🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 23, 8:57 am, Joeseph P. Blow <jpb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:49:51 GMT, leroyb...@pillinor.net wrote:
> >On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:22:12 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow <jpb...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:03:20 -0500, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>In article <46a28eea$0$12208$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> >>> Slim <s...@pickins.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2007-07-21 16:02:25 -0400, Al <albert.finney...@geemail.coom> said:
>
> >>>> > In article <f7tlft$cr...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> >>>> >  Joeseph P. Blow <jpb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:39:15 -0500, "Al Mundy" <t...@hotmail.com>
> >>>> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> >>> Why is it every time someone picks on Bush, the first line of defense is
> >>>> >>> always Clinton?
>
> >>>> >> Because there's no defense for bush.
>
> >>>> > One of the reasons for the comparison is that so many have willfully
> >>>> > forgotten the rhetoric from democrats concerning the "imminent" threat
> >>>> > from Saddam?
>
> >>>> The Dems, and the rest of the planet, got their "info" from BushCo.
>
> >>>Actually no. The rhetoric referenced predates Bush.
>
> >>Invading iraq didn't.
>
> >>>> We now know that that intel was total horseshit.
>
> >>>But Bush somehow created it years before his presidency. That is an
> >>>interesting theory, care to flesh it out?
>
> >>Liar.  The claims of wmd as a reason for attacking and the attack
> >>itself was all bush.  Run, neocon. Run.
>
> >Why do you lie when it so easy for us to prove that you're lying?
>
> I'm not lying, neocon.  From what you just quoted:
>
> >Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is
> >against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made
> >clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.
>
> >The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the
> >face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle.
> >The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized
> >people throughout the world.
>
> >It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic
> >way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end
> >of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days
> >within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can
> >find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.
>
> - And -
>
> >If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
> >clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
> >weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his
> >capacity to threaten his neighbors.
>
> Which, of course, mentions nothing of overthrowing him to shove
> another democratic state up the ass of the middle east.
>

What I would like the neocons to explain is how come our biggest ally
in bringing democracy to the Middle East is the dictator of Pakistan
who overthrew a democratically elected government

Can you spell hypocrisy