PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Challenges Bush to a Debate


Brian
02-24-2003, 11:09 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/24/sprj.irq.saddam.debate/index.html

C Doody
02-24-2003, 11:54 PM
Bush should accept and kill Saddam their and than. Preventing War and geting rid of the real Threat.

Tuesday Weld
02-25-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Chad Doody
Bush should accept and kill Saddam their and than. Preventing War and geting rid of the real Threat.

I agree!:rock: :clap:

Brian
02-25-2003, 12:51 AM
Here's a better article.


Saddam challenges Bush to debate and indicates he won't destroy missiles




By Niko Price
ASSOCIATED PRESS
4:06 p.m., February 24, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq Saddam Hussein indicated on Monday that he does not intend to follow U.N. orders to destroy his Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and challenged President Bush to an internationally televised debate via satellite linkup.

In a three-hour interview with CBS anchor Dan Rather, the Iraqi leader said he envisioned a live debate with Bush along the lines of those in a U.S. presidential campaign, according to the network.

Rather reported on the interview during the evening newscast. CBS said it planned to broadcast excerpts on Tuesday and the entire interview on Wednesday.

Rather said that Saddam walked a little stiffly when he met with him but was calm and "unhurried" during the interview.

Regarding chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix's order that Iraq destroy its Al-Samoud 2 missiles, Rather quoted Saddam as saying: "Iraq is allowed to prepare proper missiles and we are committed to that."

Asked whether the Al-Samoud 2 missiles are "proper," Saddam was quoted as replying: "We do not have missiles that go beyond the prescribed range.

The order was issued after international experts determined the missile flew farther than the 93-mile limit set down by the United Nations in 1991. Iraq maintains some of the missiles overshot the limit because they were tested without warheads and guidance systems.

"This is not a serious issue," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said of the reported debate offer. "There is no debating his need to disarm."

Fleischer said Saddam's comments about the Al Samouds represented "open defiance" of the United Nations. "He refuses even to acknowledge that the weapons are prohibited," Fleischer said.

Iraq has until the end of the week to begin destroying the missiles, components and other related systems. If it fails to do so, that could give impetus to a draft U.N. resolution submitted Monday by the United States, Britain and Spain that would pave the way for war.

Iraq had suggested it was trying to persuade the United Nations to allow it to keep the missiles after technical modifications worked out in talks with U.N. technicians.

In New York, Blix said he was sending his chief deputy Demetrius Perricos to Baghdad to discuss the demand with Iraqi officials but that his order still stands.

"Well, we have set the date for the commencement of the destruction of these missiles and we expect that to be respected," Blix said. "There will be a discussion about the pace of the destruction and Mr. Perricos as my deputy, will be there for that purpose."

On Sunday, the reclusive Iraqi president met separately with Russian envoy Yevgeny Primakov, a former Soviet foreign minister and Russian prime minister, and Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney-general prominent in the global anti-war movement.

Saddam told Primakov he would cooperate completely with U.N. inspectors tasked with verifying that Iraq has rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, Russia's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"Saddam Hussein said that there will be no hindrances to the work of inspectors," the ministry said.

Clark came away with a similar impression, telling The Associated Press: "He's thinking he'll do anything that he reasonably can that is honorable and protective of the sovereignty of his people to prevent war."

But Clark, who said Saddam appeared "remarkably relaxed," also said the Iraqi president is convinced nothing he can do will prevent a U.S.-British attack because President Bush has already made up his mind.

"What he thinks is, no matter what Iraq's performance is, the president will attack," Clark said.

Earlier Monday, Fleischer said the destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles would not satisfy Bush. He said stockpiles of sarin and VX nerve agent were still missing.

"This is not about public relations. This is about protecting the lives of the American people," Fleischer said. "If Saddam Hussein destroys the missiles that he said he never had ... you've got to wonder what other weapons does he have?"

Iraq declared the existence of the Al Samoud 2s as a short range missile in its 12,000-page report to the United Nations in December.

A top adviser to Saddam, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, said Monday that Iraq was still drafting its response to the order that Iraq begin destroying the missiles by Saturday.

"There is an open dialogue between us and (the weapons inspectors) and we hope that it will be settled," he said.

Those comments implied that Iraq was holding out hope that the missiles could be modified to allow them to remain in Baghdad's arsenal, possibly for use against invading U.S.-led forces.

The 93-mile limit imposed after U.S.-led forces drove the Iraqi army from Kuwait means Iraq is permitted to have missiles that could reach neighboring Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria and Jordan but not Israel.

Earlier this month, Saddam gave his first Western television interview in more than a decade, speaking with a retired British lawmaker and peace activist, Tony Benn.

Saddam gave several interviews during the Gulf War in early 1991.

In one famous encounter, he spoke in a bungalow in Baghdad with Peter Arnett, CNN's correspondent in Iraq. Arnett quoted Saddam as saying he could not predict how long the war would last but promised "lots of blood will be shed on every side" and said he was confident Iraq would prevail. Iraq was routed in that war, which started after it invaded neighboring Kuwait.

Brad
02-25-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Chad Doody
Bush should accept and kill Saddam their and than. Preventing War and geting rid of the real Threat.

Yay murder! patriot:

C Doody
02-25-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by AKA


Yay murder! patriot:

Hey, After all that guys done to us, AND his own people. He deserves it.

Brad
02-25-2003, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Chad Doody


Hey, After all that guys done to us, AND his own people. He deserves it.

Whether or not he "deserves" it, one government murdering another government's leader is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Halex
02-25-2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by BJL
Clark came away with a similar impression, telling The Associated Press: "He's thinking he'll do anything that he reasonably can that is honorable and protective of the sovereignty of his people to prevent war."

But Clark, who said Saddam appeared "remarkably relaxed," also said the Iraqi president is convinced nothing he can do will prevent a U.S.-British attack because President Bush has already made up his mind.

"What he thinks is, no matter what Iraq's performance is, the president will attack," Clark said.

Let me get this straight. Saddam wants to prevent war and Bush has decided he wants to go to war. What a bonehead. :rolleyes:
What if it's true that Saddam has no weapons and Bush blows everyone in Iraq up? If Bush goes ahead with this war, I think he should be impeached.

UpstairsSteak
02-25-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Halex


Let me get this straight. Saddam wants to prevent war and Bush has decided he wants to go to war. What a bonehead. :rolleyes:
What if it's true that Saddam has no weapons and Bush blows everyone in Iraq up? If Bush goes ahead with this war, I think he should be impeached.
What if it's true that they have no weapons?? Do you not read the paper/internet or watch the news? Iraq has just confirmed that they have found a bomb capable of carrying chemical or biological agents and they are considering not destroying the Al Samoud missiles already found. Surface to surface and surface to air missiles were destroyed there TODAY! This is in addition to other weapons information that they have provided recently. That is just what's been found so far.
You might also look up impeachment while you're reading the news - the house of reps. alone has the power to suggest impeachment and (with a few stops along the way) then the Senate majority alone has the power to remove him from office.
I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't post anything more about this topic because some people are too "uninformed" to argue with but you've posted absolute nonsense on the topic. Some people have valid anti war arguments that maybe I don't agree with but they are well informed and they are opinions after all so they aren't right or wrong. You are not one of those people.

White_Daisy
02-25-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Chad Doody
Bush should accept and kill Saddam their and than. Preventing War and geting rid of the real Threat.

That might be his best option, though the one that won't happen. And it's true, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

I think getting rid of BOTH men will solve this world's problem.

White_Daisy
02-25-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by White_Daisy


That might be his best option, though the one that won't happen. And it's true, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

I think getting rid of BOTH men will solve this world's problem.

Yes, I'm quoting myself...

Let me rephrase that...getting rid of BOTH men will solve this world's current problem. We have too many others that won't be solved that way.

Kristina
02-25-2003, 09:02 PM
...

Fleet
02-25-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Halex
Let me get this straight. Saddam wants to prevent war and Bush has decided he wants to go to war.
You really believe what Saddam says. :lol:
Amazing how so many people believe a mass-murdering dictator rather than an honorable U.S. president.

Fleet
02-25-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak
I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't post anything more about this topic because some people are too "uninformed" to argue with but you've posted absolute nonsense on the topic.

Join the club. I've heard the most ridiculous things around here. Like Bush "rigging" the election or "stole" the election. Completely untrue. Again, it was Gore who tried to cheat (by trying to change the rules after an election).
Bush went strickly by the law. He went to the courts. He did not try to have deadlines extended.
Or another untrue claim... "Bush is rushing into war with Iraq." Then why have we not done anything to Iraq even well after one year after 9/11?

Kitt
02-25-2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


"Bush is rushing into war with Iraq." Then why have we not done anything to Iraq even well after one year after 9/11? Actually, we have. We bomb stuff in the no-fly zone all the time. Sanctions are still in place. We've threatened Iraq for months now. But, you asked, "why have we not done anything to Iraq even well after one year after 9/11?" Because Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. That's why.

Tuesday Weld
02-25-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


Join the club. I've heard the most ridiculous things around here. Like Bush "rigging" the election or "stole" the election. Completely untrue. Again, it was Gore who tried to cheat (by trying to change the rules after an election).
Bush went strickly by the law. He went to the courts. He did not try to have deadlines extended.
Or another untrue claim... "Bush is rushing into war with Iraq." Then why have we not done anything to Iraq even well after one year after 9/11?

Very true:rock:

UpstairsSteak
02-26-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


Join the club. I've heard the most ridiculous things around here. Like Bush "rigging" the election or "stole" the election. Completely untrue. Again, it was Gore who tried to cheat (by trying to change the rules after an election).
Bush went strickly by the law. He went to the courts. He did not try to have deadlines extended.
Or another untrue claim... "Bush is rushing into war with Iraq." Then why have we not done anything to Iraq even well after one year after 9/11?
Combine those remarks with the people who have reinvented American history on posts, suggested that Bush is doing this to avenge his father (that kind of thinking is beyond me especially since it was other countries warned the US against killing Hussein at the end of the Gulf war), those who dare to suggest that Hussein is peaceful and cares about his people, those who refuse to believe their is or could be a link between Bin Laden and Hussein (despite the fact that Hussein is the only real source of WMD for an expatriate like Bin Laden), those who seem to believe that supporting the President and our troops is supporting war and, finally, those who live in other countries that support Bush believe that their own government is so insignificant, so limp, so ineffectual that they have no culpability of their own in supporting action against Iraq. A well presented argument against action is interesting and perhaps even eye opening. Lying or inserting links or articles with little or no poster commentary over and over again is just garbage. I can find thousands of articles that are both pro and anti war. No one wants war! Unfortunately, there are times when it may be necessary.

Tuesday Weld
02-26-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak

Combine those remarks with the people who have reinvented American history on posts, suggested that Bush is doing this to avenge his father (that kind of thinking is beyond me especially since it was other countries warned the US against killing Hussein at the end of the Gulf war), those who dare to suggest that Hussein is peaceful and cares about his people, those who refuse to believe their is or could be a link between Bin Laden and Hussein (despite the fact that Hussein is the only real source of WMD for an expatriate like Bin Laden), those who seem to believe that supporting the President and our troops is supporting war and, finally, those who live in other countries that support Bush believe that their own government is so insignificant, so limp, so ineffectual that they have no culpability of their own in supporting action against Iraq. A well presented argument against action is interesting and perhaps even eye opening. Lying or inserting links or articles with little or no poster commentary over and over again is just garbage. I can find thousands of articles that are both pro and anti war. No one wants war! Unfortunately, there are times when it may be necessary.

I agree wholeheartedly:clap:

Kitt
02-26-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak

Combine those remarks with the people who have reinvented American history on posts, suggested that Bush is doing this to avenge his father (that kind of thinking is beyond me especially since it was other countries warned the US against killing Hussein at the end of the Gulf war), those who dare to suggest that Hussein is peaceful and cares about his people, those who refuse to believe their is or could be a link between Bin Laden and Hussein (despite the fact that Hussein is the only real source of WMD for an expatriate like Bin Laden), those who seem to believe that supporting the President and our troops is supporting war and, finally, those who live in other countries that support Bush believe that their own government is so insignificant, so limp, so ineffectual that they have no culpability of their own in supporting action against Iraq. A well presented argument against action is interesting and perhaps even eye opening. Lying or inserting links or articles with little or no poster commentary over and over again is just garbage. I can find thousands of articles that are both pro and anti war. No one wants war! Unfortunately, there are times when it may be necessary.
{Reinevented American History?}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Such as?
____________________________________________
(Those who dare to suggest that Hussein is peaceful and cares about his people.}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I haven't heard that one. If anyone said that they certainly don't represent the anti-war people so why use it in your argument?
____________________________________________
{Other countries warned against killing Hussein?}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
President Geroge Bush (The1st) to this day stands by HIS decision not to go after Hussein in the Gulf war.
______________________________________________
{Those who don't believe the link between Hussein and Bin laden. Despite Hussein being the ONLY source of WMD for Bin Laden?}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The link has not been made--plain and simple.
Why you say that Hussein is the only possible source of WMD for Bin Laden, I don't know.
______________________________________________
{People in other countries are inefectual and have no culpability in supporting (military) action against Iraq?}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The millions throughout the world who don't support our governments policy - or the very few other governments who support our policy - genuinely don't support a war on Iraq. They don't consider themselves insignicant--quite the contrary. That's why they are speaking out.
_______________________________________________
{No one wants war! Unfortunately, there are times when it may be necessary.}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not so sure that 'no one wants war'.
This is one of the times when it may not be necessary

UpstairsSteak
02-26-2003, 01:36 PM
1. Posts that claim the US has never come to the aid of other countries. One post had the US coming in at the end of WWII. Several posts have the US being responsible for starving the people of Iraq. Saddam is responsible for the starving people of Iraq.
2. Our coalition partners and the UN did not agree to the pursuit of Hussein at the end of the Gulf war. The US would have been on it's own and faced serious consequences for doing so, including the risk to the region. This includes the potential for Hussein's son taking over Iraq (even his own father has tried to kill him several times).
3a. You have manipulated the first part of my statement for your own needs, my statement was "Is or could be a link". This again is opinion. My opinion is that it has been proven, it is more likely than not and that there are people who have studied Iraq and the Middle East for decades and I don't think my position as an IT Manager qualifies me to have a better assessment of the situation.
3b. What other Muslim dictators have used chemical weapons on themselves and other nations, have weapons that disperse them (you've seen the film of the tests they've conducted) and have pursued the components of nuclear weapons. I use the term "only real source" because both men have similar objectives for the Middle East.
4. A gross misrepresentation of my original statement. Please re-read. My statement was directed at those who seem to think that their own government is at the mercy of the will of the US.
5. Maybe so, however, I don't know anyone that wants war and I don't pretend that being the president of the United States involves nothing more than ego and a coin flip to send our young women and men to war.
If you're going to quote me have the courtesy to quote me accurately. If there is a statement you don't understand try reading it several times.

Brad
02-26-2003, 01:49 PM
Once again (and this time, read it).

A Very American Coup: "Stupid White Men," Chapter One

By Michael Moore

THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE WAS INTERCEPTED BY U.N. FORCES ON 9/1/01, AT 0600 HOURS, FROM SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT:

I am a citizen of the United States of America. Our government has been overthrown. Our elected President has been exiled. Old white men wielding martinis and wearing dickies have occupied our nation's capital.

We are under siege. We are the United States Government-in-Exile.

Our numbers are not insignificant. There are over 154 million adults among us, and 80 million children. That's 234 million people who did not vote for, and are not represented by, the regime that has placed itself in power.

Al Gore is the elected President of the United States. He received 539,898 more votes than George W. Bush. But he does not sit tonight in the Oval Office. Instead our elected President roams the country without purpose or mission, surfacing only to lecture college students and replenish his stash of Little Debbie's Snack Cakes.

Al Gore won. Al Gore, President-in-Exile. Long live El Presidente Albertooooooo Gorrrrrrrrrrre!

So who, then is the man that now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I'll tell you who:

He is George W. Bush, "President" of the United States. The Thief-in-Chief.

It used to be that politicians would wait until they were in office before they became crooks. This one came prepackaged. Now he is a trespasser on federal land, a squatter in the Oval Office. If I told you this was Guatemala, you'd believe it in a heartbeat, no matter what your political stripe. But because this coup was wrapped in an American flag, delivered in your choice of red, white, or blue, those responsible believe they're going to get away with it.

That's why, on behalf of 234 million Americans held hostage, I have requested that NATO do what it did in Bosnia and Kosovo, what America did in Haiti, what Lee Marvin did in The Dirty Dozen:

Send in the Marines! Launch the SCUD missiles! Bring us the head of Antonin Scalia!

I have sent a personal request to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to hear our plea. We are no longer able to govern ourselves or to hold free and fair elections. We need U.N. observers, U.N. troops, U.N. resolutions!

Dammit, we need Jimmy Carter!

We are now finally no better than a backwater banana republic. We are asking ourselves why any of us should bother to get up in the morning to work our asses off to produce goods and services that only serve to make the junta and its cohorts in Corporate America (a separate, autonomous fiefdom within the United States that has been allowed to run on its own for some time) even richer. Why should we pay our taxes to finance their coup? Can we ever again send our sons off into battle to give their lives defending "our way of life"--when all that really means is the lifestyle of the gray old men holed up in the headquarters they seized by the Potomac?

Oh JesusMaryAndJoseph, I can't take it! Somebody pass me the universal remote! I need to switch back to the fairy tale that I was a citizen in a democracy with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happy Meals. The story I was told as a child said that I mattered, that I was equal to every one of my fellow citizens--and that not a single one of us was to be treated differently or unfairly, that no one was to wield power over others without their consent. The will of the people. America the Beautiful. Land that I love. Twilight's . . . last . . . gleaming. Oh, say, can you see--are the Belgian peacekeepers on their way? Hurry!

The coup began long before the shenanigans on Election Day 2000. In the summer of 1999 Katherine Harris, an honorary Stupid White Man who was both George W. Bush's presidential campaign cochairwoman and the Florida secretary of state in charge of elections, paid $4 million to Database Technologies to go through Florida's voter rolls and remove anyone "suspected" of being a former felon. She did so with the blessing of the governor of Florida, George W.'s brother Jeb Bush--whose own wife was caught by immigration officials trying to sneak $19,000 worth of jewelry into the country without declaring and paying tax on it . . . a felony in its own right. But hey, this is America. We don't prosecute felons if they're rich or married to a governing Bush.

The law states that ex-felons cannot vote in Florida. And sadly (thought I'm confident that Florida's justice system was always unimpeachably fair), that means 31 percent of all black men in Florida are prohibited from voting because they have a felony on their record. Harris and Bush knew that removing the names of ex-felons from the voter rolls would keep thousands of black citizens out of the voting booth.

Black Floridians, overwhelmingly, are Democrats--and sure enough, Al Gore received the votes of more than 90 percent of them on November 7, 2000.

That is, 90 percent of those who were allowed to vote.

In what appears to be a mass fraud committed by the state of Florida, Bush, Harris, and company not only removed thousands of black felons from the roles. they also removed thousands of black citizens who had never committed a crime in their lives--along with thousands of eligible voters who had committed only misdemeanors.

How did this happen? Harris's office told Database--a firm with strong Republican ties--to cast as wide a net as possible to get rid of these voters. Her minions instructed the company to include even people with "similar" names to those of the actual felons. They insisted Database check people with the same birth dates as known felons, or similar Social Security numbers; an 80 percent match of relevant information, the election office instructed, was sufficient for Database to add a voter to the ineligible list.

These orders were shocking, even to Bush-friendly Database. That would mean that thousands of legitimate voters might be barred from voting on Election Day just because they had a name that sounded like someone else's, or shared a birthday with some unknown bank robber. Marlene Thorogood, the Database project manager, sent an E-mail to Emmett "Bucky" Mitchell, a lawyer for Katherine Harris's election division, warning him that "Unfortunately, programming in this fashion may supply you with false positives," or misidentifications.

Never mind that, said ol' Bucky. His response: "Obviously, we want to capture more names that possibly aren't matches and let [county election] supervisors make a final determination rather than exclude certain matches altogether."

Database did as they were told. And before long 173,000 registered voters in Florida were permanently wiped off the voter rolls. In Miami-Dade, Florida's largest county, 66 percent of the voters who were removed were black. In Tampa's county, 54 percent of those who would be denied the right to vote on November 7, 2000, were black.

But culling names from Florida's records alone was not enough for Harris and her department. Eight thousand additional Floridians were thrown off the voting rolls because Database used a false list supplied by another state, a state which claimed that all the names on the list were former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida.

It turns out that the felons on the list had served their time and had all their voting privileges reinstated. And there were others on the list who had committed only misdemeanors--such as parking violations or littering. What state was it that offered Jeb and George a helping hand by sending this bogus list to Florida?

Texas.

This entire incident stuck to the high heavens, but the American media ignored it. It took the British Broadcasting Corporation to dig deep into this story, running fifteen-minute segments on its prime-time news program revealing all the sordid details and laying responsibility for the scam right at the doorstep of Governor Jeb Bush. It's a sad day when we have to look to a country 5,000 miles away to find out the truth about our own elections. (Eventually the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post picked up the story, but it received little attention.)

This assault on the voting rights of minorities was so widespread in Florida that it even affected people like Linda Howell. Linda received a letter informing her that she was a felon--and therefore advising her not to bother showing up on Election Day, because she would be barred from voting. The only problem was, Linda Howell wasn't a felon--in fact, she was the elections supervisor of Madison County, Florida! She and other local election officials tried to get the state to rectify the problem, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. They were told that everyone who complained about being prevented from voting should submit themselves for fingerprinting--and then let the state determine whether or not they were felons.

On November 7, 2000, as black Floridians flocked to the polls in record numbers, many were met at the ballot boxes with a blunt rebuke: "You cannot vote." In a number of precincts in Florida's inter cities, the polling locations were heavily fortified with police to block anyone on Katherine and Jeb's "felons list" from voting. Hundreds of law-abiding citizens looking to exercise their constitutional right to vote, mostly in black and Hispanic communities, were sent away--and threatened with arrest if they protested.

George W. Bush would officially be credited with receiving 537 more votes than Al Gore in Florida. Is it safe to assume that the thousands of registered black and Hispanic voters barred from the polls might have made the difference if they had been allowed to vote--and cost Bush the election? Without a doubt.

On election night, after the polls closed, there was much confusion over what was happening with the counting of the votes in Florida. Finally a decision was made by the man in charge of the election night desk for the Fox News Channel. He decided that Fox should go on the air and declare that Bush had won Florida and thus the election. And that's what happened. Fox formally declared Bush the winner.

But down in Tallahassee, the counting of the votes had not yet been completed; in fact, the Associated Press insisted it was still too close to call, and refused to follow Fox's lead.

Not so the other networks. They ran like lemmings after Fox made the call, afraid that they would be seen as slow or out of the loop--even though their own news reporters on the ground were insisting that it was too early to call the election. But who needs reporters when you're playing follow the leader--the leader, in this case, being John Ellis, the man in charge of Fox's election coverage. Who is John Ellis?

He's a first cousin of George W. and Jeb Bush.

Once Ellis made the call and everyone followed suit, there was no going back--and nothing was more psychologically devastating for Gore's changes of winning than the sudden perception that HE was being the spoiler by asking for recounts, withdrawing his concession of defeat, tying up the courts with lawyers and lawsuits. The truth is that during all of this, Gore actually was ahead--he had the most votes--but that was never how the news media played it.

The one moment from the election night I will never forget came earlier in the evening, after the networks had first--correctly--projected the state of Florida for Gore. The cameras cut to a hotel room in Texas. There sat George W. with his father, the former President, and his mother, Barbara. The old man appeared cool as a cucumber, even though it looked like curtains for Sonny. A reporter asked young Bush what he thought about the outcome.

"I'm not . . . conceding anything in Florida," Junior piped up, semicoherently. "I know you've all the projections, but people are actually counting the votes. . . . The networks called this thing awfully earlier and people are actually counting the votes have different perspective so . . ." It was an odd moment in that crazy night of election result coverage. The Bushes, with their relaxed smiles, looked like a family of cats that had just wolfed down a bunch of canaries--as if they knew something we didn't.

They did. They knew Jeb and Katherine had done their job months earlier. They knew cousin John was holding down the fort at Fox election central. And if all else failed, there was always that team Poppy could count on: the United States Supreme Court.

As we all know, that's exactly what happened for the next thirty-six days. The forces of the Empire struck back, and they did so without mercy. While Gore was stupidly concentrating on getting recounts in a few counties, the Bush team was going after the holy grail--the overseas absentee ballots. Many of these ballots would come from the military, which typically votes Republican, and would finally give Bush the lead that denying the vote to thousands of blacks and Jewish grandmothers hadn't.

Gore knew this, and tried to make sure the ballots underwent maximum scrutiny before they could be counted. Sure, this ran contrary to the "let every vote be counted" plea he'd made when calling for recounts. But he also had Florida law, which is pretty clear about this, on his side. It states that overseas absentee ballots can only be counted if they were cast and signed on or before election day, and mailed and postmarked from another country by election day.

But while Jim Baker was chanting his mantra--"it is not fair to change the rules and standards governing the counting or recounting of votes after it appears that one side has concluded that is the only way to get the votes it needs"--he and his operative were doing just that.

A July 2001 investigation by the New York Times showed that of the 2,490 overseas ballots that ended up being included in the certified election results, 680 were considered flawed and questionable. Bush got the overseas vote by a ratio of 4 to 5. By that percentage, 544 of the votes that went to Bush should have been thrown out. Got the math? Suddenly Bush's "winning margin" of 537 votes is down to a chilly negative 7.

So how did all these votes end up being counted for Bush? Within hours of the election, the Bush campaign had launched their attack. The first step was to make sure that as many ballots got in as possible. Republican operatives sent out frantic E-mails to navy ships asking them to dig up any ballots that might be hanging around. They even put in a call to Clinton Defense Secretary William S. Cohen (a Republican) to ask him to put pressure on the military outposts. He declined, but it didn't matter: thousands of votes poured in--even some that were signed after election day.

Now all they had to do was make sure that as many of these votes as possible went to W. And so the real thievery began.

According to the Times, Katherine Harris had planned to send out a memo to her canvassing boards clarifying the procedure for counting overseas ballots. Included in this memo was a reminder that state law required all ballots to have been "postmarked or signed and dated" by election day. When it was clear that George's lead was rapidly shrinking, she decided not to send the memo. Instead she sent out a note that said ballots "are not required to be postmarked on or prior to" election day. Hmmm.

What caused her to change her mind--and the law? We may never know, since the computer records that showed what happened have been mysteriously erased--a possible violation of Florida's Sunshine Laws. Now, long after the horse has left the barn, Harris has turned over her hard drives to the media for inspection--but only after her own computer consultant "looked them over." This is a woman who is now planning to run for Congress. Can these people get any more shameless?

Armed with the blessing of the secretary of state, the Republicans launched an all-out campaign to make sure as broad a standard as possible was used in counting these absentee ballots. "Equal representation," Florida style, meant that the rules governing acceptance or denial of your absentee ballot depended on what county you were from. Perhaps that would explain why in counties where Gore won, only 2 out of 10 absentee ballots with unclear postmarks were counted; in Bush counties, predictably, 6 out of 10 such ballots made it into the final tally.

When the Democrats complained that ballots that didn't follow the rules shouldn't be counted, the Republicans launched a fierce public relations campaign to make it look as if the Democrats were trying to scare the men and women who were risking their lives for our country. A Republican city council member from Naples was typical in his hyperbole: "If they catch a bullet, or fragment from a terrorist bomb, that fragment does not have any postmark or registration of any kind." Republican Congressman Steve Buyer from Indiana even obtained (possibly illegally) the phone numbers and E-mail addresses of military personnel so that he could gather tales of ballot-denial woe to garner sympathy for "our fighting men and women." Even Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf weighed in with the reflection that "it's a very sad day in our country" when Democrats start harassing military voters.

All the pressure worked on the wimpy, spineless Democrats. They choked. While appearing on Meet the Press, vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman argued that the Democrats should stop creating a fuss and not be bothered that hundreds of military ballots were being counted, just because they weren't "postmarked."

Lieberman, like so many other among this new breed of Democrats, should have fought for principle instead of worrying about image. Why? Well, as the New York Times found out:

* 344 ballots had no evidence that they were cast on or before Election Day

* 183 ballots were postmarked in the United States

* 96 ballots lacked appropriate witness information

* 169 ballots came from unregistered voters, had envelopes that weren't signed properly, or came from people who hadn't requested a ballot

* 5 ballots came after the November 17 deadline

* 19 overseas voters voted on two ballots--and had both counted

All of these ballots violated Florida law, yet they all were counted. Can I say this any louder? Bush didn't win! Gore did. It has nothing to do with chads, or even the blatant repression of Florida's African-American community and their right to vote. It was a simple matter of breaking the law, all documented, all the evidence sitting there in Tallahassee, clearly marked without question--and all done purposefully to throw the election to Bush.

On the morning of Saturday, December 9, 2000, the Supreme Court got word that the recounts in Florida, in spite of everything the Bush camp had done to fix the elections, were going in favor of Al Gore. By 2 P.M., the unofficial tally showed that Gore was catching up to Bush--"only 66 votes down, and gaining!" as one breathless newscaster put it. It was critical to Bush that the word "Al Gore is in the lead" never be heard on American television: With only moments to spare, they did what they had to do. At 2:45 that afternoon, the Supreme Court stopped the recount.

On the Court sat Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor and Nixon appointee Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Both in their seventies, they were hoping to retire under a Republican administration so that their replacements would share their conservative ideology. On election night, O'Connor was heard lamenting at a party in Georgetown that she couldn't hold out another four--or eight--years. Junior Bush was their only hope for securing a contented retirement in their home state of Arizona.

Meanwhile, two other justices with extremist right-wing viewpoints found themselves with a conflict of interest. Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, worked at the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank in D.C.; now, she has just been hired by George W. Bush to help recruit people to serve in his impending administration. And Eugene Scalia, the son of Justice Antonin Scalia, was a lawyer with the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher--the very law firm representing Bush before the Supreme Court!

But neither Thomas nor Scalia saw any conflict of interest, and they refused to remove themselves from the case. In fact, when the Court convened later, it was Scalia who issued the now-infamous explanation of why the ballot-counting had to be halted: "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [Bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election." In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and they come out in Gore's favor, and Gore wins, well, that will impair Bush's ability to govern once we install him as "President."

True enough: if the ballots proved that Gore had won--which they eventually would--then I guess that would tend to dampen the country's feeling of legitimacy about a Bush presidency.

In their decision, the Court used the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--the same amendment they've loudly disclaimed when used by blacks over the years to halt discrimination based on race--to justify the theft. Because of the variation in the recount methods, they argued, voters in each district weren't being treated equally, and therefore their rights were being violated. (Funny, but only the dissenters on the court mentioned that the antiquated voting equipment found disproportionately in poor and minority Florida neighborhoods had created an entirely different--and far more disturbing--inequality in the system.)

Eventually the press got around to conducting their own recounts of the votes, doing their best to spin the jumbled ball of public confusion into orbit. The headline in the Miami Herald read: "Review of ballots finds Bush's win would have endured manual recount." But if you read the entire story, buried deep inside was this paragraph: "Bush's lead would have vanished if the recount had been conducted under the severely restrictive standards that some Republicans advocated. . . . The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote . . . [Under] the most inclusive standard [that is, a standard that sought to include the true will of ALL the people] Gore would have won by 393 votes. . . . On ballots that [suggested] a fault with either the machine or the voter's ability to use it . . . Gore would have won by 299 votes."

I did not vote for Al Gore, but I think any fair person would conclude that the will of the people in Florida clearly went his way. Whether it was the counting debacle or the exclusion of thousands of black citizens that corrupted the results, there is little doubt that Gore was the people's choice.

There was perhaps no worse example of the wholesale denial of the right of each voter to have his vote properly counted than in Palm Beach County. Much has been made of the "butterfly ballot," which made it easy to vote for the wrong person because candidate's names and punch holes were crammed unevenly onto facing pages. The media went out of its way to point out that the ballot was designed by one of the county's election commissioners, a Democrat, and then approved by the majority-Democrat local board. What right did Gore have to complain if his own party was responsible for the faulty design of the ballot?

Had anyone bothered to check, they would have discovered that one of the two "Democrats" on the committee--the ballot's designer, Theresa LePore--had actually been a registered Republican. She switched her affiliation to Democrat in 1996; then, just three months after Bush seized office, she resigned as a Democrat and switched her voter registration to Independent. No one in the press bothered to question what was really going on.

Thus, the Palm Beach Post estimates that more than 3,000 voters, mostly elderly and Jewish, who thought they were voting for Al Gore ended up punching the wrong hole--for Pat Buchanan. Even Buchanan went on TV to declare that no way in hell did those Jewish voters vote for him.

* * *

On January 20, 2001, George W. Bush, positioned with his junta on the Capitol steps, stood in front of Chief Justice Rehnquist and took the oath that Presidents take at their inaugurations. A cold and steady rain fell over Washington throughout the day. Dark clouds obscured the sun, and the parade route, usually jammed with tens of thousands of citizens all the way to the White House, was eerily bare.

Except for the 20,000 protesters who jeered Bush every inch of the way. Holding signs denouncing Bush for stealing the election, the rain-soaked demonstrators were the conscience of the nation. Bush's limousine could not avoid them. Instead of cheering crowds of supporters, he was greeted by good people moved to remind this illegitimate ruler that he did not win the election--and that the people would never forget.

At the traditional point where Presidents since Jimmy Carter have stopped their limos and emerged to walk the last four blocks (as a reminder that we are a nation ruled not by kings but by, uh, equals), Bush's triple-armored black car with its dark-tinted windows--favored by mobsters everywhere--came to an abrupt halt. The crowd grew louder--"HAIL TO THE THIEF!" You could see the Secret Service and Bush's advisers huddling in the freezing rain, trying to figure out what to do. If Bush got out and walked, he would be booed, shouted down, and pelted with eggs the rest of the way. The limousine sat there for what must have been five minutes. The rain poured. Eggs and tomatoes hit the car. The protesters dared Bush to step out and face them.

Then, suddenly, the President's car bolted and tore down the street. The decision had been made--hit the gas and get past this rabble as quickly as possible. The Secret Service agents running beside the limo were left behind, the car's tires splashing dirty rain from the street onto the men who were there to protect its passenger. It might have been the finest thing I have ever witnessed in Washington, D.C.--a pretender to the American throne forced to turn tail and run from thousands of American citizens armed only with the Truth and the ingredients of a decent omelet.

Once the American Lie put the pedal to the metal, it ran for cover to the bulletproof reviewing stand in front of the White House. Many of Bush's family and invited guests had already left to get dry. but George stood there and waved proudly at the marching bands, their instruments disabled by the rain, the long parade of floats wilted and crumbled by the time they arrived at the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue. Every so often a lucky convertible passed by, carrying the few dampened celebrities Bush had convinced to honor him--Kelsey Grammer, Drew Carey, Chuck Norris. By parade's end Bush stood alone in the stands, drenched, even his parents having deserted him for shelter. It was a pathetic sight--the poor little rich boy who came in second showing up to claim his prize, with no one there to cheer him on.

Sadder still were the 154 million of us who had not voted for him. In a nation of 200 million voters, I would say we constitute the majority.

And yet what could George W. have been thinking, other than "What, me worry?" There were plenty of hired hands to be installed in the White House, pulling the strings for their puppet President. With Daddy's old buddies called back to D.C. to lend a hand, Georgie could sit back and tell the public he was "delegating." The puppetmasters moved in, and the business of running the world could easily be left to them.

And who are these fine, patriotic pillars of the Bush junta? They represent the modest and selfless ranks of corporate America, and they are listed below, for easy reference, to help the United Nations and NATO forces round them up when they arrive to restore order and democracy. Grateful citizens will line the boulevards and avenues and cheer their arrival.

Personally, I will settle for nothing less than multiple show trials and their immediate deportation to a real banana republic. God Bless America!

Kitt
02-26-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak
1. Posts that claim the US has never come to the aid of other countries. One post had the US coming in at the end of WWII. Several posts have the US being responsible for starving the people of Iraq. Saddam is responsible for the starving people of Iraq.
2. Our coalition partners and the UN did not agree to the pursuit of Hussein at the end of the Gulf war. The US would have been on it's own and faced serious consequences for doing so, including the risk to the region. This includes the potential for Hussein's son taking over Iraq (even his own father has tried to kill him several times).
3a. You have manipulated the first part of my statement for your own needs, my statement was "Is or could be a link". This again is opinion. My opinion is that it has been proven, it is more likely than not and that there are people who have studied Iraq and the Middle East for decades and I don't think my position as an IT Manager qualifies me to have a better assessment of the situation.
3b. What other Muslim dictators have used chemical weapons on themselves and other nations, have weapons that disperse them (you've seen the film of the tests they've conducted) and have pursued the components of nuclear weapons. I use the term "only real source" because both men have similar objectives for the Middle East.
4. A gross misrepresentation of my original statement. Please re-read. My statement was directed at those who seem to think that their own government is at the mercy of the will of the US.
5. Maybe so, however, I don't know anyone that wants war and I don't pretend that being the president of the United States involves nothing more than ego and a coin flip to send our young women and men to war.
If you're going to quote me have the courtesy to quote me accurately. If there is a statement you don't understand try reading it several times. Your're backtracking.
Does Bush 1 stand by his decision or not?

You express an OPINION that there is a link but those who disagee "DARE" to express and opinion that there is not?

Russia, China, Pakistan etc., are all viable possibilites for Bin Laden and WMD's. So your "only" statement is not credible.

You're right, I don't get your statement about culpability, insignicant, limp and ineffectual. I don't know what you meant by that and I don't know why you said it. But if that wasn't an attempt to mock the sincerity of those millions in other countries, and the countries themselves, I don't know what else you could call it.

As for "courtesy" I quoted your entire statement for anyone to read. Then I paraphrased, and inspite of this reply of yours, I'd say I paraphrased accurately.

UpstairsSteak
02-26-2003, 05:31 PM
Your reply makes no sense. You've not addressed anything I've said in a legitimate fashion.

Backtracking? On which point? My point was that Bush is not doing this to avenge his father. How is it possible that you misinterpreted this point except by choice?

Again, I wrote "is or could be a link" and IMO there is a link. Which word were you hung up on? If I only valued my own opinion I would have written "is a link" and left it at that.

I used the term "only real source" because the US has relations with Russia, China and Pakistan and Hussein and Bin Laden have similar goals in the region. I did not say "only source". Again, not sure which word you didn't get.

Now here is where you really get on the little yellow bus. My comment was that people from other countries must believe THAT THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT is limp and ineffectual if they believe that THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT submits only to the will of George Bush. I don't in any way feel that about the people of other countries and to suggest so is just your way of attempting to stir things up. Please have someone help you read that again.

You paraphrase to incite trouble, no question. Why insinuate that I am insulting people from other countries when, if read correctly, that is absolutely not true.

I appreciate your attempt to start trouble but you've got to do better than this.

Kitt
02-26-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak

Combine those remarks with the people who have reinvented American history on posts, suggested that Bush is doing this to avenge his father (that kind of thinking is beyond me especially since it was other countries warned the US against killing Hussein at the end of the Gulf war), those who dare to suggest that Hussein is peaceful and cares about his people, those who refuse to believe their is or could be a link between Bin Laden and Hussein (despite the fact that Hussein is the only real source of WMD for an expatriate like Bin Laden), those who seem to believe that supporting the President and our troops is supporting war and, finally, those who live in other countries that support Bush believe that their own government is so insignificant, so limp, so ineffectual that they have no culpability of their own in supporting action against Iraq. A well presented argument against action is interesting and perhaps even eye opening. Lying or inserting links or articles with little or no poster commentary over and over again is just garbage. I can find thousands of articles that are both pro and anti war. No one wants war! Unfortunately, there are times when it may be necessary. I'll tell you what. Reread it yourself.

1. Reinvented American history..." Does that include not fessing up to our total cahoots with Saddam Hussein when he used biological weapons on people?

2.Those who DARE to suggest.

3. Those who REFUSE to believe.

4.Hussein is the ONLY REAL SOURCE..." bullcrap

5. Those who live in other countries that support Bush believe that their own government is so insignificant, so limp, so ineffectual ..."
Insults, assumptions and more insults.

6. Lying or inserting links or articles with little or no poster commentary..."
Meaning what? Who is lying? Why is poster commentary needed if the writer of the link says it all?

Quit tryiing to make it seem as though I don't get what you're saying.

UpstairsSteak
02-26-2003, 06:46 PM
You're all over the place! Try to follow:
If point 1 is another attempt to paraphrase I'll save you the trouble. In the post I believe you are referring to, I understand that the US helped Iraq with their initial program - I didn't like the implication that it was ONLY the US that was involved. I also explained the specifics of my comments, I won't again.

I use the word "DARE" because when you care about people, you generally don't gas them.

I use the word "REFUSE" because I can't fathom someone not even entertaining the thought that they may be linked - you know, not being open minded.

"ONLY REAL SOURCE", again look each word up in the dictionary if you're having trouble.

How is it an insult? If I lived in another country I would be angry at my own government if I believed they were nothing more than puppets of the US government sending my people to war.

Lying we addressed in the first point and was not part of my link/article point. You are sore about this point because it hits close to home. Again, I can find any article on the internet that suits my opinion on any subject, it doesn't make it any argument here more or less valid.

You obviously DO NOT get what I'm saying. Your replies are all over the place, serving your only interest - to cause trouble.

Kitt
02-26-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak

I use the word "DARE" because when you care about people, you
"ONLY REAL SOURCE", again look each word up in the dictionary if you're having trouble.


Lying we addressed in the first point and was not part of my link/article point. You are sore about this point because it hits close to home. Again, I can find any article on the internet that suits my opinion on any subject, it doesn't make it any argument here more or less valid.

You obviously DO NOT get what I'm saying. Your replies are all over the place, serving your only interest - to cause trouble. I'm not lying now and I haven't lied one single time in the months of discussion about this aubject. I don't need a dictionary to understand your "only real source" comment, as if that little word is supposed to give you wiggle room. I see what you're saying quite clearly. You're saying that anyone who believes that going to war with Iraq is a bad idea is stupid, and lies to make their case. And that I personally would bother to waste my time lying and f'g around with you for the purpose of, as you said, "serving your only interest - to cause trouble." You say I'm stupid, I lie, I'm a trouble maker and then you claim to be engaging in a good-faith conversation on your part. I can't swallow that and who could blame me?

Fleet
02-26-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Actually, we have. We bomb stuff in the no-fly zone all the time. Sanctions are still in place. We've threatened Iraq for months now.

But, you asked, "why have we not done anything to Iraq even well after one year after 9/11?" Because Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. That's why.

1. A few bombings and sanctions is not war.

2. Time will prove you wrong. (How do you know Iraq was not responsible- do you have all of the classified information and evidence? Of course you don't.)

UpstairsSteak
02-27-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by kittflynn
I'm not lying now and I haven't lied one single time in the months of discussion about this aubject. I don't need a dictionary to understand your "only real source" comment, as if that little word is supposed to give you wiggle room. I see what you're saying quite clearly. You're saying that anyone who believes that going to war with Iraq is a bad idea is stupid, and lies to make their case. And that I personally would bother to waste my time lying and f'g around with you for the purpose of, as you said, "serving your only interest - to cause trouble." You say I'm stupid, I lie, I'm a trouble maker and then you claim to be engaging in a good-faith conversation on your part. I can't swallow that and who could blame me?
Where did I call you a liar? You must need a dictionary if you still fail to see what I'm saying. I simply addressed certain issues that have come up in several posts. I state clearly that some people have intriguing arguments while others post nonsense. You've done your best to cause trouble while I've addressed everything you've said point by point. You've called yourself stupid and you've called yourself a liar - I've never called you either, I didn't have to. If saying those things makes it easier for you to bow out of this that's fine with me. It's what I expected.

Kitt
02-27-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak

Where did I call you a liar? You must need a dictionary if you still fail to see what I'm saying. I simply addressed certain issues that have come up in several posts. I state clearly that some people have intriguing arguments while others post nonsense. You've done your best to cause trouble while I've addressed everything you've said point by point. You've called yourself stupid and you've called yourself a liar - I've never called you either, I didn't have to. If saying those things makes it easier for you to bow out of this that's fine with me. It's what I expected. Im not bowing out. What makes you say that? You must think that I believe your insults. I haven't called myself a liar or stupid. Take a look at what you just posted. I described your attitude in my other posts based on what you'd written in your other posts. They were all similar to this post in tone.This last post of yours, like the others, is completely derogatory towards me and all 'ain't you just the good-smart guy' towards you. For example:... 'you state clearly',... but 'I've done my best to cause trouble'. And, 'I need a dictionary', once again, to understand your wording. Well, as I told you in my last post, I disagree--to say the least. To say that my intention is to cause trouble is to say that I am a lier. To say that I need a dictionary to 'follow along with the smart boy' is to say that I am stupid.You said those things not me. Insults run all through each one of your posts.

UpstairsSteak
02-27-2003, 11:40 AM
I say you intend to cause trouble because you continue to choose to misinterpret what I'm saying under the guise of your ability to read between the lines. You also clearly tried to cause trouble and lure others into this argument by accusing me of calling people from other countries names which I clearly did not. Remember, my initial comments had to do with my frustration over certain posts. You jumped into this and questioned what I wrote in addition to twisting my words into insults against others. I have tried to address each subsequent post point by point but since that doesn't suit your interest, you've derailed the argument.
You've now completely abandoned the argument of war and tried to make a "poor me" post. Sorry but I won't indulge you in your self-pity.
Also, just to maintain accuracy, your comments should read 'smart woman'.

Kitt
02-27-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak
I say you intend to cause trouble because you continue to choose to misinterpret what I'm saying under the guise of your ability to read between the lines. You also clearly tried to cause trouble and lure others into this argument by accusing me of calling people from other countries names which I clearly did not. Remember, my initial comments had to do with my frustration over certain posts. You jumped into this and questioned what I wrote in addition to twisting my words into insults against others. I have tried to address each subsequent post point by point but since that doesn't suit your interest, you've derailed the argument.
You've now completely abandoned the argument of war and tried to make a "poor me" post. Sorry but I won't indulge you in your self-pity.
Also, just to maintain accuracy, your comments should read 'smart woman'. Your very first reply to me was loaded with your take on my inability to undersand what you had said. You keep saying that you have been point for point and that I've been doing nothing but trying to stir trouble. Again, smart woman, bullcrap. Im not feeling sorry for myself I'm simply standing up for myself and telling you that you are indeed twisting the jist of your statements and mine. And you do it with insult after insult. Then you proceed to claim innocence. You even ended this last post with one more insult based on a your fantasy of what is going on here. You won't indulge in my self pity, you said. A self pity that you declared as such. You pretend to speak for me as well as yourself, I guess.

UpstairsSteak
02-27-2003, 09:32 PM
You're posts are getting more bizarre by the minute - they're just rambling and scattered, not to mention paranoid. Your last post was just a collection of fractured thoughts. This topic is nothing for you to have a breakdown over. I posted comments about other posts on the subject of Iraq, I'm not interested in you or this crazy hissy fit of yours. If you're not emotionally equiped to "argue" about topics and stick to them, don't do it. If this is you standing up for yourself I must say it's pretty comical.

I'm losing interest in this (as I'm sure everyone else is) so pull yourself together - it's just a sitcom chat board.

Kitt
02-28-2003, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by UpstairsSteak
You're posts are getting more bizarre by the minute - they're just rambling and scattered, not to mention paranoid. Your last post was just a collection of fractured thoughts. This topic is nothing for you to have a breakdown over. I posted comments about other posts on the subject of Iraq, I'm not interested in you or this crazy hissy fit of yours. If you're not emotionally equiped to "argue" about topics and stick to them, don't do it. If this is you standing up for yourself I must say it's pretty comical.

I'm losing interest in this (as I'm sure everyone else is) so pull yourself together - it's just a sitcom chat board. I'll do as I please without advise and rediculous phycoanalytical BS from you. Your attitude reminds me of what Bill Maher said the other night to Ann Coulter: "You just make s*** up. That's what you do! You just make s*** up!"