In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

No one 'trained him'

Ostrich.

****wit.

Now that's constructive.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is
working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when
we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very
comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...an31,1,6606733.
story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. And it doesnt even say that
its a total disaster anyway.

No sense me wastin' my time with you boy. You don't even give any
references for your crock of **** opinions. You're just ignorant.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

No one 'trained him'

Ostrich.

****wit.

Now that's constructive.

His **** in spades.

Yours too.

Billy wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

To fight the Russians or do construction? Construction, his daddy.

Nope.

Now who do you think trained people to fight the Russians?

No one 'trained him' to do anything to the russians.

Billy wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


Rod Speed wrote:


Billy wrote


snip

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden


snip

Who trained him?


To fight the Russians or do construction? Construction, his daddy. Now
who do you think trained people to fight the Russians?

Yeah, I know, but Rod won't admit it.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Billy wrote


Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden


Who trained him?


To fight the Russians or do construction? Construction, his daddy.


Nope.


Now who do you think trained people to fight the Russians?


No one 'trained him' to do anything to the russians.


You don't expect the spooks to put it on their web site, do you?
But it was widely reported.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6606733.story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
And it doesnt even say that its a total disaster anyway.

No sense me wastin' my time with you boy.

Yep, you've never ever had a clue, child.

You don't even give any references for your crock of **** opinions.

You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

To fight the Russians or do construction? Construction, his daddy.

Nope.

Now who do you think trained people to fight the Russians?

No one 'trained him' to do anything to the russians.

You don't expect the spooks to put it on their web site, do you?

Corse not. But he's so rabid about the yanks that he certainly
would never have had anything to do with them 'training' wise.

Like I said, no one 'trained him' to do anything to the russians.
He just got involved with those who were trying to get rid of the
russians, and later on provided quite a bit of financial support etc.

But it was widely reported.

By pig ignorant fools that didnt have a ****ing clue about
how he feels and has always felt about the yanks.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden doesnt say anything like that either.

CJT wrote:
Billy wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


Rod Speed wrote:


Billy wrote


snip

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden


snip

Who trained him?


To fight the Russians or do construction? Construction, his daddy.
Now who do you think trained people to fight the Russians?

Yeah, I know, but Rod won't admit it.

Nothing to 'admit'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegat...sama_bin_Laden

Bull**** that away.

And that aint TRAINING anyway, even if Cook's stupid claim is correct.

Rod Speed wrote:
You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Let's make sure everybody's talking about the same thing. Our Afghanistan
'goal' (in my view) consists of two parts:

1. Evict the Taliban and establish some other 'government' that will let us
do what we want, and
2. Kill bunches of terrorists and potential terrorists.

I'd say the goal has been reached, but note it is an ongoing goal, not the
end of the game. Kinda like a see-saw with us, the heavier side, in the
dominant position. The see-saw can tip in the other direction if we lose
weight or the other side eats a lot of pickled pig feet.

HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

You don't even give any references for your crock of **** opinions.

You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Let's make sure everybody's talking about the same thing. Our Afghanistan 'goal' (in my view) consists of two parts:

1. Evict the Taliban and establish some other 'government' that will let us do what we want, and

That last aint what Afghanistan is about.

2. Kill bunches of terrorists and potential terrorists.

Its not really about that either.

Its more about stopping the terrorists from having training
camps there, which were used to train quite a few of those
that cause so many problems outside Afghanistan.

It was also about attempting to get bin Laden after 9/11 too.

I'd say the goal has been reached, but note it is an ongoing goal, not the end of the game.

Sure, stopping the talibums from doing what they want to certainly is.

Kinda like a see-saw with us, the heavier side, in the dominant position.

Thats certainly true of doing over the talibums very comprehensively indeed.

Its MUCH harder ensuring that they cant come back and that Afghanistan
can end up with decent democratic govt any decade soon.

Lets not forget that when those fools were assisted in getting the russian
jackboot off their throats, it was an amazingly short time before they were
ripping each others throats out very enthusiastically indeed and the whole
place was such a complete shambles that it was easy for the talibums to
show up from Pakistan and end up ruling the roost.

The see-saw can tip in the other direction if we lose weight or the other side eats a lot of pickled pig feet.

Yes, its certainly possible for the talibums to manage more
than they could just after they were booted out of power and
we havent seen all that much use of the sort of stuff that got
rid of the russians, partly because there is no one providing
resources that sort of thing takes. It remains to be seen what
will happen if say Musharef gets killed and Pakistan returns to
being a moslem fundamentalist state again.

While Obummer says that he'll just invade Pakistan if they get
too uppitys, I cant see the Congress buying that approach after
the fiasco that Iraq has turned into, even if he does get elected
and I doubt that that will happen myself. Its much more likely
that the democrats will end up with yet another unelectable fool
and McCain will get elected instead. The Democrats doing just
what they are so good at, turning an unlosable presidential election
into a complete farce with a completely stupid choice of candidate.

Don Klipstein wrote:


Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone
through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11", without capturing
Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

- Don Klipstein )

They are in no hurry to make a martyr out of O'slima Ben-lyeing, the
just want to make him totally irrelevant, which is what they are doing.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.
By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1). The problem is
that Rod is a vacuous, anacephalic, and a waste of space, who never gets
it right.
Mohammed ATTA (11) (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1,
1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his
middle-class family. Atta was the ONE and ONLY Egyptian in the 9/11
attacks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts
Numb-nuts, this is a citation showing my source for information. This is
what intelligent people do when making an argument. Of course it would
take time away from your whacking-off, and it is so much quicker to make
stuff up. It's up to you if you want to project an image of intelligence
or be seen as just another dumb dick.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1).

Depends on how you count them, those that ended up dead,
or those involved, including those that didnt end up dead.

reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Mohammed ATTA (11) (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1,
1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his middle-class family.

Who just happened to be the main organiser that ended up dead.

Atta was the ONE and ONLY Egyptian in the 9/11 attacks.

Pity about the others that didnt end up dead.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts

Just one source of info on that.

reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:


We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts

Just one source of info on that.
And that is quite a few more citations than you gave. You don't know how
stupid you look do you? Pitiful stupid. A monkey in winter, along way
from home. I know you've been told before and you'll be told again, go
away. No one can help you.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts

Just one source of info on that.

And that is quite a few more citations than you gave.

Just one, actually.

reams of your juvenile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts

Just one source of info on that.

And that is quite a few more citations than you gave.

Just one, actually.

Funny, when it was your Egyptians one was quite a few. Now that it is my
citation one is just one. Do you know what a hypocrite is? You really
should.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is
working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.
Following your lead, you are a dumb f**k.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.
That is an IGNORANT lie.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.
You're so full of ****.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.
By certain dumb asses.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.
All Arabs are in support of Palestine, you idiot. Even many Americans
and some Israelis. Google up" Peace Now". What a dumb SOB.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.
No. He just stole two elections.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when
we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.
Not according to the CIA.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.
Define total disaster. If you lived there it would appear to be a total
disaster. Saddam had the place up and running 3 months after ther last
war. You don't know nothin;.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.
You ignore the obvious.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.
How far in the sand do yo have your head? I'm sorry, that's not sand is
it? Isn't that painful?

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.
Yeah, both places.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very
comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.
He knew too much, unlike you.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...an31,1,6606733.
story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. And it doesnt even say that
its a total disaster anyway.
God, your stupid.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is
working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as
dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when
we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very
comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...jan31,1,660673
3.story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
And it doesnt even say that its a total disaster anyway.

No sense me wastin' my time with you boy.

Yep, you've never ever had a clue, child.

You don't even give any references for your crock of **** opinions.

You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Look in a mirror. Total disaster.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Let's make sure everybody's talking about the same thing. Our Afghanistan
'goal' (in my view) consists of two parts:

1. Evict the Taliban and establish some other 'government' that will let us
do what we want, and
2. Kill bunches of terrorists and potential terrorists.

I'd say the goal has been reached, but note it is an ongoing goal, not the
end of the game. Kinda like a see-saw with us, the heavier side, in the
dominant position. The see-saw can tip in the other direction if we lose
weight or the other side eats a lot of pickled pig feet.

We have problem at home jerk-off boy. We need to stop throwing money
down a hole that only benefit Lockeed -Martin and Halliburton, to name a
few.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

You don't even give any references for your crock of **** opinions.

You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Let's make sure everybody's talking about the same thing. Our Afghanistan
'goal' (in my view) consists of two parts:

1. Evict the Taliban and establish some other 'government' that will let us
do what we want, and

That last aint what Afghanistan is about.

2. Kill bunches of terrorists and potential terrorists.

Its not really about that either.

Its more about stopping the terrorists from having training
camps there, which were used to train quite a few of those
that cause so many problems outside Afghanistan.

It was also about attempting to get bin Laden after 9/11 too.

I'd say the goal has been reached, but note it is an ongoing goal, not the
end of the game.

Sure, stopping the talibums from doing what they want to certainly is.

Kinda like a see-saw with us, the heavier side, in the dominant position.

Thats certainly true of doing over the talibums very comprehensively indeed.

Its MUCH harder ensuring that they cant come back and that Afghanistan
can end up with decent democratic govt any decade soon.

Lets not forget that when those fools were assisted in getting the russian
jackboot off their throats, it was an amazingly short time before they were
ripping each others throats out very enthusiastically indeed and the whole
place was such a complete shambles that it was easy for the talibums to
show up from Pakistan and end up ruling the roost.

The see-saw can tip in the other direction if we lose weight or the other
side eats a lot of pickled pig feet.

Yes, its certainly possible for the talibums to manage more
than they could just after they were booted out of power and
we havent seen all that much use of the sort of stuff that got
rid of the russians, partly because there is no one providing
resources that sort of thing takes. It remains to be seen what
will happen if say Musharef gets killed and Pakistan returns to
being a moslem fundamentalist state again.

While Obummer says that he'll just invade Pakistan if they get
too uppitys, I cant see the Congress buying that approach after
the fiasco that Iraq has turned into, even if he does get elected
and I doubt that that will happen myself. Its much more likely
that the democrats will end up with yet another unelectable fool
and McCain will get elected instead. The Democrats doing just
what they are so good at, turning an unlosable presidential election
into a complete farce with a completely stupid choice of candidate.
The Taliban just chased out the British from Basrah. The Australians and
Poles are pulling out troops. The corrupt Afghani warlords can't stand
up to the Taliban. We have serious problems at home (inflation,
rebuilding the south coast and New Orleans, tornado damage,
infrastructure [bridges], education, health care). No, you want to play
war from your armchair. Screw you and all of the chicken hawks (Bush,
Rowe, Perleman, Wolfowitz, ect.). Bring our soldiers home NOW.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6606733.story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff.
And it doesnt even say that its a total disaster anyway.

No sense me wastin' my time with you boy.

Yep, you've never ever had a clue, child.

You don't even give any references for your crock of **** opinions.

You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue about
who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue to be
involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Look in a mirror. Total disaster.

Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.

Come on guys.

There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.

Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they
dont get targetted in a place like Saudi etc.

Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.

The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been invaded.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.

Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bull****ting 101.

Following your lead, you are a dumb f**k.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

That is an IGNORANT lie.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

You're so full of ****.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

By certain dumb asses.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

All Arabs are in support of Palestine, you idiot.

Irrelevant to how many FINANCIALLY support them, ****wit.

Even many Americans and some Israelis.
Google up" Peace Now". What a dumb SOB.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

No. He just stole two elections.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Not according to the CIA.

The CIA has never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Define total disaster.

YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim.

YOU get to do the defining.

THATS how it works.

If you lived there it would appear to be a total disaster.

You wouldnt know what a real total disaster was if one bit you on your lard arse.

Saddam had the place up and running 3 months after ther last war.

So what ?

You don't know nothin;.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

You ignore the obvious.

You never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

How far in the sand do yo have your head?
I'm sorry, that's not sand is it? Isn't that painful?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Yeah, both places.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

He knew too much, unlike you.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6606733.story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. And it doesnt even say that its a total disaster anyway.

God, your stupid.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Billy wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote:
Rod Speed wrote

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts

Just one source of info on that.

And that is quite a few more citations than you gave.

Just one, actually.

Funny,

Pathetic in your case.

when it was your Egyptians one was quite a few.

Yep, quite a few egyptians were involved and only one of them ended up dead.

All that proves is that they werent as stupid as the saudis that ended up dead.

Now that it is my citation one is just one.

Because you lied about how many of yours there were.

Do you know what a hypocrite is?

Yep, you qualify.

You really should.

You really should go and **** yourself.

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

You don't even give any references for your crock of **** opinions.

You're lying now.

And they aint opinions, they are facts.

You're just ignorant.

Easy to claim. Its turned out that you dont have a ****ing clue
about who was involved in 9/11, or whether NATO wants to continue
to be involved in Afghanistan, or even what a total disaster is either.

Let's make sure everybody's talking about the same thing.
Our Afghanistan 'goal' (in my view) consists of two parts:

1. Evict the Taliban and establish some other 'government'
that will let us do what we want, and

That last aint what Afghanistan is about.

2. Kill bunches of terrorists and potential terrorists.

Its not really about that either.

Its more about stopping the terrorists from having training
camps there, which were used to train quite a few of those
that cause so many problems outside Afghanistan.

It was also about attempting to get bin Laden after 9/11 too.

I'd say the goal has been reached, but note it is an ongoing goal, not the end of the game.

Sure, stopping the talibums from doing what they want to certainly is.

Kinda like a see-saw with us, the heavier side, in the dominant position.

Thats certainly true of doing over the talibums very comprehensively indeed.

Its MUCH harder ensuring that they cant come back and that Afghanistan
can end up with decent democratic govt any decade soon.

Lets not forget that when those fools were assisted in getting the
russian jackboot off their throats, it was an amazingly short time
before they were ripping each others throats out very
enthusiastically indeed and the whole place was such a complete
shambles that it was easy for the talibums to show up from Pakistan
and end up ruling the roost.

The see-saw can tip in the other direction if we lose weight or the
other side eats a lot of pickled pig feet.

Yes, its certainly possible for the talibums to manage more
than they could just after they were booted out of power and
we havent seen all that much use of the sort of stuff that got
rid of the russians, partly because there is no one providing
resources that sort of thing takes. It remains to be seen what
will happen if say Musharef gets killed and Pakistan returns to
being a moslem fundamentalist state again.

While Obummer says that he'll just invade Pakistan if they get
too uppity, I cant see the Congress buying that approach after
the fiasco that Iraq has turned into, even if he does get elected
and I doubt that that will happen myself. Its much more likely
that the democrats will end up with yet another unelectable fool
and McCain will get elected instead. The Democrats doing just
what they are so good at, turning an unlosable presidential election
into a complete farce with a completely stupid choice of candidate.

The Taliban just chased out the British from Basrah.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

There aint no talibums in Basrah, ****wit.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed the change
in leadership in england thats the real reason for the change.

The Australians and Poles are pulling out troops.

In the case of the australians because of a change in govt, ****wit.

The corrupt Afghani warlords can't stand up to the Taliban.

No news there. Thats why there are so many first world countrys with troops there, ****wit.

We have serious problems at home (inflation, rebuilding the south coast and
New Orleans, tornado damage, infrastructure [bridges], education, health care).

Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.

No, you want to play war from your armchair.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that I have said repeatedly
that Iraq should never have been invaded, because they are terminal ****wits
and didnt even have the sense to not loot everything in sight and chose to have
a full civil war as soon as Saddam got the bums rush he deserved.

Screw you and all of the chicken hawks (Bush, Rowe,
Perleman, Wolfowitz, ect.). Bring our soldiers home NOW.

**** you, NOW.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
This boy is as sharp as a bowling ball.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Can we get a medic over here. This boy needs to have the crap cleared
out from between his ears.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article , CJT
wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

CJT wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Billy wrote


Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden


Who trained him?


No one 'trained him'


Ostrich.


****wit.


Do you kiss your pig's ass with that mouth?

Cruel and unusual punishment for the pig. Somebody otta call the SPCA.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
A mind is a terrible thing to lose. Poor Rod. Dumber than dirt.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit ******.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit ******.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit ******.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit ******.

Oh, I can tell your pig is really in for it this time. Do you use your
nose too?
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit ******.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

I fear the Rod has finally lost it. He is starting to drool around the
mouth and he keeps typing the same banalities, over, and over. Oh the
humanity of it. Tune in tomorrow folks, to see if the Rod is the same
driveling idiot that he is today. Remember, same time, same channel. And
now a final word from the Rod,"cowering gutless ****wit ****** ****wit
gutless ****** ****wit **** **** ****".

Just wait till the Rod finds out that someone (you know who) put sand in
his vaseline;-)
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

I fear the Rod has finally lost it. He is starting to drool around the
mouth and he keeps typing the same banalities, over, and over. Oh the
humanity of it. Tune in tomorrow folks, to see if the Rod is the same
driveling idiot that he is today. Remember, same time, same channel. And
now a final word from the Rod,"cowering gutless ****wit ****** ****wit
gutless ****** ****wit **** **** ****".

Just wait till the Rod finds out that someone (you know who) put sand in
his vaseline;-)

Actually it has pretty degenerated to where you both appear to be
losers in a battle of wits. Self-indulgent prattle from both sides.

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

I fear the Rod has finally lost it. He is starting to drool around the
mouth and he keeps typing the same banalities, over, and over. Oh the
humanity of it. Tune in tomorrow folks, to see if the Rod is the same
driveling idiot that he is today. Remember, same time, same channel. And
now a final word from the Rod,"cowering gutless ****wit ****** ****wit
gutless ****** ****wit **** **** ****".

Just wait till the Rod finds out that someone (you know who) put sand in
his vaseline;-)

Well, it is the 25th, after all. His check probably comes in on the 1st
or something. With that, he can refill his meds, and he will be back to
his normal sweet self.

aem sends...

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy wrote just what you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit ******.

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

I fear the Rod has finally lost it. He is starting to drool around the
mouth and he keeps typing the same banalities, over, and over. Oh the
humanity of it. Tune in tomorrow folks, to see if the Rod is the same
driveling idiot that he is today. Remember, same time, same channel. And
now a final word from the Rod,"cowering gutless ****wit ****** ****wit
gutless ****** ****wit **** **** ****".

Just wait till the Rod finds out that someone (you know who) put sand in
his vaseline;-)

Actually it has pretty degenerated to where you both appear to be
losers in a battle of wits. Self-indulgent prattle from both sides.

Well, in all candor, I did try to have a discussion with the Rod but his
responses, besides laking citations, were reduced to no, no way, liar,
pig ignorant lie, and some not very creative invectives. Plainly, on the
face of it, he is dummer than dirt. Did I bait the Rod? Oh, ja, sure,
you betcha' but it's OK because the Rod doesn't feel any of it, and at
least I was having some fun:-) I was hoping that others might appreciate
it as well. Be nice though, if you could keep your dog chained up.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
Billy desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its
way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.