Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - sirs

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 102
1471
3DHS / Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here
« on: October 15, 2006, 03:49:06 PM »
They're just flappin at the gums, with no other intentions, outside of perhaps pointing out how inhumane Israelis are treating Palestinians.  No New World Islamic Order in these people's minds.  No sir-ree-bob

Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design
By Allan Hall
Age Correspondent
Berlin
August 24, 2005

 
THE al-Qaeda master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state has been revealed for the first time.

For a new book, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed top lieutenants of the terrorist network, including the mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi — al-Qaeda's Second Generation is published only in Arabic, but could be translated into English.

Hussein says al-Qaeda views its struggle as a long-term war with seven distinct phases.

Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals.

Phase two is "Opening Eyes", the period we are now in and which should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaeda continues to mould its secret battalions ready for battle.

Phase three, "Arising and Standing Up", should last from 2007 to 2010, with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016.

Phase six, from 2016 on, will be a period of "total confrontation". As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden.

Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory".

Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "One-and-a-half billion Muslims", the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war should not last longer than two years.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/alqaeda-chiefs-reveal-world-domination-design/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?oneclick=true

1472
3DHS / So, seriously.....any ideas on how to deal with North Korea?
« on: October 15, 2006, 04:33:04 AM »
How would unilateral talks with the U.S. be of any benefit?  Why is this not a UN lead issue?  Do we (the U.S.) take the military option off the table completely?...why yes or no?  And can we please minimise the Bush bashing in your answers?


1473
3DHS / What happened to the "It's the economy, stupid"?
« on: October 11, 2006, 09:45:39 PM »
Oh yea, it's a Republican that's President currently

1474
3DHS / Are you Serious or are you Frivalous?
« on: October 11, 2006, 01:11:52 AM »
Frivolous Politics
By Thomas Sowell

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.

Even World War II, won by "the greatest generation," was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren't looking for more war or more conquests. We weren't even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/frivolous_politics.html


1475
3DHS / Boy, I do love the 1st amendment
« on: October 07, 2006, 01:42:16 AM »
You can't buy this type of moronic lunacy     :P

Olbermann: Bush a 'Compulsive Liar' Who Is Helping al-Qaeda

     MSNBC's Keith Olbermann delivered another of his "Special Comment" rants on Thursday night -- this one his longest yet, clocking in at just over 11 minutes. Olbermann began the diatribe, which concluded the October 5 Countdown, by saying his topic was "lying," specifically how President Bush is making false claims about Democrats. Olbermann cited how Bush charged that Democrats "don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists" and "think the best way to protect the American people is wait until we're attacked again." Maintaining that the accusations are baseless, Olbermann asserted: "A President who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying." But by Olbermann's reasoning that since no Democrat has said exactly what Bush asserted when he made the political points about the implications of Democratic positions, no one should be able to accuse Bush of lying about Iraq since he has never said he lied about Iraq. 

     Olbermann proceeded to allege that Bush "has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack" through his "terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom -- the Constitution -- a triumph for al Qaeda, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11's." He accused Bush: "You want to preserve one political party's power. And obviously you will sell this country out, to do it. These are lies about the Democrats, piled atop lies about Iraq, piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaeda." Olbermann also denounced Vice President Cheney for how he "lives on, in defiance, and spreads -- around him and before him -- darkness, like some contagion of fear." Sounds more like Olbermann.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     "And lastly tonight: A 'Special Comment' about lying. While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool; while the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover; the President of the United States -- unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality -- has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.
     "Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, '177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"
     "The hell they did. A hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution. Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists. President Bush hears what he wants.
     "Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said that, 'Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond.' Mr. Bush fabricated that, too. And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.
     "'If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party,' the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, 'it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again.' The President doesn't just hear what he wants. He hears things that only he can hear. It defies belief that this President and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow. Yet they do.
     "It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any President at any time in this nation's history. Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason.
     "But it is the context that truly makes the head spin. Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted quote, 'We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.'
     "Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed. If your commitment to 'put aside differences and work together' is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking are no longer about your policies. They are, instead, solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.
     "No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to 'wait until we're attacked again.' No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday. Nor whatever is next.
     "You have dishonored your party, sir; you have dishonored your supporters; you have dishonored yourself.
     "But tonight the stark question we must face is -- why? Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists? Why have you chosen to go down in history as the President who made things up?
     "In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans. If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.
     "We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size and party. We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands. But the premise of a President who comes across as a compulsive liar is nothing less than terrifying. A President who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening -- and thanks to Bob Woodward's most recent account -- evidently has never listened. A President who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy. A President who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack -- attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both -- it's now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy truly is.
     "But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this: This President -- in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month -- has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are, they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak called the Constitution of the United States of America.
     "How often do we find priceless truth in the unlikeliest of places? I tonight quote not Jefferson nor Voltaire, but Cigar Aficionado magazine. On Sept. 11th, 2003, the editor of that publication interviewed General Tommy Franks, at that point, just retired from his post as commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command -- of Cent-Com. And amid his quaint defenses of the then-nagging absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the continuing freedom of Osama bin Laden, General Franks said some of the most profound words of this generation. He spoke of 'the worst thing that can happen' to this country:
     "First, quoting, a 'massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western World -- it may be in the United States of America.' Then, the General continued, 'the Western World, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years, in this grand experiment that we call democracy.' It was this super-patriotic warrior's fear that we would lose that most cherished liberty, because of another attack, one -- again quoting General Franks, 'that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.'
     "And here we are, the fabric of our Constitution being unraveled, anyway. Habeus corpus neutered; the rights of self-defense now as malleable and impermanent as clay; a President stifling all critics by every means available and, when he runs out of those, by simply lying about what they said or felt. And all this, even without the dreaded attack.
     "General Franks, like all of us, loves this country, and believes not just in its values, but in its continuity. He has been trained to look for threats to that continuity from without. He has, perhaps been as naive as the rest of us, in failing to keep close enough vigil on the threats to that continuity from within. Secretary of State Rice first cannot remember urgent cautionary meetings with counter-terrorism officials before 9/11. Then within hours of this lie, her spokesman confirms the meetings in question. Then she dismisses those meetings as nothing new -- yet insists she wanted the same cautions expressed to Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.
     "Mr. Rumsfeld, meantime, has been unable to accept the most logical and simple influence of the most noble and neutral of advisers. He and his employer insist they rely on the 'generals in the field.' But dozens of those generals have now come forward to say how their words, their experiences, have been ignored. And, of course, inherent in the Pentagon's war-making functions is the regulation of presidential war lust. Enacting that regulation should include everything up to symbolically wrestling the Chief Executive to the floor, if necessary.
     "Yet -- and it is Pentagon transcripts that now tell us this -- evidently Mr. Rumsfeld's strongest check on Mr. Bush's ambitions, was to get someone to excise the phrase 'Mission Accomplished' out of the infamous Air Force carrier speech of May 1st, 2003, even while the same empty words hung on a banner over the President's shoulder.
     "And the Vice President is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party's leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public positions, are made out of sand. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But he still says so. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. But he still says so.
     "And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance, and spreads -- around him and before him -- darkness, like some contagion of fear.
     "They are never wrong, and they never regret -- admirable in a French torch singer, cataclysmic in an American leader. Thus, the sickening attempt to blame the Foley scandal on the negligence of others or 'the Clinton era' -- even though the Foley scandal began before the Lewinsky scandal. Thus, last month's enraged attacks on this administration's predecessors, about Osama bin Laden -- a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.
     "Thus, the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom -- the Constitution -- a triumph for al Qaeda, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11's. And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.
     "It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you redirect at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel. It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.'
     "It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, sir. It is your own --before 9/11 -- and, and you alone know this, perhaps afterwards. Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve. It is not our freedom, nor our country -- your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.
     "You want to preserve one political party's power. And obviously you will sell this country out, to do it. These are lies about the Democrats, piled atop lies about Iraq, piled atop lies about your preparations for al Qaeda. To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries -- as crushing, as immovable. They are not. If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.
     "But if you stop -- if you stop fabricating quotes, and stop building straw-men, and stop inspiring those around you to do the same -- you may yet liberate yourself and this nation. Please, sir, do not throw this country's principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics."


http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20061006.asp#1

1476
3DHS / Clear evidence of oil price manipulation
« on: October 07, 2006, 12:09:38 AM »

1477
3DHS / Killing them with kindness
« on: October 07, 2006, 12:07:54 AM »

1478
3DHS / So.....with all this vitriole aimed at Hastert
« on: October 06, 2006, 05:50:27 PM »
...for daring to not connect dots after reading what was largely innocuous e-mails, for daring to not launch investigations into Foley early on, for basically learning he apparently liked guys more than girls, why weren't they on board for supporting the Boy Scouts, when they simply didn't want a Homosexual as a Boyscout leader.  Could it be argued that the Boy Scouts were "connecting dots"?

Anything to not have to talk about National Security & the Economy I guess

1479
3DHS / Want an investigation?
« on: October 06, 2006, 05:15:07 PM »
McHenry seeks sworn Dem account
By Josephine Hearn
 
North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry called on Democratic leaders yesterday to testify under oath about when they knew of former Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) Internet communications with a House page.

Writing to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), McHenry questioned whether Democrats had a role in publicizing the e-mails, which broke in the middle of the fall election season creating a furor rarely seen in congressional politics.

“Is the American public to believe that neither of you nor your staffs nor anyone associated with your staffs had prior knowledge or involvement with the release of Foley’s e-mails and/or explicit instant messages? Is the American public to believe that ABC News stumbled haphazardly on this story without Democratic assistance?” wrote McHenry, a freshman Republican who has emerged as an attack dog for the GOP.

He asked that Pelosi and Emanuel offer a “yes or no” answer as to whether they would go under oath “to assure the American people that neither you nor your staffs had prior knowledge or involvement — at the strategic or tactical levels — with the release of Foley’s e-mails and/or instant messages.”

Spokespeople for Pelosi and the DCCC dismissed McHenry’s demand as political posturing.

“Republicans just don’t get it; every mother in America is asking how Republican’s could choose partisan politics over protecting kids, and the Republicans are asking who could have blown their cover-up,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider. “If we had seen Mark Foley’s horrific e-mails or instant messages, we would have immediately acted to protect these kids.”

DCCC spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said, “Of course we did not have the e-mails or instant messages. Give me a break. If you recall, they also blamed us for indicting [former Majority Leader Tom DeLay [R-Texas].  Speaker Hastert and his staff have known about Foley’s inappropriate behavior for years and their attempt to deflect their responsibility is absurd.”

A handful of House Republicans have admitted that they knew about the original Foley e-mails in late 2005. In those e-mails, Foley asked a male House page for a picture of himself but was not overtly sexual. No member of Congress or congressional staff member has admitted to knowing about the more explicit series of instant messages that surfaced Friday and led to Foley’s resignation.

Pelosi dismissed speculation that Democratic leadership knew about the e-mails prior to Thursday, when ABC News broke the story in the media.

“It’s absolutely not true,” she said. The e-mails appeared on a blog, stopsexpredators.blogspot.com, earlier in September.

Democrats have called for a full investigation of “when the Republican leadership was notified” of the e-mails and what action they took, suggesting Republican leaders had covered up the e-mails to avoid political repercussions in a tough election cycle.

As the scandal ballooned this week, several House Republicans sought to gain control of the media frenzy by questioning whether Democrats themselves knew about the emails and had sought to use them to political advantage by waiting until just before the elections to give them to the news media.

Although political observers agree that the timing of the story could not have been better, ABC News reporter Brian Ross told The New York Times on Tuesday that his source was a Republican.

“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Ross said.

ABC News investigative producer Maddy Sauer worked on the story with Ross.

“They were passed to a colleague of mine from a source, not someone from a Democratic campaign, a source on the Hill,” Sauer told Democracy Now Tuesday.

At least two other news organizations, The Miami Herald and The St. Petersburg Times, knew of the email exchange but opted not to publish it.

Still, Republican operatives point out that an ethics watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had a copy of the emails as early as July 21 and passed them on to the FBI. They note that several of CREW’s staff members previously worked on Capitol Hill for Democrats.

But a spokeswoman for CREW, Naomi Seligman Steiner, told The Hill Tuesday that the group did not pass the emails to any other entity and was not the source of the ABC News story.
 

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news3.html

1480
3DHS / What was that about the economy?
« on: October 06, 2006, 12:18:57 PM »

1481
3DHS / We interrupt this Foley garbage
« on: October 05, 2006, 04:12:31 AM »
to bring you back to issues that actually matter

Court says eavesdropping program can continue
Wed Oct 4, 2006

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The government can continue to use its warrantless domestic wiretap program pending the Justice Department's appeal of a federal judge's ruling outlawing the program, an Appeals Court in Cincinnati ruled on Wednesday.

The ruling overturned District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision last week to deny a lengthy stay in the case, which is expected to end up with the Supreme Court.

In August, Taylor ruled that the National Security Agency's five-year-old surveillance program, implemented as part of the government's war on terrorism, violates the civil rights of Americans.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in March on behalf of scholars, attorneys, journalists and non-profit groups that regularly communicate with people in the Middle East.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-04T202048Z_01_N04262861_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&src=rss&rpc=22


1482
3DHS / The 4 Step Democrat Campaign Platform
« on: October 04, 2006, 04:28:43 AM »
The Democrat Plan for Iraq
by Doug Patton
Posted Oct 02, 2006

   
We are coming to the climax of the mid-term campaign silly season, when so much is at stake for the two major political parties and for the future of the nation. As we approach the election, it has become obvious that there is a fundamental lack of understanding about the exact nature of the Democrat plan for the central front in the war against Islamo-Fascism, otherwise known in the media and in the halls of Congress as “the war in Iraq.”

Many Democrats seem to believe that the United States of America is an evil, imperialist power bent on forcing liberty, democracy, prosperity and peace down the throats of a people previously content with tyranny, ignorance, poverty and violence. As commander-in-chief of the American armed forces, this thinking goes, George W. Bush illegally invaded a sovereign nation, overthrew its government and its leader, Saddam Hussein (a hero who was duly elected by his people with an amazing 100 percent of the vote). In place of this stable system of government, which Saddam had so lovingly nurtured for so many years, Bush callously coerced the Iraqi people into participating in a free election to determine their own destiny.

In the loony-tunes world of George Soros and Howard Dean, the current financial and ideological powers behind the Democratic Party, this kind of foreign policy is completely unacceptable.

Always willing to do my part to clear up any confusion about liberal motives and intentions, I offer the following four-step plan, based on my keen observation of the political scene, as a guide to the policies Democrats would like to pursue in Iraq:

Step One

The Iraqi court now trying Saddam should be disbanded. Saddam should be cleared of all charges, released from prison with our apologies and restored to his rightful role as the unanimously elected leader of Iraq. Anything he may have done in the quarter-century prior to his humiliating capture and incarceration at the hands of ruthless American forces pales in contrast with the war crimes committed by the Bush administration.

Step Two

All American troops should be pulled out of Iraq immediately. Greedy Halliburton executives should be left behind to put the country back the way they found it before the evil triumvirate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld destroyed the joy of life under Saddam Hussein. Halliburton should be forced to subsidize American taxpayer funds to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure. This would include restoring Saddam’s palaces to their former glory, burning down all the schools and hospitals we have built over the last three years and, of course, helping to transport Saddam’s WMDs back from Syria. Perhaps, as a gesture of good will, we could even gas a few Kurds for him on our way out of the country.

Step Three

All detainees languishing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret CIA torture chambers around the world should be released from prison, compensated by the American taxpayer for the horrible treatment that has caused them to hate us so vehemently, and then returned to their country of origin with a six-pack of Coke and a complimentary copy of “Girls Gone Wild.” If they promise not to hurt us, they should be allowed to live here in the United States with the rest of our illegal aliens.

Step Four

For each Iraqi killed, either by the imperialist American forces or by the brave al-Qaeda freedom fighters who sacrificially blow themselves up on a daily basis, compensation in the amount of one billion dollars should be given to the families. These funds should be taken directly out of the obscene profits of American oil companies and, of course, Wal-Mart.

Under this comprehensive, four-step plan, these measures could be implemented on the first day of the Democrat-controlled Congress -- right after they vote to raise our taxes and impeach the President of the United States.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17319

1483
3DHS / If only
« on: October 04, 2006, 12:28:12 AM »

1484
3DHS / Source of Global Warming found
« on: October 03, 2006, 12:53:25 AM »

1485
3DHS / Yea, only the GOP plays the politics of fear
« on: October 03, 2006, 12:52:01 AM »

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 102