[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires

Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … "

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War

Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile

Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation)

France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies

Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief

SCOTUS asked to review if Illinois can keep counting mail-in ballots 2 weeks after election day

The Real Reason Government Workers Are Panicking About ElonÂ’s New Tracking System

THEY DON'T CARE ANYMORE!

Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV

Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

"Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities

Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It?

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source: Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 30668
Comments: 394

British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-127) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#128. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#125)

you said there were photos of the bullet hole. which were lost of course.

No, I said there are photos of the wound that pathologists said looks like a bullet wound published on the internet.

And there are.

And I noted that the original photos from which those images came have disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP.

And they have. The government admits this. And then ignores it.

you also said he was shot right before the plane went in

No, I did not.

I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down.

I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash.

I said the only way to know for sure IF he was shot at all would be to exhume the body and do an autopsy.

Why do you fear the Ron Brown case so much that you consistently mischaracterize my statements and views?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   21:25:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#127)

i assume you can't say that congress would declare war the same way it conducts every other piece of business. and has conducted every other piece of business for for the past 230 years.

pass a bill.

How about one titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). It was passed by the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.

The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors

* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"

* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"

* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Seems to me the war in Iraq is legal by your definition.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   21:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: BeAChooser (#129)

you are spinning again, but that is to be expected.

there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one, but couldn't he lacked three votes. bush also cut the inspections short. 114 authorized enforcement of security councel resolutions or defence of national security. as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you. look at the silly articles you are forced to quote to keep your kooky propaganda here alive.

here is the resoluton:

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:03:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: BeAChooser (#129)

i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution as it contradicted what you claimed above. you could only cherry pick from the recitals. and you didn't quote them correctly.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:04:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: BeAChooser (#128)

also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq. bush didn't do this because he feared he would be TURNED DOWN as he was in the UN. instead, he used fox news to fool guys like you into thinking the resolution above was sufficient.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: BeAChooser (#129)

this sort of blatent dishonesty is the reason you are a laughing stock both here and on LP. it is also the reason that the republicans lost the last election and now stand in ruins with a 29% approval rate. it is why fox news is losing viewers and why 50% of the country identifies with the democrats and only 35% identify with the republicans. people are sick of the type of sleaze you, your party and your country push.

"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006

Morgana le Fay  posted on  2007-04-03   22:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: BeAChooser (#129)

Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.

If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions. If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.

You might not be so pumped up about GWB's right to abuse Congressional permission to wage war if it were Israel rather than Iraq that was the unlucky victim of erroneous ( can you say manufactured?) WMD intel.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-03   22:13:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: BeAChooser (#113)

We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

No, NewsMax told you you and other gullible goobers that it had seen these sorts of things, and that "unnamed sources" reported such things, and it it all crap. That is why the Duelfer report and all respectable media outlets call this sort of shit "debunked".

If a shred of the NewsMax crap you spew were true, Bush would be on TV tonight repeating it and saving his Presidency. Instead, he slides down the tubes because of Iraq.

And if a shred of this crap were true, why does it only come out in the Republican goob fooler press targeted at easly led morons like yourself?

Surely there are some dark conspiracies at work here. Do you suppose Ron Brown is at the bottom of it all?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:23:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: BeAChooser (#120)

The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

If you sit around reading this nutter stuff all day, you start spewing nut ball conspiracies like you just did here.

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication? Or is it all NewsMax spew?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:26:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: BeAChooser (#121)

And please don't quote the National Enquirer or the UFO magazines at me.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:27:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: BeAChooser (#129)

Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew? And the that only people who seem to support you on it are kooks over on FR?

And don't you find it odd that you must constantly invent new and ever more looney conspiracy theories to explain this?

Either everyone in the world is a kook except you, or it is the other way around. Occums razor should tell you something here.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   22:30:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

BAC!!! you have not yet defended yourself from the 'treasonous queer' charge. This apparently means that you accept the charges. You are a TREASONOUS QUEER. You pay Jeff Gannon for a date just like George Bush does. and you are a traitor too.

It is very hard on your fans that you do not defend yourself from these charges.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03   23:45:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:46:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#125) (Edited)

An interim report on the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: BeAChooser (#121)

Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.

"How" Congress is to declare war?

ROTFLOL!!

This is the most lame spin you've come out with yet.

You know you can't honestly quote 114 as it doesn't support your argument. You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution but didn't bother after the UN slapped him down. You know that Bush had to then stretch and misinterpret 114 to find the authority to go in.

To avoid these inconvenient fact, you are now claiming that there are many, many ways for Congress to authorize war. Holding up two fingers when Bush walks past, crossing their legs in the chamber, coughing three times, etc.

You are a real piece of work.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-03   23:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)

The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:

All of them Bullshit.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03   23:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: BeAChooser (#128) (Edited)

I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down.

I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash.

I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.

By the way I refreshed my memory on the subject. I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot. If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: ..., BeAChooser (#142)

How" Congress is to declare war?

Yea, it's not like Congress ever declared war before.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)

It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Iraq posed no threat.

The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   0:08:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: All, BeAChooser (#113)

To All: Watch Choose shuck and Jive and refuse to answer the question.

If a shred of chooser's WMD spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp.

If a shred of chooser's Al Qaeda in Iraq spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp.

If a shred of choosers Ron Brown kookery was true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp. In addition, Star, who was somewhat hard up for a charge, could have put Clinton in jail with it.

Chooser simply has no answer to these questions that he can give us. He does have an answer, but the answer is a completely nutty and and utterly silly conspiracy theory and chooser knows that he would be held up to ridicule for years to come if he told it to us.

Hence, chooser ignores questions like the ones above.

Chooser, if your spew has any merit at all, why doesn't Bush get up on national TV and save himself with it? Why is it only pushed by NewsMax and internet kooks such as yourself?

Tell us your nutty conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself.

(I know you will ignore this, but I enjoy poking you with this subject.)

.

...  posted on  2007-04-04   0:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

I find your non-answer to be unsatisfying.

I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer.

and this taints everything you've ever written. My whole world-view is in crisis now. if you're not even going to defend yourself on this point.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   9:44:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: BeAChooser (#113) (Edited)

Say chooser .... why don't you tell us your nutter conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself.

If there is any merit to the garbage you regurgitate here, then one would expect to hear Bush using it to save himself from the coming < 20% approval rating.

But Bush doesn't use it. From this, one would assume that your spew was just bullshit that NewsMax has fed to gullible goobers like yourself.

Surely there is a nutter conspiracy theory that you run through your mind to avoid confronting this awful realization.

Let's hear it.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-04   10:21:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: BeAChooser (#110)

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: BeAChooser (#113) (Edited)

Zal-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana?

You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:19:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#120)

Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain.

It was that Hazel O'Leary who did it!

I knew there was something bad about that woman!! /k

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#130)

there was no un security council resolution.

The Congressional bill did not require one. It just required that Bush do his best to get international cooperation and work to enforce UN resolutions. After first making sure the security of the US was preserved.

bush also cut the inspections short.

No he didn't. He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.

as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you.

At the time they didn't know there were no WMD. Everyone seemed to think they might still exist. And to this day, we really don't know if they did or not. The ISG said the possibility still existed because something was moved to syria (and they had a source they deemed credible which said it had to do with WMD). Also, Iraq went to a lot of trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities of something they didn't have. Plus we have that binary sarin warhead that Iraq simply wasn't supposed to have. And finally, this never was just about WMD. Just look at all the concerns in that law the Congress passed authorizing the use of military force.

defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

That about covers it.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   15:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#153)

He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.

Bush is not the boss of the UN nor was he the decider when the UN mission would end, nor was the UN mission working for the USA. Bush had NO AUTHORITY to dictate anything to the UN.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   15:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser, Diana, SkyDrifter (#130)

there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one

Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's.

Because I used to believe BAC's posts. But I have recently learned that he is a treasonous queer. and he has admitted that this is true even. He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon. I can no longer put any confidence in anything that BAC says.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:01:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#131)

here is the resoluton

... snip ...

i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution

ROTFLOL! I notice that so did you.

You forgot the twenty or so WHEREAS's that are most certainly part of the resolution.

Plus you forgot this:

*******

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection

(a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either

(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

***********

Gee ... did I see the word WAR in that?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:05:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#132)

also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq.

There was nothing in writing requiring that he go back for another resolution. The first law said it all.

Bush was duly authorized to do whatever necessary to ensure the safety of the US against terrorists.

And Congress did not act to repeal that law.

Nor did they cut off funding for the invasion.

Nor have they cut off funding for the occupations since that invasion.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: scrapper2, ALL (#134)

Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.

Well that's stretching the truth a bit ...

And isn't hindsight wonderful ...

If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions.

And put Pelosi into the Presidency? ROTFLOL!

If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.

Unlike Pelosi, Hillary and so many other top democRATS, they actually have worked in private industry during their lives.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: All (#157)

I remind everyone that a TREASONOUS QUEER is not a good source for information.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:14:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: ..., ALL (#135)

"We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands."

No, NewsMax told you you

Newsmax is not the source for any of this. If you'd paid the slightest attention to any thread where these things were discussed, you know that.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-18-jordan-terror_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/26/world/main613825.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/%20

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135670,00.html

http://middle-east.news.designerz.com/zarqawi-chemical-bomb-plot-trial-postponed-after-lawyers-fail-to-show.html

http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726%2D58b2%2D447b%2Dae27%2D7669bf04a708.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp

It's clear enough who is in the dark here.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: ..., ALL (#136)

The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

... snip ...

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication?

See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:21:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: ..., ALL (#138)

Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew?

Isn't it odd how wrong you turned out to be. Or are you just generally uninformed, ...?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:22:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: BeAChooser (#160)

11 links that would take 5 hours to read and says who knows what. not one quotation snipped out even to demonstrate your point. and not one word about the details of your date with Jeff Gannon. Were you the boy or the girl? We're more interested in that.

But a TREASONOUS QUEER won't answer. and that is YET MORE PROOF that you ARE a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!!!!!!!

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Destro, ALL (#140)

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: ... (#142)

You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution

Please link us to the written material requiring this. Bet you don't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: Destro, ALL (#143)

"The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:"

All of them Bullshit.

That is YOUR opinion. The opinion of CONGRESS, however, was expressed in those twenty or so WHEREAS's in the law they passed authorizing the President to use force.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: BeAChooser (#164)

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Only in Tel Aviv (where it appears such matters for the United States are decided).

Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.

wbales  posted on  2007-04-04   16:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (168 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]