Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I won't touch the "moron" label (sure, those Bushisms are embarassing sometimes, but it's hard for me to swallow a Yale and Harvard MBA graduate as a "moron" ;)), but I would label Kerry with the same murderous tag. Shooting a fleeing Vietnamese in the back as well as the unknown (or known [streamload.com] {from Kerry's own lips}) atrocities that Kerry participated in, over in Vietnam deserve the same judgement.

    Of course, it depends on who you listen to, the Swift Vets gang [swiftvets.com] or the Democrats (and the mainstream media that
    • Yes of course :)

      WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

      As for Kerry's competence, it simply doesn't matter: no matter how incompetent you just can't be worse than Bush. It's never been seen in any major country before, and, with any hope, won't be seen again in our lifetimes. The Democrats could run a monkey for presidency, I'd still s

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

        The problem is that the latter never happened. First, even if you believe the WMD was a lie, that doesn't mean the entire war was based on lies. We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions which threatened force, including that Iraq aided terrorists (not al Qaeda, but many others), including that Iraq was a despotic regime destroying its own people and continuing to pose a threat to its neighbors in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ... the list does go on.

        Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.

        Please don't be so blinded to the facts by your hatred. It's unbecoming of normally intelligent person.
        • We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions...

          But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it? We were told that Iraq was a imminent threat to the US. We were told that they had WMD and were just itching to use them.

          Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.

          Bush or Bush
          • But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it?

            It absolutely was. The administration made reference to "material breach" of Resolution 1441 early and often.

            I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but you have to admit those nice no-bid Haliburton contracts make you think don't they?

            Eh, not really, when you consider all of the factors: the shift in recent years to hiring one contractor to do all the work, the fact that