and Dems have been playing the “Saddam is dangerous/a threat” card for years. Why? Because, just like a bully in a playground, successive administrations haven’t been able to resist kicking around the the little short kid on the swings ever since the Cold War ended. Saddam was a useful tool in the 80’s, and he became an even more useful punching bag in the 90’s.
It was wrong then. It is even more wrong now, because Dubya took us beyond just kicking Saddam around to show how big and bad the US is – he went and deposed him, and now we’re left occupying a country full of people who are very very hostile to us, we’ve kicked a hornets nest (the Muslim world) and we managed to squander all of the goodwill generated by the tragedy of 9/11.
Krista
Honey, it’s Friday, and it’s hot and muggy here. I’m not doing anything vigorously right now. I simply indicated that these pre-1991 weapons are indicative of nothing more than Saddam’s pre-1991 intentions. Old intentions. Did he intend to try to develop weapons again? He probably hoped to, and probably wanted people to think that he was. But was he capable of doing so? Doesn’t look like he was. He was a threat at one time, but we have yet to see any sort of proof that he was a real threat at the time that the U.S. decided to go to war with him.
Nobody here is saying that he turned into a kindly, Wilford Brimley figure. He’s a mean dog, but that dog didn’t have any teeth after the first Gulf war ended, so no matter how much he growled and snapped, he still would not have been able to bite the U.S. — the hand that fed him.
Darrell
I didn’t read the word “maybe” or “possibly” building weapons of mass destruction in Senator Levin’s comment. Did you?
Al Gore says “we know” for sure Saddam has them
Oh my, “unmistakable evidence”, and from Jay Rockefeller who is the Vice chair of the Senate intelligence committee. Lots more where that came from. But “Bush lied”, right?
Steve
Haha, and that’s exactly the same thing as Bob Graham, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signing it, right?
You got caught in a lie, thinking no one would check up on you if you didn’t provide a link. And now you think you have credibility when you accuse other people of being dishonest? Get real.
Pb
Tom in Texas,
Well I do know that there was one old shell of sarin gas that actually was rigged as an IED. It didn’t work that well, tho–degraded sarin gas and all…
The Other Steve
None of this particularly matters now does it?
The fact is, despite all your wailing to the contrary, Saddam Hussein had not reinvigorated weapons programs, was not producing weapons, did not have weapons.
And we would have known that had you all simply followed the evidence.
But you wanted to believe otherwise.
There’s simply no question that anybody still defending the invasion of Iraq as justifiable is a dishonest whackjob.
John S.
I officially declare this thread Darrelled.
Have fun with him the rest of you. I don’t see much amusement in whacking a piñata that has already been busted wide open and no longer has any candy inside of it.
The Other Steve
Darrell
So what’s your point? That a whole bunch of people were wrong?
Well duh.
So why don’t you admit you were wrong? I mean, come on. Why the desire to look like a dishonest whackjob by defending the invasion?
Jim Allen
You’d be better of getting a fresh jar in Dijon.
Darrell
Saddam was required to destroy his chem and bio weapons, but he chose to hide them instead… hiding them up until the moment of invasion. When I pointed out that such behavior is solid evidence of Saddam’s intent, Krista claimed it was Saddam’s “old intent”, suggesting that good old Saddam didn’t feel that way about weapons programs anymore. Duelfer and Kay reports disagree. Sorry if you find such a basic observation on my part to be “absolute bullshit” Steve
McNulty
I don’t see how people can talk about WMD’s on the same day a co-founder of Kool and The Gang died.
Have some priorities.
Pb
Darrell,
So what’s next, do we segue into the false intelligence debate, and then you can tell us all about how it all happened, about Cheney, PNAC, the rush to war, the Downing Street Memo, the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, the Office of Special Plans, the White House Iraq Group, the Yellowcake Forgery, the CIA Leak Investigation… and, new in 2006, the Iranian Directorate!
Pb
Really? Where were they?
Jim Allen
North, south, east and west of thereabouts.
Darrell
Wait a minute, that quote being attributed to Graham is widely circulated, which is why the Snopes-like site I linked to caught it. I guess because I made one honest mistake on that quote, it invalidates the “unmistakable evidence” and similar definitive statements made by so many other Dems, right? Oh, and it proves that I got caught in a “lie”. Steve, you are a dishonest whackjob, pretending to be a rational person
Steve
Where is your evidence that Saddam “chose to hide” these decayed and unusable weapons that had been buried 15 years previously? Is it in the same place as your evidence that Bob Graham signed that letter?
Jim Allen
I need a clean cup. Can we all move down one seat?
Steve
Right, an honest mistake, that you just coincidentally didn’t provide a link for. It’s not like you have a history of deception or anything, Senator.
Just keep accusing people of dishonesty. I’m sure that will persuade somebody that everyone around here is dishonest but you.
Darrell
Steve, upthread you claimed that the DoD made a definitive statement that the chem weapons which were discovered in Iraq were NOT WMDs. That is what you claimed. I asked you to provide the quote from the DoD which made that statement about not being WMDSs. You have yet to produce it. You lied your ass off and got called on it, so now you’re projecting at me. Whatever floats your boat man
Darrell
Who said they were all buried? Lying your ass off again Steve?
Because I’m sure you can back up the claim they were all buried, right? I’ll wait for your citation.. just like I’m still waiting on the DoD quote you claimed upthread
Steve
Oh, now I lied, because you believe an unusable weapon still counts as a weapon? You’re in a hole, Senator, so stop digging already.
Gus
It sure took a long time to establish what we all know to be true: it’s the Clenis’ fault.
Pb
Steve,
It’s projection, plain and simple. In Darrell’s world, everyone’s just like him. Which must be really frightening.
jg
Again. Are any of them going to be dated after the inspectors were let back in and reported the situation is the same as it was in ’98?
Darrell
No, you lied when you claimed this:
The DoD said no such thing. Oh, and still waiting on the citation that tells us how all those weapons that were discovered were all “buried” as you claimed.
LITBMueller
DBAR (Darrelled Beyond All Recognition):
Show me one bit of evidence that Saddam hid these intentionally from weapons inspectors. No, wait: I’ll save you the trouble. You can’t. These OLD UNUSABLE SHELLS FILLED WITH DEGRADED SARIN and MUSTARD GASSES that ARE NOT WMD’s, and would in all likelihood just burn your skin, were found near the Iraq/Iran border, were scattered in different places, and we’re likely left there and forgotten about after the Iran-Iraq War ended.
Oh, and I didn’t know we found BIO weapons, too, Darrell! Now yer just makin’ shit up…
Darrell
Yes
and this
Andrew
You all realize that Darrell is furiously masturbating to this thread, right?
Slide.
Is it just me, or is it possible that conservatives are getting dumber and dumber and dumber? Oh, we all know Darrell is an idiot but some of these comments really display an appaling lack of basic intelligence.
The high tech “WMD” in Saddam’s possession that has the right wing wetting their pants in fear:
the cowardly right wing went to war because Saddam had a weapon that had lost its effectiveness nearly 100 years ago? Wow, these bedwetters on the right are certainly a courageous lot aren’t they? oh… but THEY never go to war to combat these dangerous dangerous threats.. they send others to do their fighting. This “chickenhawk” administration is truly something to behold.
SeesThroughIt
At first I thought you were kidding, but holy crap, this is true. What a shame.
Folks: Please don’t think of Kool & the Gang as the bunch of lames who played that atrocious “Celebrate” song. That lousy song sadly overshadows the fact that Kool & The Gang were, at first, one of the tightest, nastiest funk groups around. Please check out “Funky Stuff,” “Soul Vibration,” “N.T.,” “Give It Up,” and “Who’s Gonna Take the Weight” for a look at what K&TG was really all about.
Steve
Darrell is really lashing out now. Caught in a lie, reminded of his previous episode of documented plagiarism that destroys his credibility for all time, he’s spinning out of control. You’re a liar! You’re all liars! Krista is a liar, and she thinks Saddam was a great guy! Everyone is a liar, except me and President Bush, we only make honest mistakes!
The DoD never said these ancient weapons aren’t WMDs! Steve can’t produce the quote, what a liar he is! Oh wait…
But they’re still WMDs! Unusable weapons are still weapons! Everyone is a liar except Darrell!
ed
Dear God in Heaven, what a f**ked up thread. Can Darrell please go back to saving Scouts from gay Scout leaders? Those Cornholers of Mass Deception are out there, and by god, we will find them!!!!
Darrell
How can you list Kool & the Gang’s hits without mentioning their all-time classic greatest “Jungle Boogie”?
t. jasper parnell
What the hell is wrong with Celebration? Come on.
Jim Allen
Andrew, I think I speak for nearly all of us here when I say, “Ewwwww!”.
Steve
Have a good weekend, all. Keep the thread fresh and exciting.
Darrell
No Steve, you went into your typical anal retentive pedantic mode accusing me of “lying”, because I mistakenly attributed a quote to Bob Graham.. A quote which is widely attributed to him by mistake, hence the Snope correction because the rumor was so widely circulated with so many sites attributing the letter to him (actually it was signed by Joe Lieberman and others). It didn’t change the main thrust of my assertion.. that a number of other Dems said the same thing and more about the ‘certainty’ of Saddam having WMDs and/or a WMD program. I have cited several examples above to make this point clear for the slow learner lefties here.
But since you decided to play that game, I thought it only fair to point out your BS lie about what the DoD actually said regarding the discovered WMDS, and also to point out another lie you made when you claimed all those weapons which discovered were all ‘buried’ according to yoou.
Look, because you decided to get pedantic in your attacks on me, don’t be such a whining little bitch when I respond in kind to you when you yourself are guilty of worse
SeesThroughIt
Fair enough, “Jungle Boogie’s” a real solid slice of funk and certainly warrants mentioning. I do tend to downplay it a bit because it was a step toward the glossier sound and away from the nitty-gritty funkiness that I love.
t. jasper parnell
“It didn’t change the main thrust of my assertion.. that a number of other Dems said the same thing and more about the ‘certainty’ of Saddam having WMDs and/or a WMD program. I have cited several examples above to make this point clear for the slow learner lefties here.”
You know what else, many of those “other Dems” once believed in both Santa Claus and the Toothfairy and, I suspect, once clapped for Tinkerbell. What say they now about WMD? One wonders. Slowly learning to escape from false assumptions and misstatements of fact is still learning.
Darrell
Sorry to be splitting hairs here, but Jungle Boogie came out in like 1972 or thereabouts, well before any move to ‘glossier’ tunes. I think it’s by far their all time classic best ..
Davebo
Darrell, you want to find a WMD? Look in the mirror.
Writer of Mass Deception
jaime
My favorite righty loon argument right now is…”I’d like to see you drink a gallon of that supposedly degraded mustard gas”
Darrell
Well as soon as they thought they could get political gain at slamming Bush over WMDs, they did so. Fortunately, their previous quotes are on the record.
What is your position? That Saddam never had WMDs? And that it’s comparable to believing in Tinkerbell to beleive otherwise? Tell me, because I want to know how far out there some of you lefties really are.
jaime
What is YOUR position. That 500 empty and degraded chemical weapons munitions and containers is the tip of the iceberg? That was the grave danger? The massive WMD threat we HAD to take out?
Did you know that the UNITED STATES loses account of our own chemical weapons we destroy? Hm? 50 years from now, how many degraded cannisters will we find buried in GA somewhere? Does that mean we had an active WMD program?
Darrell
Show of hands lefties.. How many of you believe, as Krista does, that the US made Saddam what he was? that we were “feeding” him. In other words, how many of you believe that we aided Saddam to any significant extent since, say 1980? Just curious as to the extent of the delusions
Darrell
Really? Have we really discovered cannisters filled with chem weapons that were supposedly destroyed? Link?
jaime
No matter what we document for you, it will never be “significant” enough. You left just enough wiggle room to weasel out.
Paul Wartenberg
As I’m currently visiting New Orleans, I want to report the true fact that liberals breached the levees.
Pb
Darrell,
I won’t presume to speak for Krista, but other than that, sure, and anyone interested in the facts (i.e., not you…) can look them up.
Fear not, we’re not the deluded ones. :)
Perry Como
The Cardinals used it in ’82, iirc.
Steve
Gosh, I believe it.
True? Who knows. Do I believe it? It’s consistent with everything I know about our policy regarding the Iran-Iraq war, so yes. If that makes me a “crazy” “deluded” “moonbat” “whackjob,” well then so be it.
jaime
Can’t remember where I found that link, but…the U.S. signed a pact to destroy all of its Chemical weapons in 1993 and first was directed in 1985 and to this day that has not occured.
WE haven’t been able to do it. Imagine if we were forced with threat of bombing, actual bombing, and invasion?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0928-10.htm
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/e-resources/ebooks/records/edn5207.html
Darrell
The US armed Saddam! [/ignorant leftist cliche]
John D.
Here’s one
The lede:
We did a *lot* of disposal by simply dumping this stuff into the ocean.
Perry Como
You’d be surprised:
jg
Isn’t the US on that list?
Darrell
jaime, neither of your links demonstrate that the US “lost track” of chem weapons which were supposedly destroyed.
Davebo
Did you ever stop to think that if, rather than a guy trying to set his shoes on fire on an airplane, a female had attempted to set her bra on fire instead, airport security would be a lot more fun?
jaime
Nothing like a blurry, specious graph which leaves the United States proper to prove your point.
Although this is my favorite part of this chickenhawk idiot’s blog:
That’s how you roll, right Darrell?
Darrell
Cannisters from WWI is all you’ve got? Because that’s what your linked article has.
Seems like you guys are attempting to excuse Saddam keeping around all those WMD cannisters.. explaining them away as an ‘oversight’ on his part.
srv
Personally, I think Rumsfeld went over there just to give him a blow job.
Slide.
darell… you are getting your ass whipped so thoroughly today that I am actually feeling a little sorry for you. But, I’m sure that will pass.
t. jasper parnell
In addition to believing that for every drop a rain that falls a flower grows, I believe that Saddam did wish to obtain WMD and that he had and used chemical weapons. In terms of what I know, at least from what I read in the papers, no WMD’s have ever been discovered. There have been a series of chemical weapons, shells past their sell by date, found in scattered locations, to the east west north and south round about.
There have been no discoveries of anything like mushroom cloud producing weapons or manufacturing systems. I also know, as was just now shown, that the US under Reagan did in fact support Saddam. This does not, by the way, mean that he is our fault; it does mean, however, that one needs must be careful of how and when one engages in foreign policy. I find it hard to believe that those Republican senators discussing the possibility of amnesty intended to creat a situation within which it would be necessary, or at least potentially pragmatic, to excuse those who materially aided those who killed American troops, contractors, journalists, and/or other victims of the maniacs who kill rather than discuss.
It is not sufficient to have either a high minded or a pragmatic goal; life, as Lyle Lovett once crooned, is so uncertain. This goes double for wars, either defensive, offensive, or pre-emptive.
Hope this helps,
Steve
Here is a good piece on the history of US relations with Saddam. Don’t miss the super-special cameo appearance in the last paragraph.
John D.
Dude, I was simply answering your question. I’m not attempting to explain anything. Get a fucking grip, man.
You asked for a link about us finding supposedly destroyed chemical munitions. I provided one. I’m not drawing a parallel to the current situation. If you want a different type of link, ask a different question. This is not rocket science.
We disposed of tremendous amounts of WWI, WWII, and Korean War-era munitions by dumping them offshore. They have been marked as “destroyed”. They occasionally turn up. Are you having problems grasping any of that?
Darrell
Not my fault you don’t know how to use a computer. You may have to wait a couple of seconds to see the Windows icon to enlarge. The graph will then be very clear unless you’ve got a broken down monitor. It cites a well documented study done by SIPRI
Like I posted upthread, jaime is but one a multitude of examples of the tendency on the left to dismiss out of hand any facts which conflict with their preconceived positions, because liberals tend to be so emotionally invested in their positions. Why else dismiss facts so quickly? most honest people don’t react in such a way
jaime
He didn’t keep them around, ass, he didn’t know they were there. All those WMD cannisters were empty of highly degraded. Must I staple that to your effing forhead?
John D.
…
Someone call Mirriam-Webster, we have the ultimate definition of “irony” right here.
Krista
Oh, feel free. We’re all just different versions of DougJ anyway. :)
By the way, I don’t know if I should be flattered or disturbed that Darrell seems to be singling me out today as the alleged spokesthingie for “the left” and everything it evidently thinks and believes…
jaime
Your SIPRI study is bullshit, because A) It only accounts for conventional weapons and B)uses Official governemtn documentation and c) does not take into account non military aid (like providing binary multi use chemical agents.
Did you know that 6 minutes before you wrote that, you dismissed facts that conflicted with your preconcieved notions? You goddamn hypocrite.
jaime
Are you, Darrell?
Darrell
Ok, now you’re showing your colors. Show us evidence that the US knowingly provided Iraq with chem and/or bio weapons.
The Other Steve
I know this game.
Someone is going to come along and point out that the US helped to provide chemical components used to make weapons, along with instructions.
And Darrell will shout…
“SEE!! YOU ARE ALL WRONG! THE US DIDN’T PROVIDE IRAQ WITH CHEMICAL WEAPONS!”
The moral: Don’t argue with a mentally deranged wingnut.
t. jasper parnell
Okay then,
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of “dual use” items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-’80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.
jaime
Shorter Darrell:
…
Punchy
Where’s my damn Friday Beer Blog? How the fuck am I supposed to know what uppity, Nancy-boy-labeled microbrew I should be bonging? Can I make a suggestion for anything made by the Mr. Beer homebrew kit?
The Other Steve
До завтра.
jaime
Make that Longer Darell:
…
John D.
Ask and ye shall receive.
WaPo, 12/30/2002:
NY Times, 12/21/2002:
These articles were written with information taken from declassified government documents provided for the court case involving the Gulf War Syndrome. This information has been out and about for some time now.
The Other Steve
SEE!!! WE DIDN’T GIVE IRAQ CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!!!!
YOU IS ALL MOONBATS! WHWAAHWEEHEHHEHEHEHEHEEEEEE!!!!!
BLAM!
Pb
Which was worse: when the US sent Saddam anthrax in the late 80’s under Reagan, when the Pentagon tried to pin the Anthrax attacks on Iraq under Bush, or when Darrell attempted to rewrite history in this thread?
jaime
A long silence is a coward’s apology / retraction. We accept, Darrell.
Darrell
In the 1980’s and before, anthrax was considered primarily a threat to cattle. So the US, France, and several other western nations gave out strains of anthrax to a whole host of nations with large agrarian economies.. Iraq was one among many. Same situation with cultures of bubonic plague and other nasty stuff given to a multitude of countries for medical research
But many on the left hate America so much that they don’t give any benefit of the doubt. They just blindly assume, without evidence, that these substances were given out by the US for the purpose of chem and bio weapons. Re-read this thread for examples.
Look, you got any evidence that the US intentionally gave bio and chem weapons to Iraq? then show it. Otherwise you really do need to have your patriotism challenged.
t. jasper parnell
I found something called Vinas de Balbo, an ARgentina wine, for which something like 6 bucks a bottle and it is very good. Comes in a Bonarada-Malbac a rosey and somekind of a white, which I do not drinke, the rosey and the Bonarada-Malbac are perfectly drinable and cost as little as the various nancy boy beers.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell is correct, although accidentally so, after one and half terms of this administration, with its contempt for the rule of law, god-bothering, and general incompetence my patriotism has been challenged; fortunately like the true patriotism of all real Americans, proud of their heritage of the rule of law, basic commitment to substantive democracy, human decency and the like, my patriotism is more than sufficient to overcome the boobocracy currently ruining our good name and proud history.
John D.
Bull. Shit.
It affected cattle, yes. It killed cattle, yes. And hippos. And sheep. And pigs.
It also killed people. It made a shitload more of them sick.
The vaccine for anthrax was approved by the FDA in 1970. NINETEEN SEVENTY.
The USA was developing and stockpiling anthrax based weapons from 1943-1969, when Nixon put a halt to our offensive-based bioweapons programs.
But sure, prior to 1980, it was “primarily a threat to cattle”. That explains how 68 people died in 1979 at a weapons lab in the USSR when aerosolized anthrax spores were accidentally released. That explains how the late 70’s outbreak of anthrax in Zimbabwe killed a hundred and sickened 6000.
I’m sick of your egregious lies. Do you have no self-respect whatsoever?
Steve
What’s consistently amazing about Darrell is that people can present him with 20 separate pieces of evidence, and he will just sit there silently until someone offers one argument he thinks he can cherry-pick a response to, which he will proceed to do while completely ignoring everyone else’s points.
And he’ll just morph his original claim (“how many of you believe that we aided Saddam to any significant extent since, say 1980?”) into something different (“you got any evidence that the US intentionally gave bio and chem weapons to Iraq?”) and pretend like that was his point all along. There’s really no good way to have a discussion with someone who argues in bad faith like this.
jaime
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!HAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are fucking pathetic!!!!!
Darrell
The History News Network article on Did the US supply Saddam with biological weapons in the 1980’s does a good job at explaining the situation. Also, one of the commenters at HNN summed it up the issue well I think with this
But don’t let these details stop you ‘patriots’ from accusing the US without basis of arming Saddam with bio and chem weapons
t. jasper parnell
Crickey Darrell,
I could not find your quote in the article to which you linked but did find this gem:
The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would “probably” include “an eventual nuclear weapon capability,” harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
jaime
If Darrell is what a patriot should be, then I am no patriot. Nor would I want to be.
t. jasper parnell
And this
A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985–samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory. The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request. The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy. We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story
Punchy
I like it. I may highjack it on occasion.
Darrell
All evidence I’ve seen about the alleged bio and chem weapons that we sold Saddam were at worst, duel-use applications. That’s a helluva big difference from the “We gave Saddam WMDs” which some of you vermin are alleging.. and you are definitely vermin for making such definitive accusations without solid evidence.
Lots of countries with pastoral economies were given strains of anthrax. Not just Iraq.
I accept that perhaps the US ‘should have known’ or ‘should have suspected something’, but I’ve seen no convincing evidence that we KNOWINGLY provided these dual-use components and equipment for WMD productions, and our shipments to Iraq during that time period have gone through a LOT of congressional scrutiny. I’ve yet to see anything close to a ‘smoking gun’ that we knew we were selling Saddam WMDs
Further, it looks like most of it was provided through the Univ. of Baghdad and the Iraq Ministry of Health, not sold to Iraqi military institutions.
Hey Steve, now that you’ve been given compelling factual evidence which disputes your position, I’m sure you’re so open minded to change your mind, right?
Darrell
That statement assumes that I’m not already well read on the subject matter, and that those 20 pieces of evidence you mention don’t amount to anything more then baseless accusations.
That is, after all the congressional scrutiny, can you show us evidence where we KNOWINGLY provided bio or chem weapons to Saddam? No? then you certainly seem to have a ‘solid’ point then. What a dumbass I’ve been to ignore those 20 pieces of evidence that mindless leftists have recycled versus actually thinking for myself.
t. jasper parnell
A direct question:
Darrell where did you find the quote which you said came from the HNN article?
Darrell
re-read my post where I said it came from. I said it came from the comments section.
Darrell
Everything I’ve seen so far that was shipped to Saddam was DUAL-USE at worst. Yes, we shipped Iraq anthrax, but we also sent anthrax to many other countries at that time with pastoral economies for agricultural research. Back then, anthrax was not known to be a ‘bio-weapon’. Other spore cultures of nasty substances were sent to Iraqi research universities and the Iraqi Ministry of Health (none to military institutions) for hospital diagnostic research. Should our govt. have been putting 2+2 together back then? probably so.
Any evidence to support the US “knew”? Not a shred that I’ve seen.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
Thanks.
A second direct question:
Do you think the thrust of the article is that the US did, in fact, aid and abet SH in his pursuit of chemical/biological weapons as well as increase his military might? If not why not?
Darrell
I thought the article was somewhat balanced, although the congressional hearings on this matter have been done and haven’t come up with anything more than what I’ve already stated. The HNN article did not jump to conclusions as so many of you have done.
When you suggest it is “fact” that we abetted Saddam, are you saying we knowingly abetted him in this effort? As I have demonstrated above, we didn’t even KNOW about Saddam’s bio weapons program until 1995
Rusty Shackleford
Anybody ever see Bottle Rocket? I think we’ve caught Dignan and his friends.
jaime
How does a nation have a pastoral economy with 12% arable land?
First you ignore the chemical compounds and metal tubing…becuase you are only capable of arguing about anthrax, and second: Saddam was “worse than hitler” and “gassed his own people”, etc. At best it was staggering incompetence. That’s at the very best. Giving an axe to Jason Voorhees. “You’re just gonna split some wood, right, Jason?” Having retards in charge are ok with you as long as they are in the right party? George W. Bush (R-etard) Texas.
les
Nice Darrell.
And the beauty is, I think he means it.
John
Dammit, Darrell.
You are entitled to your own opinion, however pigheaded and wrong. You are not entitled to your own facts.
I want you to reconcile your claim with the existence of the US anthrax-based weapons program that existed from 1943-1969. How, exactly, were *we* manufacturing, testing, and stockpiling weaponized anthrax if it was not “a bio-weapon” as you claim?
If I was feeling generous, I’d say you are wrong. You are so stridently, mendaciously, constantly wrong, though, that I am planting myself firmly in the “You are a fucking liar” camp.
Darrell
This article is what first triggered my interest in these accusations/slander made by ‘patriotic’ leftists so quick to smear the US
But we ‘armed Saddam’ with his chem and bio weapons, right?
jaime
Darrell, it’s so cute watching you be “brave”. Like a chihuahua that barks waayyyyy too much. Alas, like your aversion to recruitment centers, you wouldn’t dare question people’s patriotism to you their faces.
Darrell
From the US Dept. of Health Center for Disease Control:
Now which one of you jackasses was the one telling us how the anthrax vaccination “proves” we considered anthrax to be a WMD back in the 1980’s?
jg
Did you post something to disprove it?
Darrell
Ooh Jaime, I love it when you do your cyber tough guy routine. I’m sure the girls are digging your chili.
Now that the facts go against your ignorant dumbass positions, you’re too stupid dishonest to own up to how wrong you were.. asshole
jaime
So Darrell’s defense of our government was, “We’re not evil, just frighteningly incompetent” Imagine if President Carter gave Iraq dual use machinery and chemicals.
BTW, We still notice that you are desperately avoiding every topic except Anthrax. What about the chemical precursors? Are you incapable of arguing anything you didn’t pick up from Rich Lowry?
Perry Como
Learn to google.
Darrell
Why yes I did. The fact that vaccinations are and have been for years, given out worldwide for possible anthrax exposure in agricultural regions.. yeah, that pretty much “proves” that just because a vaccination is given out, it’s not necessarily for protection against a bio-weapons attack.. wouldn’t you agree?
Darrell
Anthrax is now thought of as a bio-weapon. Back in the 1980’s it was thought of as a threat to cattle. I hope this clarification helps.
jg
You proved what? You’re quote didn’t even mention vaccinations. All it did was point out that anthrax is naturally occurring. Just because its naturally occurring doesn’t mean vaccinations were carried out to ward off naturally occurring infections.
jaime
We’ve gone from Darrell saying 15 year old empty or unusable cannisters of scattered mustard gas were the WMD’s Saddam Hussein held the world hostage, to Darrell ignoring the chemical precursors we gave SH and babbling about Anthrax vaccines.
jg
I find it hard to believe the rock group chose to name themselves after a germ that bugs cows. Makes more sense that they took the name after anthrax was considered a bio weapon IMO.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
You misunderstood the “in fact” what I meant was that the end result of the transfer of biological material and the military support was to give him the “building blocks” for chem weapons and, you know, increasing his military power by giving him military and diplomatic cover.
Richard 23
This discussion seems to have strayed (or Darrelled) a bit. Unless Santorum found some illegal bootleg Anthrax CDs in Iraq.
Perry Como
Let me clarify. Learning to google won’t help unless you know how to read. Did you click on the link and check any of the articles? The US was doing tests with anthrax — as a bioweapon — back in 50s:
Darrell
From the CDC article cited above
t. jasper parnell
In terms of WMD and spent shells
Indeed, even Fox News was apparently aware of the reported ineffectiveness of the chemical weapons touted by Santorum and Hoekstra. During Special Report — which airs at 6 p.m. ET — host Brit Hume reported on the Defense Department’s reaction to Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims, noting: “the Defense Department is saying tonight about all this that, ‘Well, yes, they were found, and yes, they were — though degraded — weapons of mass destruction, but they were not the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there.’ ” Additionally, as Fox News host Alan Colmes noted later that evening during an interview with Santorum on Hannity & Colmes, at least one “defense official” informed Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle that the weapons “could not have been fired … because they’d already been degraded,” and “that these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.” Colmes continued: “So, the chest-beating that the Republicans are doing tonight, thinking this is a justification, is not confirmed by the Defense Department.”
jaime
I think he understands perfectly well, he just doesn’t give a shit.
No proof is enough. Unless you have Reagan himself on video with sworn affidavits and blood samples, and Darrell was in the room with his grandmother and his priest and Reagan was saying “here are specifically weapons of mass destruction to specifically murder people. Kill with the explicit blessing of America” Darrell will believe otherwise.
Darrell
Fair enough, but by and large, anthrax was not associated with bio-weapons back then, but as an agricultural hazard. Only a few of the big Western countries back then were known to do research with anthrax as a bio weapon back then.
As I have already shown, Iraq’s bio-weapons program was not known until 1995. Bottom line – show me one piece of solid evidence that the US knowingly provided bioweapons or chemical precursors for WMDs. Everything we gave them had legit non-military use.
John S.
So your article kicks off based on the view of a man who is a member of Benador Associates, where he shares billing with the likes of Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle.
Which is followed up by the man who works for the Department of Defense.
Good ol’ Terence. I remember way back when he was telling us how Iraq has substantial nuclear, biological, chemical and missile programs.
What a well written piece based entirely on proving one point of view. But then again, it is the National Review. Damn liberal media.
jaime
Darrell is just getting down in the weeds because he can’t google fast enough to keep up. His next “fact” will be the plural of Anthrax is Anthrax.
What about the Chemical Precursors Darrell? Cowards cut and run from questions.
Darrell
Whereas with ‘patriots’ like you, no solid evidence is needed before slandering your country without basis.
t. jasper parnell
By the way, Lance Armstrong is again accused of doping; his response is the kind of logical dismantling of baseless accusations we could use more of.
Ancient Purple
From a fascist’s point of view, everyone else’s patriotism is suspect.
t. jasper parnell
It is not a slander to insist that one’s country erred in its policies. It is not unpatriotic to insist that we own up to our errors. However, I would argue, that it does real damage to this nation to deny deny deny that the policy was an error. If we do not admit the error how can we learn? “In diplomacy, as in life itself, one often learns more from failures than from successes” Richard Holbrooke, “Forward” in Margaret MacMillian, _Paris 1919_, vii.
Perry Como
Damn liberal commies slandering the US.
jaime
Our country gave native Americans disease infected blankets, preserved slavery, rounded up Asians and put them in camps, and overthrew governments through assassination. I am fully aware of the history of my country, and I still love it just the same.
I, unlike Darrell, am mature enough to be a patriot who loves his country like an adult instead of “Waaaaahhhhh! Some meanies are saying bad things about my daddddyyyy!!!! My dadddy is the best dadddyyy ever!!!!”
D. Mason
Alimunium tubing has a legit non-military use too.
Darrell
It is if those accusations are baseless. Where is the evidence that the US knowingly armed Saddam with bio weapons? We’ve had exhaustive congressional hearings and lots of time to dig up dirt. Where is the evidence?
jaime
Darrell’s too much of a pussy to be a fascist.
Darrell
At a bare minimum, patriotism means giving your country the benefit of the doubt barring solid evidence to the contrary. Is that what the leftists are doing here with their bullshit accusations of arming Saddam with bio and chem weapons?
D. Mason
Heh darrell doesn’t know the difference between one’s country and one’s government.
Darrell
You’ve been listening to too much Ward Churchill:
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
As I pointed out, knowingly or not the net result was to give SH the necessary building blocks for chem-bio weaponery. The Reagan administration initially blamed Iran for SH’s use of chem-bio weapons; SH was given military hardware and diplomatic support in order to shore up his regime because, as Rumsfeld said, it looked like he was going to be done in by Iran. As has been pointed out, the US government knew that SH was a dangerous thug and yet they continued to support him. This is the error. This is what must be recognized. The same is true, I would argue, of the current policies relative Iraq, Iran, and the Great Global War and/or Struggle agains Terror and/or Extremism and Other Related Nouns.
It beggars the imagination that you continue to maintain that the US policies were not a wink a nod and nudge.
Richard 23
Nobody’s slandering the country Senator Strawman.
Steve
Let’s go back to Darrell’s ACTUAL question:
Darrell, not to interrupt you in the middle of changing the subject, but do you still consider it a “delusion” to claim that we aided Saddam to a significant extent throughout the 1980s, after all the links you’ve been provided?
It’s typical of you… when proven wrong, just ignore the facts and change the subject, pretending like we were talking about biological weapons all along. I’d like for you to show at least a little honesty and admit that, at least with regard to conventional weapons, it’s a little over the top to say you have to be “deluded” to think we provided significant aid to Saddam throughout the 1980s.
Darrell
Don’t dishonestly blue chemical and bio weapons with the “chem-bio” bullshit. Saddam’s bio weapons were not discovered until 1995. Let me say that again, 1995, not 1983
As I’ve already shown, even though Saddam was fighting the mullahs of Iran who had taken Americans hostage.. even in that situation, the military aid we gave him was MINISCULE.
I agree that in hindsight, it was a mistake to support Saddam to any extent, but you and your side are wildly exaggerating and lying your ass off about the extent and nature of the support which we gave Saddam.
Darrell
Steve, what links have been provided which refute these facts?
Perry Como
Wait. That we knew that the things we were providing him were dual use, or that we knew he would use them for military applications? Your phrasing is unclear and you have a penchant for misinterpreting responses.
Darrell
blur, not blue
jaime
Darrell’s just trying to kick up enough dust so that he can change the topic to ANYTHING without having to prove anything.
You didn’t disprove a fucking thing Darrell. Just because the term Genocide wasn’t invented 300 years ago and just because someone didn’t wave their hands in the air and declare their open intention to wipe out the native american population doesn’t make what happened less egregious.
Darrell
We’ve had exhaustive congressional hearings combing over tons of declassified data at that time. Any memo found which suggested we knew that Saddam would use what we sent him for military applications? I guess we “knew” back in 1983 that those anthrax cultures sent to his ministry of agriculture would be used in his bio weapons program that wasn’t discovered until 1995, right genius?
Darrell
I proved you’re a dumbass without a clue who is too dishonest to admit how stupid he is
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
snip
Looks like in they knew in 88.
Steve
By me? See my 4:26 and 4:43 posts.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
I cop to irony and self regard, but I am not “lying [my} ass off” nor do I represent anyone other than me.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
Blueing or bluring, the “leathal cocktail” sounds to me, although I could be wrong, like both bio and chemical
jaime
Whoa! Don’t give yourself a coronary. Your cheeto filled arteries can’t handle that chickenhawk puffery.
Ancient Purple
Oh, okay.
Then I guess Churchill was behind the whole Tuskegee Experiment.
Richard 23
Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he went on a hunger strike, starting after breakfast. He refused lunch. By dinnertime the hunger strike was over. Way to go, Saddam!
jaime
That was blown all out of proportion. Darrell, help me find a story from a right wing think tank. Maybe one that actual called it a noble experiment or something.
Perry Como
No, fucktard, and please point out where I claimed otherwise[0]. You claimed that anthrax was not considered a bioweapon until, well, now, and I summarily handed your ass to you. I think there should have been a bit more thought before handing a brutal thug something that could be used as bioweapon.
I guess that makes me an America hating liberal.
[0] – I did claim that Saddam had a “secret stockpile of gay mexicans armed with jackalopes”, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
jg
Does anyone not named Darrel think Darrel has scored any points today? I wonder what our host thnks?
Steve
Haha, good find Richard.
Talk about the fucking banality of evil. What a joke.
t. jasper parnell
Darrell,
I have to go, which is neither here not there nor particularly interesting. However, the puzzle of this thread (for me) is the “lying” accusation directed at me, coming as it did after quote from one of my posts.
It is one thing to find someone obtuse or recalcitraint in facing facts, or their near neighbor; however, it is another to accuse a stranger, who for all you know might be a member of the clergy, a Conservative, a Jackalope herder or a hopeless putz, of lying based on a disagreement or on an erroneous assertion.
For what it is worth the Netherlands wins the Cup and Basso the TdF, unless its Ulrich.
the Internet
Uh, the people arguing with Darrell are being silly.
Perry Como
Or tired of working on FFTs.
CaseyL
Nah, they’re just having fun. It’s not my kind of fun – “debating” wingnuts is like arguing with a window – but it keeps the thread going.
Krista
Or tired of thinking about prison shower scenes…
Perry Como
Fast Fourier Prison Shower Scene Transformations. Me likee!
Krista
{blink}
You haven’t had much sleep lately, have you?
Krista
Anyway, I fly bye-bye, my lovelies. It is now 11:32 pm, and my alarm is set for 6:30 to go camping. Enjoy yourselves.
Darrell, if I find any WMDs in the woods of Nova Scotia, you’ll be the first to know, sweetpea.
Pb
D. Mason,
So does Uranium… or so Iran thinks, ha ha ha! :(
chefrad
Who would believe anything these guys say at this point? One miscalculation after another.
And they are still on television. Gaffney, Cliff May, Gerecht, Fund, Adelman, Krystol, Blankley, Krauthammer and the rest. No shame at all.
I wish their think tank were a hyperbaric chamber.
The Other Steve
Man, I sure called Darrell right… HA!
What’s amazing is that if this were something that Bill Clinton had done, he’d be droning on endlessly about how wrong it was and how evil Clinton was. But then so too would the lefties.
That’s because lefties have a moral compass of what is right and what is wrong.
Darrell just thinks in terms of moral relativity. Or rather. It’s OK only if you are a Republican.
The Other Steve
This is interesting
Apparently that little Proof of WMDs stunt that Whacky Ricky and Crazy Hoekstra played out on Fox news the other day was orchestrated by the Administration.
That kind of brings the whole Fox News = Pravda argument even closer to the surface.
I wonder what scs has to say about that?
Darrell
It’s true that liberals see themselves as morally superior, which explains their tendency to so quickly accuse those they disagree with as “racists”, “bigots”, and the like. Here is an example of the liberal “moral compass”. And another. Aren’t you glad to be told what to think by such a morally superior group of your betters?
Perry Como
Ask Grover Norquist or Ralph Reed.
chefrad
Santorum found a false bottom in the balloon trucks, revealing the remains of Judge Crater. Jimmy Hoffa and Ambrose Bierce.
The Other Steve
It’s interesting you had to go for items outside of this forum to dispute my point.
I think Perry Como brings up a good example. Apparently Money Laundering is ok for Republicans, but not ok for everybody else in the world.
The Other Steve
BTW. Darrelll it’s not ok to do something just because someone else is doing it.
I know that’s another one of your frequent excuses for bad logic.
Perry Como
Which other moral Republicans will support forced labor camps?
VidaLoca
Darrell,
One of the commenters at “Obsidian Wings” made a point on a different topic that made me think of you.
The topic? “Most Inane Headline Ever”…
Darrell
I think most Americans would agree that illegals caught breaking our laws should pay some price. A week or two working to build a wall seems fair. I hope you lefties scream at the top of your lungs, objecting to ANY punishment for those illegals caught red-handed violating our immigration laws
Darrell
Vida, why would that comment remind you of me?
VidaLoca
Oh for sure. A week or two is hardly long enough — “Arbeit Macht Frei” after all.
Darrell
Godwin asshole. Typical leftist pulling out the Nazi card at any suggestion of punishment for illegals. I hope you jackasses scream as loud as you can exactly how you feel, so that average Americans can see up close how whacked the left has truly become.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Because he’s taking on himself — in a mocking way — the responsibility that you were trying to put on The Left(tm) with your photo of the demonstrators approving of the (hypothetical) troops shooting their officers. And with the comparison to Coulter, turning it on its head.
VidaLoca
Perry Como
Oh please. Let me go one better:
What we need is a FINAL SOLUTION for this illegal immigration problem. Illegal immigrants should pay some price for breaking our laws.
Punishment would be detention and deportation. I’m not a fan of FORCED LABOR, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree (you fucking fascist).
I hope you nannystatists scream far and wide that you support FORCED LABOR CAMPS. In fact, you should start an org supporting the idea. See how many Americans believe that FORCED LABOR is a moral thing.
We already had one civil war, maybe you can spark up the next one.
Darrell
I showed a photo of actual leftists with signs encouraging troops to shoot their officers. I showed another photo of a military recruiter being harassed by leftists on campus, the type of harassment of recruiters that has happened several times by leftists showing how much they “support” the troops. You OTOH, compared 1 – 2 weeks punishment for those caught violating our immigration laws with Nazi concentration camps, which puts you firmly in the whackjob category.
No doubt you think of yourself as normal and rational. Am I right?
Darrell
Since I have already defined punishment of illegals as “1 – 2 weeks” working to build a wall.. to be clear asshole, you are accusing ANYONE who advocates that criminals have to work, in this case 2 weeks working to build a wall, as “fascists”. Of course, much better for them to sit in detention watching color tv.. conjugal visits too, right whackjob?
I pray you fucking assholes scream this as loud as you can so the everyone can see up close how whacked you truly are.
Perry Como
The ultimate irony being that by using forced labor from illegal immigrants would take jobs away from Americans. But you have to send a message! Right, twit?
VidaLoca
And what I took exception to, Darrell, was the insinuation that because some leftists support that, then all leftists support it. You know that that’s bullshit.
Or maybe you don’t. In which case I’m perfectly comfortable with having you think that I’m a whackjob; hell, I’ll never convince you otherwise anyhow.
Perry Como
Since some righties supported Timothy McVeigh, all righties support Timothy McVeigh. This game is fun.
Darrell
No, never can we require criminals to do work, because according to ‘reality based’ types like you, that constitutes “forced labor”. Do you see what an extremist you are?
Because if have criminals work in the prison laundry, that too ‘takes jobs away from Americans’, right kooks? The problems is, most Americans don’t realize who whacked so many on the left truly are. For that reason, I suggest you scream “fascist” at anyone who agrees with the idea that criminals should have to do some work vs. watching cable tv.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
I’m just curious — why exactly do you want to put yourself in a position of standing up for this stuff? I realize you feel strongly about the immigration issue; fine. But isn’t it more rational — efficient, cheaper, faster and easier — to simply deport anyone who can’t prove they’re here legally?
What does taking the additional step of setting up the concentration camps do for you, that isn’t accomplished by deportation? Is it just to make some kind of a point?
Perry Como
Darrell, admit it. You support giving construction jobs away to illegal immigrants. Why do you hate American construction workers?
I’ll admit I’m quite extreme in my views. I strongly believe in not spending $8.5 trillion of my grandchildren’s money. I strongly believe that less government is better government.
You, on the other hand, implicitly trust the government and believe it deserves the benefit of the doubt in all cases. So I’m an extreme anti-nannystatist and you are a run of the mill nannystatist.
But keep advocating that we take jobs away from Americans. Free labor is the best labor, right?
Darrell
Vida, I’m honestly curious as to why you insist that making prisoners do work equates to “concentration camps”. I think most people would agree with me that your characterization of “concentration camps” is extremist as hell. I think it’s entirely reasonable to make those convicted of breaking our laws pay some sort of a price through detention + work vs your recommendation to simply deporting them back which is really no punishment at all.
Sure it may be “easier” to simply deport them, but then again, it would similarly ‘easier’ not to punish criminals at all to follow your logic. Again, I don’t think most Americans are fully aware as to how extreme so many on the left are. I hope you and your fellow leftists express your opinions more vocally to those you meet.
Perry Como
I think we should put a sign up on all of these “work camps” that says “Work will set you free.” It will let all of the illegal immigrants know that if they work hard enough — while taking away American construction jobs — that they will get to be deported back to their home countries.
What do you think Darrell? The GOP is all about catchy slogans (and spending massive amounts of money). Maybe the White House can set up a big, and costly, PR campaign. Work will set you free!
GOP4Me
I strongly agree with Darrell on this one. Illegal immigration is a crime in this country. We punish criminals, we don’t coddle them like they do in moonbat nations like Germany where 9/11 conspirators get 15 year jail sentences, or Holland where illegal Muslim terrorist immigrants kill Dutchmen with impunity.
We have to punish criminals to stop them from repeating their crimes, which is why illegal immigration needs to become a felony. Once illegals start doing 10-15 year jail stints for their crimes, we’ll soon have far fewer people coming to this country to terrorize our lives with murderous attacks or terrorize our economic well-being with theft of jobs.
People who come to America to steal jobs are no better than terrorists. To punish them for this crime, it seems appropriate to force them to work off the debt they owe to our society. We don’t have to make them work in jobs that Americans want, though; we can always force them to work in the fields, picking fruit or things like that.
At the same time, I’m not sure if we need a wall on the border with Mexico. In the short term, it’s a good solution, but in the long run, I think the only way we’re going to get these Mexicans to respect our sovereignty is by regime change. If our wall becomes a military obstacle that hinders our troops from the military action that I feel will eventually become necessary, I’d be opposed to it. Of course, one hopes that military intervention isn’t necessary, and that a wall will work to keep them out and our jobs in; but prior experience tells me this isn’t the case. People hate us and want us to fail, and they’re not going to let a little thing like a wall stop them from bringing down America. So it may be necessary to take the fight to them, someday. I hope not, again, but we’ll see.
GOP4Me
I don’t know. That sounds a little bit Third Reich-y, doesn’t it?
Oh, now I see. You’re just making fun of the whole idea. Well, we could always try the liberal solution: do nothing. Let the terrorists and the job-snatchers win. Fiddle while Rome burns. While away the time in decadence and distraction, then when America goes down the tubes blame it on George Bush. A typical moonbat solution to every problem, really.
Perry Como
Or we could try the conservative solution and throw money at the problem. Perhaps there is a third way. We can make illegal immigration a capital crime. All illegal immigrants will be executed (after they spend time in the “work camps”, of course). We can expedite the execution process by setting up gas chambers that accomodate groups of people. Republican government is the paragon of efficiency!
GOP4Me
Okay, Godwin. You’ve squandered any credibility you had in this debate by your constant Nazi references. Obviously, we have only two choices: be liberals and do nothing about the problem, or be Nazis and take positive steps to solve it.
Bear in mind the foundation upon which your argument rests: Since there’s no difference whatsoever between forcing criminals to work and Auschwitz, America has always been a Nazi state to you, hasn’t it?
Darrell
Although I think comparing illegal aliens to murderous terrorists is over the top, I entirely agree with your point that criminals of any type should be required to work off their debt to society. Leftists want them to have 3 squares a day + tv without having to work at all.. because heaven forbid, if we force them to work, that’s equivalent to Nazi concentration camps according to those aholes. Read VidaL and PerryC’s posts on this thread for examples of this liberal sentiment
Leftists complain that a work program like having criminals work to build a wall steals jobs from Americans(while saving taxpayers money?), yet 80%+ of those same leftists object to vigorous enforcement of our immigration laws resulting in far more jobs being ‘stolen’ from Americans. fucking hypocrites
GOP4Me
Well, my point is that terrorism and illegal immigration both sap away our strength. The terrorists frighten us and try to shake our resolve, the illegals steal our jobs and our personal economic security (which makes us even more susceptible to the “real” terrorists).
These leftists are ridiculous, aren’t they? Requiring a criminal to work is equal to operating a death camp, to them. After, all, prison should be like an adult version of summer camp, complete with television, weight rooms, conjugal visits, access to recreational drugs, and weekend furloughs. If the liberals had their way, prisons would be so nice that people would deliberately commit crimes just to get into them. Yet to the members of the “reality-based community”, we’re Nazis because we don’t agree with them. How can anyone have a serious debate with these kooks?
Yes, but if you point out their hypocrisy you’re a Nazi, apparently. That’s the way “reality-based” people view the situation.
I think we need to get some illegal immigrants into this country that steal jobs from ivory-tower egghead professors, Hollywood celebrities, and lazy layabout welfare-check recipients. That’s the only way we’ll get the moonbats in America to appreciate what real Americans go through when they lose their jobs to illegals.
Perry Como
GOP4Me, I’m just trying to offer a rational alternative. I try to focus on the things that really matter, like people who cut lawns, versus the trivial things like a $8.5 trillion debt. I like jackalopes too.
Darrell, Rightists complain that illegal immigrants steal jobs from Americans (while the government spends $8,500,000,000,000 of tax payers money), yet those same rightists suggest we imprison those illegal immigrants and make them do the work that Americans could do. fucking hypocrites.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
You’re going to deport them anyway, right? That’s what happens at the end of those “1 or 2 weeks”, right? So deport them already. But no, that’s not good enough; you do want to make a point — it’s all about the punishment.
“A week or two building a wall seems fair”. Ah, it does to you — does it to Mr. Goldwater, it’s his idea after all. Maybe he thinks it should be a month or two. Maybe a year or two. Maybe he thinks it should be a month or two now, but in the next election somebody runs against him who wants to trump him by arguing for six months. Think about where that will lead. Once you’ve opened up this can of worms you own it Darrell.
Not that it really matters what you or Goldwater or anyone else think is fair, you’re not out in the damn sun building that wall.
And the irony of it is, this whole thing is supposedly driven by what a “drain on the economy” it is to have so many illegal aliens here. How exactly is building concentration camps not an even bigger drain? How do you turn them into cash sources instead of cash sinks? They’re not casinos you know.
I’ll tell you how: you do it the way the Nazis did. You think it’s extremist to call these things “concentration camps?” I don’t: the Nazis weren’t running spas, Darrell, those were work camps: when the Jews broke the law (by being caught in a place where it was illegal to be of the wrong religion) they were put in those camps and made to work until they died. Your goal is to catch people who are breaking the law by being caught in a place where it is illegal to be of the wrong nationality, and put them in camps to work until they are deported. Or until they die, whichever comes first. It’s the working –making money for some contractor attached to the camps — that turns them into cash sources Darrell. If you can’t make them cash sources they’re just another cash sink, your whole dream of punishment is a net cost.
To say nothing of the fact that the whole deportation scheme is a net cost, and a moral disaster. Jesus, man, why do you even want to go here?
Darrell
Truth is, leftists typically aren’t very independent thinkers, which is why they repeat mindless slogans over and over like “Clap louder”, “Dear Leader”, “party over country”, “no blood for oil”, etc, etc. So when they read the characterization of prisoners doing work as “work camps”, it’s not in their DNA makeup to stop and think for themselves that making criminals do work is already commonplace, and furthermore it’s the right thing to do to make them pay back their debt to society. So instead of thinking rationally, the left latches on to the “work camp” label and runs with it, accusing anyone who disagrees with their whacked views as fascist Nazis. typical behavior of the ‘reality based’ community
VidaLoca
I don’t know. That sounds a little bit Third Reich-y, doesn’t it?
Darrell
Punishing criminals who break our laws. What a radical concept, eh? Do you seriously view yourself as a rational person?
Perry Como
Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting that we become Nazis. I’m merely suggesting that we should put illegal immigrants in prison — where they will work to pay off their debt to America for showing up on our soil — then we will execute them. In gas chambers. Anyone who disagrees with this idea is unhinged and irrational.
Perry Como
And we need to spend at least half a billion dollars to set up these “freedom camps”[0].
[0] – had to change the term to something more Darrell worthy
GOP4Me
Because you can’t see the connection between the two, I pity you.
What do jackalopes have to do with this discussion?
And maybe when a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil it causes tidal waves in northern Japan. We can play this cause-and-effect slippery-slope game all night, if we’re willing to take leave of rationality and have fun with it!
Amen. Anything I could say would only be redundant.
I like you, Darrell. It’s a shame there aren’t more of us around here, it’s not like it used to be. The moonbat commenters have really ruined a great blog.
Sure, if anything pro-active sounds Nazi to you, yeah. I suppose prison sounds a little bit Third Reich-y to a moonbat anarchist, but that doesn’t mean that prison isn’t a sensible solution. Regime change in Mexico isn’t something I’m hoping for, but if we ignore the problem long enough, one day it’ll probably be necessary.
Perry Como
Did I say half a billion? I meant half a trillion. This is a Republican government after all.
Darrell
Hey, when you have no good argument to make, I guess snark is all that’s left.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
I was trying to make a rational argument why your goal of deporting illegal aliens might be better served by passing on the concentration camp option — one that offers no pragmatic value whatsoever other than feeding your desire for retribution.
Do you seriously think I’d waste my time discussing that question?
GOP4Me
Honestly, it’s barely even worth responding to, isn’t it? Obviously, Goldwater is a Nazi. The reality-based community has spoken on the subject, so that settles it. And anyone who favors incarcerating criminals instead of sending them a check and giving them an appointment to the shrink’s office for prescription drugs and a chat about their parents is also a Nazi, apparently.
Like I said, it’s hard for us to even begin to debate with “reality-based” people this divorced from reality.
Perry Como
And when you have no good argument to make, you post on Balloon-Juice. Guess we’ll call it a draw.
VidaLoca
Hee-hee. This is the bestest yet.
Perry Como
Being a good Republican, I’m sure you support capital punishment. You are also suggesting we increase the penalty for illegal immigration by making it a felony. Darrell supports the idea of “super happy fun camps”[0] for illegal immigrants, so I’m thinking that maybe the problem is severe enough to make it a capital crime. Since you disagree with my position that means you are being irrational and want to be soft on illegal immigration.
[0] – Do not taunt “super happy fun camps”
Darrell
Can you please elaborate? Are you seriously taking the position that we should abolish punishment of criminals? Because punishment of criminals is only “feeding the desire for retribution” according to you.
Perry Como
Darrell, do you think we should make illegal immigration a capital crime? If not, why are you against punishing criminals?
Darrell
No one here, except perhaps those voices in your head, suggested that illegal immigration be a felony, at least not on the first conviction. Many misdemeanor crimes have jail time penalties. Did you know that?
You yourself advocated detention for those who break our immigration laws. Why not make the criminals do a little work while they’re in jail. If nothing else, it would give them some exercise in between meals and watching soap operas on TV.
VidaLoca
Of course not. I was trying to get you to consider the possibility that there might be some serious downside consequences to your plan. Evidently I failed.
And you call me irrational.
Perry Como
Capital punishment has the additional benefit of insuring that the illegal immigrants will not attempt to enter our country again. And since capital punishment is such a great deterrent, illegal immigration should stop after the first few illegals are killed.
I’ve been thinking that “super happy fun camps” isn’t a sellable name. I think we should call them “Genuine Undocumented Labor Associational Groups”.
Darrell
Well, I suppose that’s some progress from your original assertion that having criminals work in prison constitutes Nazi fascism.
VidaLoca
So Darrell, should it be a felony? I’m under the impression that, at least until recently, many of the Republicans in Congress wanted it to be a felony and wanted to make aiding and abetting illegal immigration (by, for example, leaving water out in the desert where people could get to it rather than dying of thirst) a felony too.
What do you think of that?
Seems to me that if it is a felony, right off the bat all those people in the concentration camps for “1 or 2 weeks” are now in there for a year, along with anyone who didn’t want to see them die of thirst and all.
You “compassionate conservatives”, you.
Perry Como
I’m disappointed that Darrell doesn’t support my plan for executing illegal immigrants. Why are the Darrell’s of the Right soft on illegal immigration?
VidaLoca
Perry,
You’re the one that’s soft on illegal immigration. You’re only calling for gas chambers, that’s much too humane.
Take Vlad the Impaler for example. None of that “compassionate” conservativism for him! There was a man who could handle an immigrant problem!
Darrell
If you were to search the Balloon Juice archives, you would see that I immediately denounced the Republican idea of making illegal immigration a felony (on the first offense) as stupid as hell, not only because it was excessive, but also because it gave illegal immigration advocates a legitimate point to use in order to discredit any enforcement of illegal immigration.
However, I do think there should be some punishment for breaking our laws, even on the 1st offense.. and for a 3rd time offender, or coyotes, those should defintitely qualify as a felony. Do you agree? Or would such punishment of coyotes and 3rd time illegal immigrant offenders be equivalent to Nazi-like measures?
Perry Como
Vlad had the right idea. I’m tired of all of these pseudo-conservatives that want to use kid gloves with illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants flout our laws and they should pay. With their lives.
RobR
I knew a dude named Darrell back in college who took pride in liquoring up fresh-faced freshmen boys over the course of hours so he could convince them to go back to his room to “look at his etchings.” Darrell would then tongue their danglers until they involuntarily spooged, thereby spending the next two months contemplating their own sexuality and/or suicide.
So I feel confident in saying that our Darrell is a sexual predator who preys on confused young men to feed his need to feel salty paste projected onto his tonsils.
Hell; he’s named Darrell. Those filthy Darrells are all the same. Truth is, Darrells typically love the cock. I rest my case.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
I’m trying to argue that if you build the concentration camps then the analogy will be made to the Nazis. Count on this particularly to happen if politicians start to compete for being tougher on immigration, because to the extent they succeed there will be more material grounds for it.
While I appreciate your clarification as to your personal position above, I still belive unless you can correct me that felony status is what is currently on the table. If that goes through, now you indeed are locking people up for at least a year — that should be enough grounds to get things going.
Don’t negate the economics either of building or runnning the camps; remember you’re talking about locking up 10-12 million people. Try the Japanese analogy to get a feeling for how well it’s going to work, both in the short run and down through history — and that was only what tens? hundreds? of thousands of people.
Your best hope then would be to ameliorate the conditions in the camps until the only analogy that works would be the chain gangs in the South. Not that that’s a whole lot better.
Any way you slice it, not something I’d want to own.
t. jasper parnell
Is this cutting and running or rational redeployment?
VidaLoca
It’s rational redeployment of course.
You can tell because it’s being proposed by a Republican. Only if it’s proposed by a Democrat is it cutting and running.
Silly.
Nutcutter
Is it cutting and running when the Iraqi Prime Minister suggests it?
Democracy on the march, the newly freed country wants to determine its own destiny .. and wants us to get out.
Come on, righty bonesmokers, attack the new Iraq government with the same zeal you gin up for attacking your own fellow citizens.
Those cut-and-run Iraqis!
ppGaz
Is it cutting and running when the Iraqi Prime Minister suggests it?
Democracy on the march, the newly freed country wants to determine its own destiny .. and wants us to get out.
Come on, righty bonesmokers, attack the new Iraq government with the same zeal you gin up for attacking your own fellow citizens.
Those cut-and-run Iraqis!
Posted twice because I have NO PATIENCE for the stupid moderation filter on this blog. I haven’t signed any contract to use the same fucking handle forever.
And apparently the slick moderation tools don’t have any effect on the rampant spoofing and sockpuppet crap that goes on around here. So pardon me if I don’t kneel to it.
Yes, I am changing my handle. Anyone doesn’t like it, tough shit.
Darrell
Uh, “on the table” is not the same as law. Then Senate version, which is also “on the table” would give illegal aliens amnesty AND credit for Social Security dollars paid while the illegals were using fraudulent SS #’s. Even Congress’ version, which would make 1st time immigration law offenders felons.. even THAT does not come close to being Nazi prison camps as you have repeatedly asserted.
Complete mindless bullshit. If we cracked down on employers along with other serious immigration reform, many/most of the illegals would leave on their own, as they couldn’t find employment. Others would voluntarily leave to avoid facing jail time, as likelihood of getting caught would increase significantly with more vigorous enforcement. Your 10-12 million number is dishonest crap and you know it.
And as far as the economics of it, we would be getting in return free labor, although admittedly that savings would be offset by costs of imprisonment. Neither you nor I have a good handle on the economics, so I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from talking out of your ass.
Darrell
You know, I don’t know what the rules are on getting banned here, but I feel pretty confident that this scumbag has crossed the line.
ppGaz
That is not going to happen to any meaningful degree, for the same reason that it has never happened for the entire period of decades during which basically the same situation has existed unchecked. First, it isn’t practical. Emloyers are not required to get, or evaluate “proof” of identity and eligibility to work. Employees can easily provide false identities. Second, it isn’t desirable. Throwing thousands out of work and loading up the justice system and jails with new criminals would cost a fortune and accomplish basically nothing. Third, it isn’t politically viable. The business interests who would be adversely affected by such “crackdowns” will oppose them politically and through lobbying channels. There won’t be anything but token displays of this kind of enforcement … just as there have been for the last fifty years.
Cut the crap.
ppGaz
Well, if your work here is any indication, apparently lying and making shit up every day for a couple of years isn’t even in the ballpark of ban-able offenses.
So what’s your beef? The word “cock?”
Heh. Good luck with that one, Darrell. I don’t know who posted it, but whoever it is, more power to him. Or her.
Richard 23
Darrell, it’s just the Rude Pundit (or an impression of him). You’ve merely been roasted. Bask in the glow of your popularity!
I notice you quoted the entire thing. What was your favourite part, Darrell?
:-D
VidaLoca
This just in:
“Overtaxed National Guard To Use Illegal Immigrants To Guard Mexican Border”
Darrell
You must not have applied for a job recently ppg, as you are required to produce photo ID AND social security number. No reason why the SS# couldn’t be cross-referenced immediately. That one tiny measure, in and of itself, would significantly reduce the illegal immigrant problem. Fines and jail terms for employers who repeatedly hire illegals would pretty much put the nail in the coffin
As for the ‘business interests’, I hear you, but employers who depend largely on illegal alien labor are but a small minority of Republican voters..And they are opposed by a huge majority of the remaining Republicans.. like me and many others who want to see those bastards who knowingly hire illegal aliens jailed.
ppGaz
Can you read? The emplyees present bought and paid for id. The employer is under no obligation to vette it.
Employers who have successfuly blocked minimum wage increases for ten years are going to suddenly have the resources to research and prove their employees’ identity?
I don’t think so. Like I said, the situation has not changed in any substantive way in fifty years. It exists for reasons, and as usual, you are totally ignorant of them.
ppGaz
You have no evidence to support the first claim, and no sense to assert the second. You are going to throw hundreds of thousands out of work, so that they stop paying taxes, and into jail, where it will cost thousands of dollars a year each to house them?
Gee, I wonder why THAT idea hasn’t been implemented?
Nobody can be as fucking stupid as you are.
Darrell
What level of “resources and research” are you suggesting they would have to have? An on-line link to the Social Security database wouldn’t take jack shit for resources.
If we required biometric fingerprint info on SS cards to make them more fraud-proof, that doable, economical measure would go a long way towards sealing the deal too. Employers have had minimum wage hikes forced on them for decades, and furthermore, only a small minority of businesses hire primarily minimum wage workers, so their influence is overrated.
Ancient Purple
How so? He didn’t accuse you of anything illegal (Lawrence v. Texas).
He said you liked to perform fellatio on another man.
Not to worry, Darrell, we “angry moonbats on the left” don’t have a problem with gays, so you are always welcome in the clubhouse.
Darrell
I see, so we continue to reward those who skipped the line over those waiting to come legally, in knowing violation of our immigration laws. If you think there isn’t a line of people waiting to come here LEGALLY to do those jobs, then you’re a bigger dumbass than I thought.
Ancient Purple
And the number of Hungarians waiting in line to pick oranges or lettuce in California would be……????
Darrell
As I recall, one of the lefty posters here, ‘gratefulcub’, mentioned that his/her family was in that business and that the going wage was $15/hr picking those oranges. It’s a safe bet that 1/2 the world’s population would stand in line to that job at that wage.
Richard 23
I thought we’d (well BJ’d) been over this before in another comment thread. The social security number is not supposed to be used for id. Yeah haha I know. But SSI does not validate numbers for employers.
What you’re looking for is an ear tag or tattooed barcode or an rfid implant. Maybe in the hand. Hey we could even use it to buy and sell goods. Make it a requirement for all citizens! Sounds like a great idea.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Sigh. I’ll try one more time and then I’m out of here.
My point is exactly that they’re going to be jailed as felons. That will mean for a year, that’s the definition of felony. No “1 to 2 weeks”. Your desire to choose to believe that those conditions will not come close to being concentration camps is naive given the politics and the temptation to make them more and more draconian. Annoyed at the Nazi analogy? Might as well not be, you’ll be owning it; but others will do as well — the chain gangs, like your vision here, were also all about extracting forced labor from prisoners and there was abuse aplenty. Also see internment of the Japanese.
No, there’s nothing dishonest about it, it’s the commonly quoted statistic. Don’t like it? Fine, say I’m off by a whole order of magnitude, say you’re right and 90% of those people vanish — poof! — into the air like magic somehow.
That still leaves you with jailing 1 million people. More people than a large city.
I lazily googled up a statistic from 2002 that claimed the total US prison population was 2 million. Whether that’s exactly right as of today I don’t know and I don’t care. But if it’s even close, you’re talking about on the order of a 50% increase in the prison population. Cost it out.
I’d appreciate it if you’d get real.
Ancient Purple
Then where are they?
Richard 23
I’m not surrendering my fingerprint or DNA unless I have to. It won’t make me any more secure. And it won’t be long before your precious SS card is easy to forge. What’s the next security feature you’d like to implement?
Then why do minimum wage increase opponents claim the economy will collapse if we raise it? Since “only a small minority of businesses hire primarily minimum wage workers,” the negative effect is overrated (or made up). The highest the minimum wage has been was back in 1968 when it was $1.60 ($9.12 in 2005 dollars). Phasing in $7.25 over a couple of years might have been a reasonable compromise.
Richard 23
Just don’t get drunk with him…!
ppGaz
So, at a time when people are being encouraged not to divulge their SS numbers due to identity theft concerns, and the SS Administration has acutally had to pull back online access due to those same concerns … you are going to open the SS database up to employers?
Brilliant scheme, Darrell. Really, brilliant.
ppGaz
In other words, you have nothing the refute my assertions of the facts surrounding this situation, and are changing the subject. Again, for the ten thousandth fucking time, you play this fucking mind game where you make shit up, get called on it, and the point to a jackalope. And you have the gall to suggest someone else here get banned?
Fuck you, Darrell. Go away and shut the fuck up. At least take the time to learn the most basic facts surrounding a topic before you shoot your mouth off. How many times is this, now, that you’ve been crushed on this immigration topic because you don’t know, understand or acknowledge the basic facts?
ppGaz
Really? When was the last one? What is the minimum wage today in inflation adjusted dollars for the year of the last increase?
What are the reasons given for resisting a long-needed increase? Low-wage people thrown out of work, and undue burden to employers. Exactly the two things your stupid “crackdown” would impose on both groups to a much greater degree … to say nothing of the huge burden to taxpayers to fund a giant surge of new “criminals” and prisoners.
Do you really think that the only reason your nutty schemes have not been tried in the last 50 years is only because stupid fucking wingnuts like you haven’t been heard on the subject yet?
I told you, the situation you have no exists for real reasons. LEARN THEM.
ppGaz
“have now”
Richard 23
Apparently Darrell has run off to chase a raccoon-dog.
ppGaz
An animal lover like Darrell is intrigued by many critters, but nothing grabs him like
the good old horned hare.
lard lad
A amp-burning keyboard solo from the always amusing GOP4ME:
Please remember that this is the same guy who, just a couple of days ago, denounced Stephen Colbert as a traitor who deserved to be sent to Guatanamo Bay.
Sending comedians to gulags for saying mean things about Our Beloved Leader… yeah, that’s the sign of a true
fascistAmerican.Slide.
nutcutter… ppgaz… is it a coincidence that all of your screenames have a vague reference to male genitalia?
ppGaz
Is it just me, or are you as dense as a brick?
How many times have I said on these pages, ppGaz is my initials and the abbreviation of a state. It’s not a “reference” to anything but that. Maybe you’re the one with the genitalia problem?
Nutcutter
Besides, slide_to_oblivion, if you were paying any attention to my first post with this handle, you’d see that it references a story that is by far the most important story on the horizon this week … namely, that our “freedom on the march” government in Iraq is asking us to set a timetable for withdrawal from their country …
But you’d rather talk about whether my initials can be morphed into a genitalia reference?
Clever, I must say. No wonder the Dems are winning all the elections.
Slide
PeePee, or shall I call you NutNut now? you take yourself a tad too seriously. Yes yes…. there are more weighter things to discuss then your penchant for picking screenames with obtuse references to male genitalia but I was amused by it on a rainy Sunday morning. But I AM glad that it got you all flustered. My day is complete.
Nutcutter
WTF is the matter with you? Fucking lame-ass troll.
Perry Como
The spin on this is going to be absolutely fascinating.
VidaLoca
It’ll be like living in the Soviet Union back in the day, trying to figure out what’s really going on from reading Pravda.
t. jasper parnell
Throw in the amnesty debate and there might actually be the potential for a real discussion of how to get ourselves out of the mess into which the boobocracy has led us.
Krista
“Nutcutter”? I’m female, and that name still made me cringe…
t. jasper parnell
Gosh darn Dutch and CBC. England v. Ecudor and not Netherlands v Portugal? Total football indeed.
Nutcutter
It has two modern meanings that I know of. One is the Richard Nixon use of the word, referring to a role in a political machine that takes the power away from some troubling member of the opposition. Where Nixon got the expression, I do not know.
The other is the Betel Nut Cutter, an implement used to crack open the betel nut in southeast Asia. Antique nut cutters are sold online and on e-bay regularly.
Richard 23
Slide. Heh. Sounds just like penis!
Krista. Heh. Sound’s just like, well, a girl’s name. Heh. So there.
Slide
Hey, PeePee you left out what the Urban Dictionary says nutcutters are:
I’ll leave it to others to speculate as to why PeePee sees himself as a pair of fugly shorts designed to reveal men’s testicles. Just thought it an odd name to pick. Especially after we have grown so fond of his little PeePee choice all these many months.
RonB
Don’t make him slap you in the face with his cock.