- DIHQ'S CELEBRITY BOXING POLL -> Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!"

Start A New Topic | Reply

Post Info

TOPIC: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!"

Posted By: Dionysus Posted On: Sep 28, 2004 Views: 578	Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" How Prime Minister Tony Blair's language has changed: Saddam Hussein's regime is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked April 10 2002, House of Commons There are literally thousands of sites. I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction June 4 2003, House of Commons I don't concede it at all that the intelligence at the time was wrong. I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes July 8 2003, evidence to Commons liaison committee But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy July 14 2004, statement on the Butler report The information, some of it, the intelligence on which we founded our case, has turned out to be wrong September 26 2004, BBC Breakfast with Frost The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.I acknowledge that and accept it Yesterday, Labour party conference
Posted By: Rough Posted On: Sep 28, 2004 Views: 575	Poor Tony It's a true sign of character to admit that you were wrong and that you made a mistake. This is more than I can say for the mindnumbingly ignorant Dubya who wouldn't admit he were wrong if he were going the wrong way down a one way street (which he pretty much is, metaphorically speaking). Oh, but I forgot...everything's coming up roses in Iraq now, isn't it? It must be so nice for the Shrub, living in Fantasyland. There's really only one choice... (Altogether now) DIO/ROUGH 2004 !!
Posted By: legion Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 571	RE: Tony Baloney well, d'uh. Of course there were no WMD's - there never was any. Do I have to go over this again? Logical deduction, from the general to the specific. IF there were some, do you really think they would have invaded? (think Cuba, '62) Even Americans aren't stupid enough to send foot soldiers to a nuke fight. Only America is allowed to have nukes because they are the only ones responsible enough to use them.
Posted By: Rough Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 562	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" Sadddam did have WMDs once upon a time. I don't think he was ever anywhere near weaponized nukes, though. The intel about enriched uranium from Niger that Bushie alluded to in his State of the Union was discounted as bogus. Hussein hadn't been packing major heat since the end of the Gulf War. If we would have given the UN inspectors more time, it would have proven that conclusively. Yeah, ole Saddam was pretty much in the "Caligula stage" of his reign and certainly was no threat to us. As Cheney said in a now infamous interview from late 2000, Saddam wasn't even a threat to his neighbors anymore. That wouldn't be a "flip flop" would it? Saddam could have been contained and kept in check indefinitely without any bloodshed. And now the power vacuum in Iraq has created a perfect breeding ground for terrorists. The US has its own West Bank now and we will have to be there for a long time. Yessir...WRONG war, WRONG place, WRONG time. And keep a lookout for the draft next summer because it's a certainty if Dubya's re elected. "Peace through War"...brilliant 1984 doublespeak. I'm looking forward to the first debate. Bushie will have to be in defense mode because his foreign and domestic policy records are so especially deplorable. How do you defend a war that was unecessary against an enemy that had no WMDs...a US economy that's had the first net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression...environmental policies that have no regard for clean air or human health. Kerry is still behind Bush in most polls by 4-5 points, basically within the margin of error. The sad truth is most of the right wingnuts have bought into the gross lies that Bush and his cronies have been troweling out. They also shamelessly use the "fear factor" in the post 9/11 world. I really don't place much faith in polls, though. It's still anyone's race and I think that there are a lot of people in the US totally put off with Bush who don't get polled. I hope Bush gets his walking papers. I don't think we can take four more years of his bullshiat! DIO/ROUGH 2004
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 554	Better to be safe than sorry My buddy Roughy wrote- Sadddam did have WMDs once upon a time. I don't think he was ever anywhere near weaponized nukes, though...... YES, it was a fact that Saddam did indeed have WMDs. Not only that, but he used them to kill hundreds of thousands. With a record like that one I'd be more upset finding out the hard way he still did. Maybe sources close to him still do. Either way its better a man like that lost power over the middle east. I didn't know you were a weapons inspector Rough? You didn't think he was anywhere near making nukes? Wrong. Infact, pleanty of countries sold him everything needed to create all sorts of nukes. He had scientists in the palm of his hand telling them what to make and/or find out how to create it. The question is where did he hide it? Or who did he sell it to? Iran seems close to creating certain things and we all know how good Iraq and Iran get along:) Its one country trying to out-do the other. At some point they would have used it on each other. I'm not worried about Iran though. Seeing GW will take another four years its a shoe in that he'll crush their nuke program. I've noticed GW on lots of television shows recently. Not only that, but his entire family. I haven't seen anything with Teresa"the wielderbeast" Kerry anywhere. That is until she opens her foul hairy mouth and says something profaine or pathetic. I don't know who could drink more ... Kitty Dukakis or her? If John Kerry wins presidency I'll post a thousand times BY HAND (NO copy and Leegioning) I LOVE JOHN KERRY! My fingers are ready and thankfully I can type quicker than any secretary with big hooters. But, I seriously doubt I have anything to worry about. Just think a few months back half you dudes held a thumbs up to Howard Dean. YEEEEEEAWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!! Later Boyz- JSK
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 551	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" Oh and in regards to Tony? You guys should be happy to have a leader like him. If it wasn't him making an "error" it would have been someone else. Just like in John Kerry's case. He would have done the same thing GW did given the CENTRAL intellegence they recieved. I think its about time terrorism was taken more seriously than just talking about doing something about it. JSK
Posted By: Rough Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 548	Booze gouls I'm sure the Bush twins can outdrink Teresa Heinz, Kitty Dukakis...hell, even Ann Richards! Those two are probably drunk right now. They got the love of liquor from their pa I hear tell! I'd still love to see a little tag team catfighting betwixt the Bush twins and the Kerry girls. Now something like that would fill some seats! DIO/ROUGH 2004
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 546	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" You talk like the Kerry girlz haven't touched a drop of alcohol? Jerry H Roughy its only normal to get drunk as a skunk at some point in your life and make mistakes. Although I don't consider getting drunk a mistake. I always mean it. I guess I just missed you because you only posted a few minutes ago. What did you run off to pass out your gay ass John Kerry AKA Lurch bumper stickers? E-GATS.... carry on :)~ JSK
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Sep 29, 2004 Views: 545	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" And finally- Maybe we'd see a bush's bush in one of the Kerry girlz faces? If Kerry's daughters didn't flip flop out of a fight like he did. Ok, I got nothing. later- JSK
Posted By: Rough Posted On: Sep 30, 2004 Views: 523	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" Good luck to Tony and his "heart thing". DIO/ROUGH 2004
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Oct 1, 2004 Views: 505	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" Yeah I just heard about Tony's problem today. Best of luck and health to the man. I'm not sure who likes him more ... the brits or Murkins? I think hes a great guy. Wonder what Dio and the other Brits have to say about him? JSK
Posted By: Rough Posted On: Oct 1, 2004 Views: 498	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" I strongly suspect Blair's actually more popular in the US than he is Britain! The Bush crowd loves him because he was one of the few allies willing to get involved in this totally unecessary mess that got started in Iraq. His political career is probably over because the Brits see him as a Bush puppet. As unpopular as the Iraq War has grown here in the states, it's ever more unpopular in Britain...and has been that way since the thing started. I think Dio would confirm this. If Bush is re elected and Blair is not (the former is still up in the air, the latter is not) then there's a very good chance the British will pull out of Iraq altogether. DIO/ROUGH 2004
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Oct 3, 2004 Views: 478	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" By the time the Brits pull out in larger numbers(not like theres many there now) the United States will be doing the same. The problem is we stayed in Iraq much too long and even though theres now an intern government it doesn't mean squat unless its the Iraqis themselves running the show. Train the darn Iraqi forces, finish up building and get the fark out. Unlike Kerry who makes a mistake of making a deadline Bush says we will stay in until he feels the Iraqis are comfortable enough to run their own country. Soon enough. Thats how it should be. Why send in a president who will take everyone out and possible blow whats been done and lost? Besides you think other countries hate Bush I'm sure they don't think too highly of Kerry now for how he spoke about them. Taking over Iraq was a great achievement and I'm sorry you see it differently Roughy. At some point in time we do need to think about our future rather than just today. JSK
Posted By: Rough Posted On: Oct 3, 2004 Views: 470	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" No, the problem is we should have never invaded Iraq to begin with. It's simple really and Bush should be held accountable for this mess. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? "Train the Iraqi forces, finish up building and get the fark out." Gee, you make it sound so easy! With everyone now knowing Iraq was no clear and present danger and with no proof that the Iraqis will be any better off in the short term or long term, it's becoming clearer to more Americans every day that this little adventure was completely unecessary. The situation grows worse there every day and no one can argue that's it's severely damaged our credibility throughout the globe. I think the best thing we can hope for now is a fresh start with a new man at the helm. Kerry couldn't possibly do any worse than Bush. Intern government? Have we sent Monica Lewinsky over there? You know I love ya Killah, but don't feel sorry because I don't see conquering Iraq as a "great achievement". I see it as a colossal mistake. I knew it to be true before this mess in Iraq started and I believe it even more strongly now. DIO/ROUGH 2004
Posted By: JSK Posted On: Oct 6, 2004 Views: 455	RE: Tony... in his own words, or English for "Doh!" Iraq has been not only a long standing problem for the United States, but its been a greater one for its own people. Remember Roughy its been going on since the early 90's for us & with an Iraq conflict. Its been going on for over 30 years for its people. By saying get outta there I mean once the elections are held (in Jan) they should have a better controlling force for themselves. Its quite easy. By determining how they vote will greater affect our occupation. By far it will be a more honorable time to bring freedom to themselves and it will change the outlook of the future for them. At this point all anyone wants us to do is leave. And I really don't think choosing Bush or Kerry will change the amount of time we'll be the either. Quit sounding so dem and just be a bit more patient. I don't want Kerry prematurley stopping things just because its popular to do. I find it hard to believe any politican especially him. If they made a documentary about his political career they could throw the 20 plus years into a ten minute snooze fest. He's a follower with a big mouth and long face. A yes man. Ok, back to Saddam. In his 30 years of power believe it or not worse has happened to those in Iraq and bordering countries because of his leadership. Sure, we have lost over a thousand, but with Saddam's record he's taken those numbers in just months throughout history. I find him more deadly than any terror network. Infact, I can't see why noone else sees a country like Iraq more dangerous than a terror group. Its much harder to capture single terrorists, but its easier to shake them up when you take over a country they breed in. And a country can do more damage on a greater scale if the leader gives the demands for all his people to do so. Terrorists usually deal with poor teens and disillusioned freaks bound by hate. And while we went after Iraq YES North Korea and Iran both went against UN trust and continued their nukes program. They were not while we were on the brink of war. Let me ask you this. Has talking by any of the other countries (who wouldn't help in the war in Iraq) stopped Iran or N. Korea? Nope, and Saddam acted the same way and was more of a threat than any of those countries at the time we went in. This is why I still back up the whole deal. On comes along Kerry. Sure he knows both Iran and Korea is creating nukes. Do you really think he'll do anything but talk about it? Remember Iran got pummeled by Iraq in their last war. Obviously we go after the stronger of the two. This is what we did. But, from how Kerry talks he says he would have looked at Iran and Korea? Does this mean by this time he would have attacked them? Kerry thinks if he sent thousands into the mountains of Afganistan we'd find Binladin? Yeah, if he's even there and not in Pakistan or some other back ass country. If we did what Kerry said we wouldn't have found Binladin any sooner than we are now and it would have meant no shake up in the middle east. And yet Kerry says we are no safer than we were before? I haven't seen any bombs going off in the states just yet Johny boy. Besides I think no matter whos in office if they want us they'll eventually get us even if its on a smaller scale. Kerry would go into war with Iran and then take us out only to toss us over to North Korea only to take us out and toss us into Iran. Flip flop. Ok, you know I'm just kidding. He'd do what lots of the other nations are doing. NOTHING. No offense Roughy and I take none from you. Again I just disagree with who your planning on voting for. JSK

Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page ->

http://