Showdown with Iraq

[muayThaiPerson]

Huessain isnt a good man himself but what has he done to the United States or and other country besides Kuwait?? Bush want help from the UN to invade Iraq? Why?? Because he claims they have weapons of mass destructions. Have they found it? NO. everything is assumptions. Until the inspectors find ANYTHING, there should be no force.

 

[jfarnsworth]

I really don't want to comment about this subject. With as far as the internet goes and how this could possibly affect everyone in the world. However I believe the U.N. should do it's job and do it extremely thorough before our next W.W. breaks out. I just read on yahoo that "supposedly" (I'm not at all taking credit for this statement, it is only what I read) North Korea wants to strike first at the United States. Once again I would like to be left out of anything arguements that could possibly start on this thread if any are to happen. Too bad not everyone can get along.

 

[Elfan]

Come on all Iraq has to do it prove a negative, its not that hard ;-)

 

[MountainSage]

Being the only politican (at least the only admitted politico) I'll bite on this thread. mauyThaiPerson, if you don't like it then move to Iraq. It must be a great place with a wonderful leader. The man is Iraq is slim and doesn't deserve to breath the same air as good people. The UN is a batch of cowards and the peaceniks that are running around this country screaming and hollaring are just looking for another cause to make their useless lives worth living. We should park aircraft carriers and bombers over Iraq and clean house. I do not want to wake-up and see another Sept 11th ever again or something worse. Hussain has the bombs and chemical agents our government know it, Iraq know it, the UN knows it, evrybody knows it, but some are willing to let a madman remain in power rather than show some spine.

Mountain Sage:soapbox:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, theres good arguments on both sides.

Heres the problem:

Georgie Bush hasn't presented any tangible evidence.

The inspectors that he choose haven't found anything. I'm sorry, but a few shells don't count.

Bush and many members of his administration stand to profit financially from a Pro-US Iraq. The desire for war is less about how -evil- Iraq is, and more about the financial benifits to those running the US. North Vietnam can have nukes within 30 days, yet he says nothing. The columbian drug cartels are still going strong flooding the US with poison, yet he does nothing. The Chinese are doing worse to their own people yet he coddles them. He has almost totally ignored a domestic policy other than a non-stop assault on our freedoms since 9/11.

I do not debate the ineffectualness of the UN, however the 'Do what we want or we will do it anyway' attitude of Georgie does nothing to improve the US's reputation worldwide as a big bully.

The sadest part of this is that he himself is at no risk, but he and his supporters will freely spend the lives of our military personel so that they and their corporate masters will make a few bucks more.

Without tangible evidence found by an unbiased agency, I am hard pressed to just 'take his word for it', especially when a large number of his own recently announced domestic plans have confused even his own party in their lack of understanding.

The simple truth is this: The US military machine works to further the desires of corporate America at the cost of our soliders lives. If a crisis isn't in existance, one will be invented.

George W. Bush has yet to answer many questions posed as early as September 2001. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0928-11.htm

Big Oil and the Bush administration go way back. Both the Bush family and US Vice President Dick Cheney got rich in the petroleum biz. Fossil-fuel companies contributed $1.8 million to George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Bush Sr. is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, which observers say secured lucrative Saudi Arabian investments as payback for Pappy Bush's stomping of Iraq in the Gulf War. Hamid Karzai used to consult for Unocal, as did Zalmay Khalilzad, US special envoy to Afghanistan. Months before September 11, American officials told the Pakistani foreign secretary that an attack on Afghanistan was planned for October.

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/got_oil/

and

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

and

[The Guardian (UK) - 5/18/02] George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday.

In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/newwar/051902bushknew.html


Don't get me wrong. There is a threat from Saddam, however it does not seem to be any more of a threat compared to that presented by North Korea, or several other nations. The only difference is, Iraq can't stand against us, even in a war of attrition we will come out on top...so, the question here is, is it just that they are 'easy' to beat, and we are shirking from the greater challence, or is it simply the fact that Iraq has billions and billions of $ in oil reserves, and N. Korea has, well, nothing of value?

Show us the proof Mr. Bush. Then the people will be behind you in reality, not just skewed surveys and imagination.

In closing, I leave you with some food for thought in a day when 'questioning' is considered terrorism:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ---Teddy Roosevelt.

"If we are willing to concede the President dictatorial authority where we happen to agree with him, as liberals have tended to do over the years, we will have little chance of tying his hands when we do not....You will see why many of us in the Congress understand how Dr. Frankenstein must have felt when his creation ran amok." -- Senator George McGovern, May 1973

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a great lie than a small one" - Adolph Hitler


Lest anyone thinks I'm hammering Bush...heres the other side of the congrssional coin and a comparison to some 'heros' of the past:

"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. - Benito Mussolini

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." - Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." - Adolph Hitler, 1933

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton, 1993

"My vision of a New World Order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function." - George Bush (Sr. I think)

:asian:

 

[muayThaiPerson]

Originally posted by MountainSage
Being the only politican (at least the only admitted politico) I'll bite on this thread. mauyThaiPerson, if you don't like it then move to Iraq. It must be a great place with a wonderful leader. The man is Iraq is slim and doesn't deserve to breath the same air as good people. The UN is a batch of cowards and the peaceniks that are running around this country screaming and hollaring are just looking for another cause to make their useless lives worth living. We should park aircraft carriers and bombers over Iraq and clean house. I do not want to wake-up and see another Sept 11th ever again or something worse. Hussain has the bombs and chemical agents our government know it, Iraq know it, the UN knows it, evrybody knows it, but some are willing to let a madman remain in power rather than show some spine.

Mountain Sage:soapbox:

Im not saying Huessan is a good person. As a matter of fact, I think hes an as$hole. I dont want to see another 9/11 either, but i dont think that we should use force until atleast the smallest amount of evidence is found. Theres no doubt in my mind that we will win. The Iraqi people arent the enemy, huessain is...to bomb the whole country (killing inocent people) is not human.

 

[Baoquan]

Originally posted by MountainSage

mauyThaiPerson, if you don't like it then move to Iraq.

The MOST rediculous argument made by persons in a democratic country. MountainSage, are you willing to move when you dont agreee with ur government's policies??

Or do you think perhaps you might just discuss your opinion with ur peers??

Now, go back and re-read mauyThaiPerson's post.


Baoquan.

 

[MountainSage]

You are all missing several important points. 1) Do you want your government tell every thing they know on CNN so our enemies can be prepared. 2)Iraq doesn't have that much oil as compared to other arab counties. Why do you think Saddam invaded Quwait(sp), OIL! 3)The big corporations are behind everything is getting to be an old arguement with no proof 4) The US is not a bully. If you believe that then move. 5) We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic, Look it up boys and girls it's not the same 5) No president has been at risk during a war, not a valid arguement. There is much more, but these obviously liberal debate bore me.

Mountain Sage

 

[Baoquan]

And your representatives are chosen how? Short straw method?

My point is, the socio-poliyical system that allows you to have your opinion, allows others to have theirs....and they are just as valued as yours. Telling people to bugger off if they dont share your opinion is moronic, and the "I could go on, but it bores me" argument was unconvincing when it was first tried....give it up.

 

[muayThaiPerson]

IF the Bush administration has fuond something, they would tell the UN. Ofcource they wouldnt broadcast the info on CNN but they will atleast mention the fact that there was evidence found. I have no problem with the United States: I live here. I believe that husein should be stripped of his power for everything that he has done to his people and the threat he poses. but i think the administration should wait until there is evidence of weapons so the UN can take action: Then the task of invasion will be a joint one. Dont forget that our soldiers are not invincible.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, the differences between a Republic and a Democracy are obvious. As we have a non-elected president (won in the courts, not the voters) seeking to conquer another nation, we as a people have the right to know for what reasons our soldiers will give their lives for.

No, I do not expect them to tell us everything. But a couple of old shell cases and some blury photographs do not a case make. Any civil prosecuter would agree with that. I'm sure if we comb thru California we would find more of the same types of weapons, many burried in the ground.

I'm not going to question Mr. Bush's wisdom...his words speak for themselves:
http://collusion.org/Article.cfm?ID=415
But, at least he is honest...sorta, as much as he can be I guess.
"It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
--Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000

I wonder how many of our imports come from NY?

Blix, who directs the UN inspection team in Iraq, said the UNMOVIC inspectors have seen "no evidence" of mobile biological weapons labs, have "no persuasive indications" of Iraq-al Qaeda links, and no evidence of Iraq hiding and moving material used for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) either outside or inside Iraq. Dr. Blix also said there was no evidence of Iraq sending scientists out of the country, of Iraqi intelligence agents posing as scientists, of UNMOVIC conversations being monitored, or of UNMOVIC being penetrated.

Further, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with al Qaeda, U.S. intelligence officials told the New York Times, "We just don't think it's there."

So lets get this straight....the US sends in inspectors that the US approved. These guys cant find anything, our own intelegence agencies cant find anything, but someones got a 'hunch', a few blurry photos and now we have to prepare for a major land war and a few tens of thousand dead?

I dunno....I think I need more than that. At least with Hitler we had some deathcamps and other atrosities to point at.

Oh, Sadamy did that too?

Ok....

Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein gassed his own citizens. Or do we?

An infamous example of Iraqi brutality is the murder of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja in March 1988. President Bush has repeatedly cited this incident as damning reason to oust Saddam. But former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere claims in a New York Times op-ed (registration required) that there is little evidence to back this version of events.

As Pelletiere points out, all we really know is that the Kurds were gassed to death towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war. But it is still unclear who gassed them. For a start, they could have been simply caught in the crossfire. Pelletiere writes, "The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target." And there is evidence to suggest that the Kurds -- who were killed with a cyanide-based gas favored by Iranians and not available to the Iraqi army -- may have been killed by the other side.

Does any of this make Saddam a saint? No. But now we can add Halabja to the mountain of disinformation put out by an administration that thrives on propaganda and secrecy.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/02/000294.html

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

Why would someone with the credentials of Mr. Pelletiere make this claim in a respected publication? (full article in next post)

More quotes:

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Why would a President of the US make this claim?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

NYTimes
A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes for some interesting reading....

I like the points on just how 'worthless' Iraq really is.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Here is some more:

"Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President"
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

"White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' "
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,807194,00.html
also at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1009-01.htm

Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports which back the administration's line, the Guardian has learned. In response, some are complying, some are resisting and some are choosing to remain silent.

Both Turkey and the US have long been interested in gaining more control over these Iraqi oil fields. In particular, Kirkuk, some 150 miles north of Baghdad and just south of the northern no-fly zone, is connected by an oil pipeline with Turkey. Moreover, US oil companies, such as Chevron and Exxon-Mobile, have been purchasing crude oil from Kirkuk through various Russian sources for the last few years.

Members of the Bush Administration have made no secret of their desire to install a more friendly regime in Iraq, primarily in order to control Iraq’s oil and natural gas reserves. In particular, Dick Cheney has spoken of the need to gain unfettered access to Iraqi oil. This should come as no surprise since Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw the sale of pipeline equipment through French subsidiaries to Iraq. Nor should it come as any surprise that it was Cheney who met recently with Iraqi opposition leaders in Washington.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0815-06.htm

dozens of additional articles from respected newspapers around the world are available at http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/


Don't get me wrong... Sadams a bastard and should be taken out. But for the right reasons. Out economy is in shambles, unemployment is skyrocketing, businesses are failing and people are hurting. There are other nations just as 'evil' if not worse that are in better positions to hurt us than Iraq.

So why Iraq?

Because:

W and his staff do not have a clue on how to fix what is ailing this country.

W has a personal 'hard on' for Sadam to avenge his 'pappys' honor.

There is profit to be made by conquering Iraq, but not a country such as N. Korea.

Show us the Proof George. Show us real, tangible, will hold up in court proof, and we the people will be behind you 100%, as will most of the world. Doing it alone is not the answer.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ok, MountainSage, I've refuted 3 of your 5 points, and conceded 1. I'm a tad bit drained right now so can't go after #4 tonite. ( 4- The US is not a bully.)

Peace.

:asian:


(actually, this has been very educational....I learned a few things, for example a lot of the 'idiot' quotes we think came from W, actually came from Dan Quayle. W aint as dumb as I thought, which does make me feel better about the guy.)

 

[sweeper]

Uhm.. As to living conditions in Iraq, that's more our fault than sadaum's. Before the gulf war living conditions in iraq were quite good considering the region, today Iraq is poorer than any nation in the western hemisphere yet they have a relativly large oil reserve.. Remember any import into Iraq has to go through The UN coincil for iraqi affairs? Forget the name of the coincil, US Britain Russia and two random seats are on it I think, It operates by unanimus desision though so basicly if we don't want something to go through it doesn't go through, and there are alot of things that we and only we block, like water treatment plants and sewer facilities (no clorine for water treatment and no powerplants for the sewer systems.. actualy we don't alow importing any new power systems). We (The UN council that is) also control the oil sails (Iraq can only sell oil for food, the monitary fund is placed into a monitored bank account and can only be used to purchace food) Yet it's very hard for them to sell the oil because the united states and britain withhold their vote for the price untill the relavent buying period has ended (basicly someone has to agree to an un-set ammount before the purchase the oil).

And as for Iraq's oil, the US may not have engaged in the gulf war for Iraq's supply but we most certainly did engage in it for kuwait's supply..

As to sadam being a dictator? Yup he is, just like all the other leaders of nations in that region, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran all of them are monarchies at best and dictatorships mosty of the time.. There is no vote for representation and what the king says goes.. Any of them you could pin on civil rights charges.


And as to what Sadam has done to others? Well he did engage in a war with Iran and Try to draw Israel into the War by firing chemical weapons into their cities..

As to evidence that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction? There is no direct evidence. We know he purchaced componants for chemical weapons and growth agents for anthraz (the later was from british corporations...) But we also know he doesn't have the nessisary resorces for making nuclear weapons, it is posable the growth agents and chemical weapons have degraded and are no longer usefull (I didn't read Iraq's 10k page weapons statement so I don't know how they account for those substances) It is also posable they are active and hidden..

There is no evidence Iraq funded Al-quaida, pure speculation. There is also no evidence Iraq has the capability to deploy weapons of mass destruction.. After the gilf War Sadam promised to retaliate with terrorism, he released 40 terrorist teams to attack US targets around the world.. Each one faild. They lack the training to carry out any of their objectives but more importantly, none of them used biological chemical or radiological weapons (the weapons that would cause the most terror and dammage). Further more Their level of training is somewhat indicative of overall Iraqi government/military training, obviously in the gulf war the troops, even their "elite" troops were not very skilled, and even extreemist groups like Al-Quaida havn't had any very long term plants (like someone who goes to school in a field and than goes into long term undercover work) So arguments that Iraq has infiltrated anything without a shred of evidence is kind of commical.

As to N Korea, they would have troubal nuking us.. They don't have the ICBM technology for pan-pacific flight, pluss they aren't stupid, they know they can't kill all of us, and they know how crazy americans get when someone trys to hurt us on our home turf (look at WWII and look at 9/11).

Personaly I don't think the US has justification for invading other countries on our whim (yes even in afganistan, though I realy am not sheding a tear seeing the taliban out of there). If there is evidence it would be presented to gain popular support.. The UN inspectors report to the UN, it would deffinatly come out and at leaste we would have full scale support from the security council if the Inspectors had suspicion of mobile labratories or hiden weapons.. If we have evidence that there are weapons in iraq how would that give iraq an advantage? That would give us the green light to take Iraq out.. I would conclude that there is no concreate evidence at this time. Probably not even circumstancial or suspective evidence.

 

[Elfan]

Kaith and others, if you are interested in this stuf you might want to check out antiwar.com They do an excelent job of finding a WIDE variety of view points and linking to news from all over the place.

 

[Kirk]

In the interest of fairness, I present a link of Gorisms . A
search of Gorisms will bring up even more. My favorite being,
"It's wonderful to be here in the great state of Chicago!" :shrug:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

ROFLMAO!!!!!

I love em Kirk!

heres my favorite...its right up there with ol wooden boys 'invention of the internet'

At a Sept. 22 press conference, Gore stated "I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established." However, President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman.
(Source: Washington Post, Sept. 24 2000)
(note: it was actually 13 months, not 2 years as the Post states) Now, technically, 1975 was when it was declared U.S. policy to establish a reserve, but the reserve was not established (sites purchased or built, etc) until 1977, when Gore was in Congress.

:rofl:

 

[sweeper]

I realy wonder about that guy, I mean realy how the heck do you mis speak yourself to say that you took the initiative in creating the internet?? I mean it's obviously not intentional (you would have to be REALY dumb to think you could get away with that) so what the heck is it?

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by sweeper
I realy wonder about that guy, I mean realy how the heck do you mis speak yourself to say that you took the initiative in creating the internet?? I mean it's obviously not intentional (you would have to be REALY dumb to think you could get away with that) so what the heck is it?

I'll tell you how, Vint Serf allowed him to. Vint, the "Father of the Internet", was an Executive VP of WorldCom. He was a Gore supporter.