Back to basics.

Current Events » in reply to That is an understatement.

Back to basics.

Bowser — 3/18/2004 4:20:33 PM (archived)

"Hundreds of thousands of Kurds".

You're goint to have to back that one up. What's the source.

Second, while he was doing those things, which employees of the Reagan Administration were backing Saddam?

(Hint: GWBs Secretary of Defense, Vice President, and Secretary of State might be a place to start.)

If Saddam wasn't a nice guy, were the people supporting him, backing him, supplying him with biological weapons also not nice guys?

(Hint: Under US law, if I give a guy a gun to rob a bank, I'm an accomplice.)

Arf

The whole thread (35 posts)

237 GWB & Co. lies - "Iraq on the Record" - Bowser - 3/17/2004 9:19:45 PM
- re-do that link, B, I wanna read it. (n/t) - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 9:24:22 PM
  - re: re-do that link, B, I wanna read it. - Bowser - 3/17/2004 9:33:26 PM
    - Robert, Justin- now THATS what we need! (n/t) - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 10:19:34 PM
    - Nice. - Tony - 3/17/2004 9:54:44 PM
      - "Special Investigations Division" - Bowser - 3/17/2004 10:24:13 PM
      - mining the database for Imminent/immediate/grave - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 10:18:11 PM
        
        re: mining the database - Tom Brosz - 3/17/2004 10:26:49 PM
        
        So basically you are saying: - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 10:45:06 PM
        
        re: So basically you are saying: - Tom Brosz - 3/17/2004 11:16:39 PM
        
        re: So basically you are saying: - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 4:25:09 PM
        
        Lie: 1. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive - Larry J - 3/18/2004 7:02:31 PM
        
        re: Lie: 1. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive - Davin L. - 3/19/2004 4:14:54 AM
        
        To make it slightly more accurate....? - Tony - 3/18/2004 3:21:20 PM
        
        re: So basically you are saying: - REB - 3/18/2004 2:38:36 PM
        
        re: So basically you are saying: - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 4:12:12 PM
        
        Nope - REB - 3/18/2004 6:24:52 PM
        
        re: Nope - Davin L. - 3/19/2004 4:11:18 AM
        
        Silly. - Bowser - 3/17/2004 10:42:01 PM
        
        If you're going to try analogies, make them accurate. - Tom Brosz - 3/17/2004 11:27:31 PM
        
        He wasn't a nice guy. - Bowser - 3/17/2004 11:44:00 PM
        
        That is an understatement. - REB - 3/18/2004 2:35:42 PM
        
        Back to basics. - Bowser - 3/18/2004 4:20:33 PM
        
        re: Back to basics. - REB - 3/18/2004 6:21:50 PM
        
        Huh! Apparently you're right on the numbers. - Bowser - 3/18/2004 6:28:50 PM
        
        re: Huh! Apparently you're right on the numbers. - REB - 3/18/2004 7:09:41 PM
        
        funny that you should criticize anyone concerning 'analogies' drawn - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 11:31:21 PM
        
        Can you be more specific? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 3/18/2004 1:12:06 AM
        
        how could I be more specific? - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 8:11:25 AM
        
        link didnt work? (n/t) - alcaray - 3/18/2004 5:46:47 PM
        
        Why ruin a streak (n/t) - gbaikie - 3/18/2004 7:18:07 AM
        
        nonsensical non-sequiters again? - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 7:58:27 AM
        
        Not at all. - alcaray - 3/17/2004 11:14:50 PM
        
        And anyway - alcaray - 3/17/2004 11:20:46 PM
        
        My only problem with what you said is that it's correct. (n/t) - Bowser - 3/17/2004 11:25:41 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (35 posts)