November 02, 2006
NYT: Saddam Was a Year Away From Atomic Bomb(Updated)
In a story apparently designed to attack the Bush administration less than a week away from the midterm elections, the New York Times has instead delivered a stunning November Surprise to the Democrats. Saddam Hussein's regime was perhaps only a year away from developing nuclear weapons at the time of the US invasion.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From the article [emphasis added]:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.If Hussein, who used chemical weapons against his own citizens, had remained in power he could have had a nuclear weapon three years ago. The New York Times has just destroyed three years of myth-making by the Democrats. Update: Others blogging:
Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:
I'm sorry, did the New York Times just put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB?Captain's Quarters:
That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of an Iraqi nuke.Quando:
Huh. Sounds like 2003 was an excellent time to take Saddam out. But hey, nothing really to see here, move along, move along.little green footballs:
Is the New York Times actually conceding that Saddam was just a year away from having a nuclear weapon in 2002?Via Stop the ACLU.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:56 PM
| Comments (98)
| Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Wait a second.
The left and the UN said that Saddam had NO NUKE PROGRAM!!!
I guess they left out that he had an 'Atomic Bomb Program'....big
difference, but still all in all, just as dangerous when it comes to
qualifying in the WMD category.
....or...is it? I'm so confused...
The left and the UN said that Saddam had NO NUKE PROGRAM!!!
I guess they left out that he had an 'Atomic Bomb Program'....big
difference, but still all in all, just as dangerous when it comes to
qualifying in the WMD category.
....or...is it? I'm so confused...
Posted by: mrclark at November 03, 2006 12:16 AM (q2jUa)
2
Go New York Times!
Posted by: Christoph at November 03, 2006 12:48 AM (L8rdZ)
3
I think they are saying that Saddam was one year away from having Nuclear weapons pre-Gulf war in 1990? The U.N crushed the 'Baghdadatron' [Calutron] in the desert and sealed it with concrete, which is how the Iraqi scientists were doing Uranium enrichment.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 02:21 AM (QkWqQ)
4
Gee, having a little problem with the reading today?
"At the time...Persian gulf war..."
I mean,,,,hello? This is a revelation of what we all have known. No programs for over 10 years before the invasion.
"At the time...Persian gulf war..."
I mean,,,,hello? This is a revelation of what we all have known. No programs for over 10 years before the invasion.
Posted by: Voice of the Majority at November 03, 2006 02:58 AM (lI3TA)
5
Duh, Bluto -
I read the section you referenced, several times, just to make sure I understood it.
Perhaps you should have another go at it, until you understand what it says.
Or are you trying to put a spin on 15 year old information, to make it seem relevant today?
Or maybe you just bungled a joke as John Kerry did, and so changed the meaning.
Seems that Bush's daddy did a hell of a lot better job of keeping nuclear weapons from terrorist nations than his moron son is doing.
I read the section you referenced, several times, just to make sure I understood it.
Perhaps you should have another go at it, until you understand what it says.
Or are you trying to put a spin on 15 year old information, to make it seem relevant today?
Or maybe you just bungled a joke as John Kerry did, and so changed the meaning.
Seems that Bush's daddy did a hell of a lot better job of keeping nuclear weapons from terrorist nations than his moron son is doing.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 03, 2006 05:58 AM (fMHQi)
6
Run for office, puddleduck. Seems like you have the answers for all the worlds problems.......You want to enlighten us?
Posted by: REMF at November 03, 2006 07:28 AM (7RMSi)
Posted by: y7 at November 03, 2006 07:52 AM (yYph9)
8
Puddlebrain: The elected president of the United States of America is not a moron. His only crime is that he allows those that help the enemy to run their mouths. Feel lonely? Move to Iran and be with your own kind.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 08:14 AM (cNF2m)
9
More hysteria from Bluehoe. The story is anachronous.
Posted by: Greg at November 03, 2006 08:59 AM (19GwZ)
10
It is the Bush supporters who must feel lonely in their little 17% group off in the corner. We might be in a much better space had Bush Jr. gone for a little therapy to get at the root of why he suffered from lack of Dad's attention and so yearned for it that he had to " one-up " papa by thinking he was going to do a better job. I'm sure papa must be shaking his head. Oh well, a bottle in from of me is better than a frontal lobotomy!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 03, 2006 09:03 AM (Dd86v)
11
Bluto's a dumb ass. They meant 15 years ago.
(I suspect this is not rooster and is a spoof I don't care if you call him everything but a white boy but no spoofing dammit :Howie)
(I suspect this is not rooster and is a spoof I don't care if you call him everything but a white boy but no spoofing dammit :Howie)
Posted by: Grey Rooster at November 03, 2006 09:18 AM (wkRws)
12
How do people like puddleduck KNOW what Saddam DIDN'T have...........? What about the 747 loads of weapons that were flown to Iran shortly before we invaded.? One iraqi pilot wrote a book about this. Or, is puddledick simply expressing an opinion based on Bush hatred...I think so.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 03, 2006 09:32 AM (dE5ub)
13
The article means Saddam was a year away from the bomb at the end of the Persian Gulf war, not in 2002.
You right wing nutjobs don't have any more good lies left do you?
You right wing nutjobs don't have any more good lies left do you?
Posted by: Adnan at November 03, 2006 10:12 AM (TYV5X)
14
Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
No, Bush lied people died, remember??? The Left wanted sanctions lifted on Iraq, even knowing that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon. That is proof enough the invasion was warranted and that the Left are morons.
No, Bush lied people died, remember??? The Left wanted sanctions lifted on Iraq, even knowing that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon. That is proof enough the invasion was warranted and that the Left are morons.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 03, 2006 11:02 AM (8e/V4)
15
I wonder how much of the equipment Saddam managed to ship off to Syria and Iran when President Bush made it clear the coalition was going in?
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 03, 2006 11:24 AM (vixLB)
16
8 Puddlebrain: The elected president of the United States of America is not a moron.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
You're right. Clinton wasn't a moron and neither was Gore. The unelected president isn't a moron either. He would have to gain some IQ points to become a moron.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What about the 747 loads of weapons that were flown to Iran shortly before we invaded.?
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 03, 2006 09:32 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What about them?
Do you have a reference for this claim?
Posted by: y7 at November 03, 2006 07:52 AM
8 Puddlebrain: The elected president of the United States of America is not a moron.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
You're right. Clinton wasn't a moron and neither was Gore. The unelected president isn't a moron either. He would have to gain some IQ points to become a moron.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What about the 747 loads of weapons that were flown to Iran shortly before we invaded.?
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 03, 2006 09:32 AM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What about them?
Do you have a reference for this claim?
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 11:54 AM (eNwl1)
17
Deleters eat shit and bark at the moon.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 12:13 PM (cNF2m)
18
The nuclear progrm statement was not about the status of the program in
2002-2003. Basically, the Times has only conceded that (1) Saddam
was a really bad dude; and (2) Saddam actually did continue to have
active ties to Islamic terrorists. It's this later point which
seems to be lost on left wing mouth breathers who insist that "Iraq had
nothing to do with the war on terror!" Sure, Iraq didn't have a direct
roll in 9/11. But Al Qaeda and Iraq were both part of the same
bigger problem.
Perhaps we would be better off now if Bush the elder had deflected
Saddam and gotten him to attack one of "less evil" allies than
Kuwait. Destruction of the Saudi royal family might have been
good in the long run. But leaving Saddam in power was still Bush the
elder's second biggest failure (#1 being Souter).
2002-2003. Basically, the Times has only conceded that (1) Saddam
was a really bad dude; and (2) Saddam actually did continue to have
active ties to Islamic terrorists. It's this later point which
seems to be lost on left wing mouth breathers who insist that "Iraq had
nothing to do with the war on terror!" Sure, Iraq didn't have a direct
roll in 9/11. But Al Qaeda and Iraq were both part of the same
bigger problem.
Perhaps we would be better off now if Bush the elder had deflected
Saddam and gotten him to attack one of "less evil" allies than
Kuwait. Destruction of the Saudi royal family might have been
good in the long run. But leaving Saddam in power was still Bush the
elder's second biggest failure (#1 being Souter).
Posted by: wooga at November 03, 2006 12:42 PM (tAB8A)
19
Hey, lefties... perception is reality in this little propoganda war and the NYT handed a gift to the Republicans by saying that Saddam was just shy of having a nuclear weapon. Pity, because the left has worked long and hard to create the impression there were no efforts to build such weapons.
Noone is going to carefully read the article for dates.
Why bother? The NYT runs fast and loose with dates and details and facts - everyone knows this. Why just today they had to correct their Kerry quote. You know, their quote where they inserted words to make it look more like a joke? Somehow the crack reporters at the NYT didn't hear the tape which had been repeatedlyrunning on TV the day before, or didn't read the transcripts available everywhere on the internet.
Noone is going to carefully read the article for dates.
Why bother? The NYT runs fast and loose with dates and details and facts - everyone knows this. Why just today they had to correct their Kerry quote. You know, their quote where they inserted words to make it look more like a joke? Somehow the crack reporters at the NYT didn't hear the tape which had been repeatedlyrunning on TV the day before, or didn't read the transcripts available everywhere on the internet.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 01:09 PM (0muHk)
20
Here's the way I see it. While he may not have been actively
pursuing nuclear weaponry at the time of the invasion, the documents
indicate that they were approximately one year away. And there
was nothing stopping them from doing less overt research.
Remember such documentation was supposed to have been destroyed?
Oops! Looks like it wasn't. I wonder why ... For those with
limited comprehension, here's how Saddam was going about things:
* Stash all nuclear documentation safely due to sanctions (and still do covert research) - check
* Begin skimming from Oil For Food Programme - check
* Get at least two nations (France and Russia) with veto power in my pocket through Oil For Food - check
* Begin lobying for lifting sanctions with help from France and Russia - check
* Once sanctions are lifted, pick up where we left off and we can have a bomb in about a year.
Remember that they had already been busted for working on delivery
systems beyond what they were allowed. And if you think that with
Iran scrambling with enrichment like they are, that they and Iraq
wouldn't be in a nuclear arms race right now, you're (in the words of
the inimitable John Kerry) CRAZY.
pursuing nuclear weaponry at the time of the invasion, the documents
indicate that they were approximately one year away. And there
was nothing stopping them from doing less overt research.
Remember such documentation was supposed to have been destroyed?
Oops! Looks like it wasn't. I wonder why ... For those with
limited comprehension, here's how Saddam was going about things:
* Stash all nuclear documentation safely due to sanctions (and still do covert research) - check
* Begin skimming from Oil For Food Programme - check
* Get at least two nations (France and Russia) with veto power in my pocket through Oil For Food - check
* Begin lobying for lifting sanctions with help from France and Russia - check
* Once sanctions are lifted, pick up where we left off and we can have a bomb in about a year.
Remember that they had already been busted for working on delivery
systems beyond what they were allowed. And if you think that with
Iran scrambling with enrichment like they are, that they and Iraq
wouldn't be in a nuclear arms race right now, you're (in the words of
the inimitable John Kerry) CRAZY.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 01:12 PM (I+VdL)
21
because the left has worked long and hard to create the impression
there were no efforts to build such weapons.
blah, blah
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 01:09 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Funny, I don't remember anyone saying he wasn't trying to do a lot of things. What was being said was that he didn't possess the WMD's that Bush claimed he had and so far nobody has found any.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* Get at least THREE nations (France, Russia and The United States of America) with veto power in my pocket through Oil For Food - check (oops... US skims the O for F program but not in Iraq pockets)
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 01:12 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So what was the threat to us again?
there were no efforts to build such weapons.
blah, blah
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 01:09 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Funny, I don't remember anyone saying he wasn't trying to do a lot of things. What was being said was that he didn't possess the WMD's that Bush claimed he had and so far nobody has found any.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* Get at least THREE nations (France, Russia and The United States of America) with veto power in my pocket through Oil For Food - check (oops... US skims the O for F program but not in Iraq pockets)
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 01:12 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So what was the threat to us again?
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 01:20 PM (eNwl1)
22
Let me spell this out for you with crayons, Cafeenman.
The US government was not in on the OFF scam and was not lobbying to
lift sanctions. French and Russian gov't people were. And
since you bring it up, let's add the UN in on that too.
The US government was not in on the OFF scam and was not lobbying to
lift sanctions. French and Russian gov't people were. And
since you bring it up, let's add the UN in on that too.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 01:39 PM (I+VdL)
23
looks like computer text to me. Do you use some type of text recognition pad that lets you draw with crayons? I should get one for the kids and maybe freepers when they mature a little bit.
Anyway... what threat did you say that Iraq posed to the US?
Anyway... what threat did you say that Iraq posed to the US?
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 01:42 PM (eNwl1)
24
Anyone who cannot see the threat of a rogue nation, that has influenced nations with a Veto vote, has flaunted both a cease fire agreement, and U.N monitoring programs, has used chemical and biological weapons against his own civilians, and against his neighbors should probably stick to crayons.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 01:54 PM (QkWqQ)
25
Cafeenman: You're missing the point, buddy. .. nailed down facts don't matter here. The NYT just ran an article showing that Saddam and his men weren't flying kites the day before the invasion. Saddam was up to no good, and now even the NYT has admitted it.
You need to take a step back and appreciate the irony of this. NYT spouts fictions until they're "facts," ignore facts until they disappear and when propoganda backfires, lefty apologists have to start suddenly start citing specifics, facts, dates etc.
You need to take a step back and appreciate the irony of this. NYT spouts fictions until they're "facts," ignore facts until they disappear and when propoganda backfires, lefty apologists have to start suddenly start citing specifics, facts, dates etc.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 01:59 PM (0muHk)
26
Let's also add the trip to Niger. What were the Iraqis there
for? To secure a lucrative deal on cow peas? I hear that
after being processed in a centrifuge they make great hummus.
for? To secure a lucrative deal on cow peas? I hear that
after being processed in a centrifuge they make great hummus.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 02:09 PM (I+VdL)
27
24 Anyone who cannot see the threat of a rogue nation, that has influenced nations with a Veto vote, has flaunted both a cease fire agreement, and U.N monitoring programs, has used chemical and biological weapons against his own civilians, and against his neighbors should probably stick to crayons.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 01:54 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
OK, so he was going to fly his cargo plane over the ocean to US soil and drop rations of mass destruction on us? Or was it his navy of two rowing sculls that were going to sink our fleet in the mediterranean? Or possibly his army that we defeated in what, a couple weeks that was going to march over here and kick all our asses? Or maybe it was his intimate ties with Al Qaeda that he would supply with "Nukes for Dummies" so they could have at us? Or maybe he would send his own guys over here with nukes? What was the threat again? What is your guys fascination with crayons? Uusually it's just sex that you get all weirded out about. Now it's crayons. Creepy.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 01:54 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
OK, so he was going to fly his cargo plane over the ocean to US soil and drop rations of mass destruction on us? Or was it his navy of two rowing sculls that were going to sink our fleet in the mediterranean? Or possibly his army that we defeated in what, a couple weeks that was going to march over here and kick all our asses? Or maybe it was his intimate ties with Al Qaeda that he would supply with "Nukes for Dummies" so they could have at us? Or maybe he would send his own guys over here with nukes? What was the threat again? What is your guys fascination with crayons? Uusually it's just sex that you get all weirded out about. Now it's crayons. Creepy.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 02:10 PM (eNwl1)
28
26 Let's also add the trip to Niger. What were the Iraqis there for? To secure a lucrative deal on cow peas? I hear that after being processed in a centrifuge they make great hummus.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 02:09 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Debunked so many times I'm assuming you're a leftie being sarcastic.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 02:09 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Debunked so many times I'm assuming you're a leftie being sarcastic.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 02:11 PM (eNwl1)
29
25 Cafeenman: You're missing the point, buddy. .. nailed down facts don't matter here. The NYT just ran an article showing that Saddam and his men weren't flying kites the day before the invasion. Saddam was up to no good, and now even the NYT has admitted it.
You need to take a step back and appreciate the irony of this. NYT spouts fictions until they're "facts," ignore facts until they disappear and when propoganda backfires, lefty apologists have to start suddenly start citing specifics, facts, dates etc.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 01:59 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
NYT - that's a newspaper, right? I don't read it. I just watch retarded people argue about what it said or didn't say. Saddam was a bad guy. That was a problem of his citizens to resolve. He was no threat to us.
As far as his activities, at the time we invaded (and now even more so) there were other countries doing much worse. Why didn't we invade a country that could be a real threat?
You need to take a step back and appreciate the irony of this. NYT spouts fictions until they're "facts," ignore facts until they disappear and when propoganda backfires, lefty apologists have to start suddenly start citing specifics, facts, dates etc.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 01:59 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
NYT - that's a newspaper, right? I don't read it. I just watch retarded people argue about what it said or didn't say. Saddam was a bad guy. That was a problem of his citizens to resolve. He was no threat to us.
As far as his activities, at the time we invaded (and now even more so) there were other countries doing much worse. Why didn't we invade a country that could be a real threat?
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 02:15 PM (eNwl1)
30
I'll see you the trip to Niger, and raise the presence of Russian made night vision equipment and GPS Jamming equipment made by the Russian Aviakonversia corporation in Iraq in 2003 - despite internationally agreed ban on sales of such items to Iraq. I'm guessing we're supposed to forget about Russia's sales of military equipment to Iraq, and their nuclear technology transfer to Iran, transfer of Sunburn missiles to China etc.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 02:16 PM (QkWqQ)
31
Ah... so the real enemy is russia. Aiding and abetting the enemy. Don't see Bush threatening them too much. All hat, no cattle. It's ok for us to have all those thing though, right? It's ok for us to supply Saddam with illegal chemical weapons to kill Iran-backed citizens who have taken over a good part of the country and declared themselves to be enemies of Iraq. In fact, it's even ok for us to encourage and pay him to attack his own citizens. The best part is that it's also ok for us to, with great indignity (that part is REALLY important) and claim what an evil, evil man he is for doing what we wanted and armed him to do. That's what I love about us. Anything we do is ok. So when do we start bombing China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and Venezuala? Oh yeah... the French too.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 02:20 PM (eNwl1)
32
Cafeenman: "Why didn't we invade a country that could be a real threat?"
Hmmmm....you're still missing the point, man. Nuclear. weapon. is. a. real. threat. Get it?
Just admit that you (and all of your other fellow travelers in the leftysphere) have lost major ground here. Suddenly, up is up and down is down. God, I love the truth.
Hmmmm....you're still missing the point, man. Nuclear. weapon. is. a. real. threat. Get it?
Just admit that you (and all of your other fellow travelers in the leftysphere) have lost major ground here. Suddenly, up is up and down is down. God, I love the truth.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 02:20 PM (0muHk)
33
Lost major ground? I'm not seeing it but if that becomes true at some point in the future I'll respond with something like, "what the fuck? Why can't we ever get good information? Guess I was wrong." You right wingers have already had plenty of opportunities to admit that you're wrong, but nobody is holding their breath.
Nukes. are. a. real. threat? Crap! (but thanks for the tip) I'll write it down someplace so I don't forget. N. Korea is not Iraq. They are two different places (consult your globe or atlas for details). N. Korea has nukes. Iraq doesn't have nukes. Iraq was no where close to having nukes and if you stop trying to make your old, incorrect arguments become true retroactively you'll stop playing semantics and realize that Iraq wasn't anywhere close to having nukes. On the other hand, it's mathematically improbable that people such as yourselves making so many claims could always be wrong, but you're definitely beating the odds. Congratulations!
Nukes. are. a. real. threat? Crap! (but thanks for the tip) I'll write it down someplace so I don't forget. N. Korea is not Iraq. They are two different places (consult your globe or atlas for details). N. Korea has nukes. Iraq doesn't have nukes. Iraq was no where close to having nukes and if you stop trying to make your old, incorrect arguments become true retroactively you'll stop playing semantics and realize that Iraq wasn't anywhere close to having nukes. On the other hand, it's mathematically improbable that people such as yourselves making so many claims could always be wrong, but you're definitely beating the odds. Congratulations!
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 02:29 PM (eNwl1)
34
Cafeenman; maybe you should switch to decaf.
The Niger story was not debunked. Joe Wilson, on the other hand,
was. Tell me too Cafeenman, since you're the almighty sage here,
what about the Russian MIGs in Iraq? What about Salman Pak?
What about Saddam's checks to suicide bombers? There's a lot more.
You're not all that bright, sparky. Pretending that all these
things I and others have brought up are disconnected events that have
no bearing on each other which you can refute catagorically with
nothing more than a few keystrokes does not detract from the sheer
weight of evidence against Saddam's danger to not only the region, but
anyone else he set his sights on.
You're too stupid to argue with.
The Niger story was not debunked. Joe Wilson, on the other hand,
was. Tell me too Cafeenman, since you're the almighty sage here,
what about the Russian MIGs in Iraq? What about Salman Pak?
What about Saddam's checks to suicide bombers? There's a lot more.
You're not all that bright, sparky. Pretending that all these
things I and others have brought up are disconnected events that have
no bearing on each other which you can refute catagorically with
nothing more than a few keystrokes does not detract from the sheer
weight of evidence against Saddam's danger to not only the region, but
anyone else he set his sights on.
You're too stupid to argue with.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 02:30 PM (I+VdL)
35
er...categorically.
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 02:31 PM (I+VdL)
36
Oyster - funny that none of those things are anywhere in the liberal media that runs stories about democrats but have totally unrelated pictures of bush grip 'n' grins in the story instead of photos related to the story.
How about some sources to your little tidbits of information.
Oh, and good one about the "too stupid to argue with." That added a lot to your post and took your credibility rating from 0.0 to -0.1
How about some sources to your little tidbits of information.
Oh, and good one about the "too stupid to argue with." That added a lot to your post and took your credibility rating from 0.0 to -0.1
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 02:47 PM (eNwl1)
37
Of course, n.a palm, there were 747 loads of WMDs going out of Iraq, just like there were all those mobile chemical labs, before the war.
Both stories must be true.
They were both told by Iraqis that wanted the US to come in and do the dirty work that they wouldn't do for themselves.
What the Iraqi people didn't realize, is that if you want freedom, you have to fight for it, yourself.
You will never be free, if you let someone do all of your fighting for you.
If freedom is handed to you, it is only worth what you paid for it.
It doesn't seem, to me, like freedom was a high priority for most Iraqis, or they would be free today.
There were a hell of a lot more Iraqis, than terrorists, when we invaded.
Don't you think that we have given them ample opportunity to secure their own freedom, if they really wanted it?
Why do the RW trolls on this site disparage our veterans who have fought and died, so that we can be free?
It is shameless, but consistant with Bush's concern for our military.
As a wise old man once said - "honor the warriors, not the war".
Both stories must be true.
They were both told by Iraqis that wanted the US to come in and do the dirty work that they wouldn't do for themselves.
What the Iraqi people didn't realize, is that if you want freedom, you have to fight for it, yourself.
You will never be free, if you let someone do all of your fighting for you.
If freedom is handed to you, it is only worth what you paid for it.
It doesn't seem, to me, like freedom was a high priority for most Iraqis, or they would be free today.
There were a hell of a lot more Iraqis, than terrorists, when we invaded.
Don't you think that we have given them ample opportunity to secure their own freedom, if they really wanted it?
Why do the RW trolls on this site disparage our veterans who have fought and died, so that we can be free?
It is shameless, but consistant with Bush's concern for our military.
As a wise old man once said - "honor the warriors, not the war".
Posted by: Puddleduck at November 03, 2006 02:55 PM (F+9W9)
Posted by: Oyster at November 03, 2006 03:24 PM (I+VdL)
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 03:26 PM (0muHk)
40
Prove something doesn't exist? Nice, but lame strawman attempt.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 03:30 PM (eNwl1)
41
Cafeenman:
It's ok for us to have all those thing though, right? so your moral relative kicks in, you're a real patriot, with your the U.S is worse/same attitude.
please show me the U.N resolution that restricts the United States from having Night vision, or GPS jamming equipment.
My mention of Russia, is to do with the fact that Russia has a Veto vote, and has been influenced by money deals with Iraq, just has it has with Iran -- any wonder there is no staunch resolution against Iran, with Russia providing the goods?
It's ok for us to have all those thing though, right? so your moral relative kicks in, you're a real patriot, with your the U.S is worse/same attitude.
please show me the U.N resolution that restricts the United States from having Night vision, or GPS jamming equipment.
My mention of Russia, is to do with the fact that Russia has a Veto vote, and has been influenced by money deals with Iraq, just has it has with Iran -- any wonder there is no staunch resolution against Iran, with Russia providing the goods?
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 03:31 PM (QkWqQ)
42
My moral relative? All my relatives (well most) are moral. Did you make a point, dave?
I think you're reading between the lines too much. I said it's ok for us to have those things. Was I wrong? Are you saying it's not ok for us to have those things because the UN says it's ok? You're not making any sense.
I think you're reading between the lines too much. I said it's ok for us to have those things. Was I wrong? Are you saying it's not ok for us to have those things because the UN says it's ok? You're not making any sense.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 03:34 PM (eNwl1)
43
perhaps I can put it in terms a preschooler can understand, and maybe help your comprehension problem:
After the Gulf War, the United Nations created a list of technology that was to transferred, nor sold to Iraq, this also included "dual-use" items.
A GPS Jammer, has no civilian use, night-vision technology most likely fits under dual-use it has other purposes than warfare.
Russia was a party to this agreement. Russia kept arming Saddam, long after the Gulf War (see Oysters post about the Mig FoxBAT that was recovered in the Desert, that had technology the West had never seen)
Saddam purchasing these items was breaking the U.N sanctions, along with other violations of the cease-fire.
I was not reading between the lines, you might backstep but it is obvious what you were saying:
It's ok for us to have all those thing though, right? It's ok for us to supply Saddam with illegal chemical weapons to kill Iran-backed citizens
the comparison is clear, to everyone here. keep back-peddling though.
After the Gulf War, the United Nations created a list of technology that was to transferred, nor sold to Iraq, this also included "dual-use" items.
A GPS Jammer, has no civilian use, night-vision technology most likely fits under dual-use it has other purposes than warfare.
Russia was a party to this agreement. Russia kept arming Saddam, long after the Gulf War (see Oysters post about the Mig FoxBAT that was recovered in the Desert, that had technology the West had never seen)
Saddam purchasing these items was breaking the U.N sanctions, along with other violations of the cease-fire.
I was not reading between the lines, you might backstep but it is obvious what you were saying:
It's ok for us to have all those thing though, right? It's ok for us to supply Saddam with illegal chemical weapons to kill Iran-backed citizens
the comparison is clear, to everyone here. keep back-peddling though.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 03:55 PM (QkWqQ)
44
Cafeenman: Did you make a point, dave?
He's making the obvious point that you are not an American patriot. That you are anti-American. That you appear to be concerned with fact and truth, and doing the right thing, but you in fact you are actively rooting against America.
reread your own post at 2:20 where you say, 'That's what I love about us. Anything we do is ok. So when do we
start bombing China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and Venezuala? Oh yeah...
the French too."
What you are saying is that America is a war-monger, etc. etc. That is why lefties such as yourself have the nick-name, "lefturd."
Any questions?
He's making the obvious point that you are not an American patriot. That you are anti-American. That you appear to be concerned with fact and truth, and doing the right thing, but you in fact you are actively rooting against America.
reread your own post at 2:20 where you say, 'That's what I love about us. Anything we do is ok. So when do we
start bombing China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and Venezuala? Oh yeah...
the French too."
What you are saying is that America is a war-monger, etc. etc. That is why lefties such as yourself have the nick-name, "lefturd."
Any questions?
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 03:57 PM (0muHk)
45
Back pedaling? It is obvious what I was saying. You're saying Russia supplied Iraq with weapons. You haven't provided any references to that. You said Russia gave them Migs. Now you say they recovered A foxbat? One? You've got to be shitting me. That's all you've got? Sources please.
One freeper told me that we found "rocket tubes." That was all he said except for the number which I don't remember but it was something like 10. Guess what. I have rocket tubes. Millions of Americans have rocket tubes. They fly about 1,000 feet in the air and are destroyed when they hit anything with substance doing little or no damage.
I said we armed Saddam. We did arm Saddam. Saddam used those weapons (again, illegal chemical weapons) to kill people we wanted him to kill. Now people such as you (maybe not you since it hasn't really come up since I've been here but since you're assuming things I will too) are being indignant about how Saddam killed his own people!
Here's an idea. Give your kid a bat and tell him to whack the neighbor kid with it. Give him money either. Put a lot of pressure on him in both positive and negative ways. Then if he does it, tell him what a bad kid he is and get anyone you can to gang up on him. Sure, your kid has a character fault for doing something he knows is wrong but he caved to the pressure so he needs to be punished. You're a great dad.
One freeper told me that we found "rocket tubes." That was all he said except for the number which I don't remember but it was something like 10. Guess what. I have rocket tubes. Millions of Americans have rocket tubes. They fly about 1,000 feet in the air and are destroyed when they hit anything with substance doing little or no damage.
I said we armed Saddam. We did arm Saddam. Saddam used those weapons (again, illegal chemical weapons) to kill people we wanted him to kill. Now people such as you (maybe not you since it hasn't really come up since I've been here but since you're assuming things I will too) are being indignant about how Saddam killed his own people!
Here's an idea. Give your kid a bat and tell him to whack the neighbor kid with it. Give him money either. Put a lot of pressure on him in both positive and negative ways. Then if he does it, tell him what a bad kid he is and get anyone you can to gang up on him. Sure, your kid has a character fault for doing something he knows is wrong but he caved to the pressure so he needs to be punished. You're a great dad.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 04:03 PM (eNwl1)
46
Cafeenman:
Ever heard of a site called www.google.com ? do your own research, I did mine. -- It's always the same with pinko's, they always want someone to do the work for them.
It's interesting that you mention the U.S selling Saddam chemical weapons, can you identify the precursor for his weaponized slurried Anthrax? I already know it, how it was obtained and it's original purpose?
btw. nice comparison between rocket tubes, and kids rockets, yeah I bet that is exactly what they were talking about, not the military use at all.
And no, they did not just find one Mig.
Ever heard of a site called www.google.com ? do your own research, I did mine. -- It's always the same with pinko's, they always want someone to do the work for them.
It's interesting that you mention the U.S selling Saddam chemical weapons, can you identify the precursor for his weaponized slurried Anthrax? I already know it, how it was obtained and it's original purpose?
btw. nice comparison between rocket tubes, and kids rockets, yeah I bet that is exactly what they were talking about, not the military use at all.
And no, they did not just find one Mig.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 04:10 PM (QkWqQ)
47
I've come to the conclusion that none of you or anyone else but Saddam and his closest knows for sure. I do know that he would try sooner or later. I say err on the side of stopping WMD in the hands of a killer. And send a message to others. Which we have done. Not the way I would have done it but something is better than sitting back and being a target. The Iraq invasion was a message to more than Iraq. It was a message to all muslim regimes. No more 9/11s. Perhaps it worked, perhaps not. I just know in my heart that letting the muslims get on a roll is not the way to go. A good message is you will suffer also. Five years now and no more attacks. I would have bet the farm on it wouldn't be that long. I remember the glee in the animals eyes as they danced in the street. How can you short bred assholes forget?
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 05:04 PM (cNF2m)
48
CafeenMom:
Why did hussein send his top nuclear weapons technician to Niger as an "ambassador" when he already had an ambassador? Why did the ex-president of Niger confirm that the Iraqis were looking to buy yellowcake Uranium--the only real Nigerian export? Why did Hussein claim his goons were there to buy oil--something he obviously didn't need to buy? Why do the British intelligence agencies stand by their assessment of Hussein's yellowcake shopping? Why is the only person claiming to have knowledge to the contrary the thoroughly discredited liar Joe Wilson?
Why do you continue to spew leftist canards into the face of all reason? Why do you defend an indefensible piece of shit like Saddam Hussein? Could it possibly be BDS? Try not to scoop your brains out the next time you wipe your ass. Assuming you wipe your ass after you squeeze out the kind of crap you dropped here.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 03, 2006 06:09 PM (bLPT+)
49
Brrrrrrreeeeeeeeeettt!
Brrrrrrreeeeeeeeeettt!
Brrrrrrreeeeeeeeeettt!
THIS IS AN AMBER ALERT!
THIS IS AN AMBER ALERT!
A child is missing.
The child, Bluto Blutarsky, white male, age 13, fat, ugly, stupid, greasy dirty blond hair.
Last seen Thursday, November 2nd at 10:56 PM in his grandmother’s basement at 1100 Dead End Cove, in Nuttersville.
He had posted a 14-year-old story, as if it were contemporaneous, on the neocon website, the Jawa Report. He ran off screaming and his grandmother believes he is suicidal as a result of the gaff. He has the unusual habit of sitting and rocking as he mutters.
If you see him, please contact the nearest law enforcement authority immediately.
Brrrrrrreeeeeeeeeettt!
Brrrrrrreeeeeeeeeettt!
THIS IS AN AMBER ALERT!
THIS IS AN AMBER ALERT!
A child is missing.
The child, Bluto Blutarsky, white male, age 13, fat, ugly, stupid, greasy dirty blond hair.
Last seen Thursday, November 2nd at 10:56 PM in his grandmother’s basement at 1100 Dead End Cove, in Nuttersville.
He had posted a 14-year-old story, as if it were contemporaneous, on the neocon website, the Jawa Report. He ran off screaming and his grandmother believes he is suicidal as a result of the gaff. He has the unusual habit of sitting and rocking as he mutters.
If you see him, please contact the nearest law enforcement authority immediately.
Posted by: Greg at November 03, 2006 06:14 PM (19GwZ)
50
In a nutshell, Bush Jr. tried to make papa Bush proud by finishing a job his dad had started. It was also an easy target, not like Russia, or Iran, or North Korea. Have to think twice about raising the ire of China. What Bush Jr. needed was to bolster America's confidence and make a mark in history by defeating an enemy. Something we have been unable to do since WW2. Bush Jr. thought he would sieze the glory by breaking the cut and run course we were on. Well, in the meantime we have shot our wad in the desert and are helpless to attend to the bigger threats of North Korea, Iran and Russia. And we can cry and whimper but we have alienated our allies. Not many options left. Guess I'll do as Bush Jr. does when faced with insurmountable problems:
Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7
Fore! L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 03, 2006 06:32 PM (Dd86v)
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 06:38 PM (QkWqQ)
52
Actually, since it's almost impossible to see if there are new posts on a topic, or follow a conversation because the comments all appear out of order since the Jawareport "updates" you're forgiven.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 06:57 PM (QkWqQ)
53
The SOB might have succeeded too if he had pulled out after " Mission Accomplished! ". But no, he got greedy and obstinate in trying to turn Iraq into Disneyland. He should have just done Saddam in instead of having this long drawn out circus of a trial. Next time go in, get the job done and leave a note on the door as we withdraw that says: " Fuck with us and we'll fuck with you! "
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 03, 2006 07:32 PM (Dd86v)
54
Davec, sorry about any spelling or grammatical errors I make. I been picking up some pointers from Howie!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 03, 2006 07:35 PM (Dd86v)
55
It wasn't the grammar, or the spelling I was commenting on.
It was the flow of the comment, it was hard to read.
It was the flow of the comment, it was hard to read.
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 07:40 PM (QkWqQ)
56
Larry:
Stopping at Saddam would have been a mistake also, doesn't the term 'You break it, you buy it!" also ring true? I never thought it was a good idea to put U.S soldiers in the role of policemen, but if you're going to destroy a Government you had best make sure you replace it with something better?
Stopping at Saddam would have been a mistake also, doesn't the term 'You break it, you buy it!" also ring true? I never thought it was a good idea to put U.S soldiers in the role of policemen, but if you're going to destroy a Government you had best make sure you replace it with something better?
Posted by: davec at November 03, 2006 07:49 PM (QkWqQ)
57
He's making the obvious point that you are not an American patriot. That you are anti-American. That you appear to be concerned with fact and truth, and doing the right thing, but you in fact you are actively rooting against America.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 03:57 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So he wasn't making a point at all? Is this all you people can do? Instead of coming up with a real rebuttal using real fact, you question the patriotism of those who don't suck your little limp dicks while making up facts to suit your purposes. So far not one of you has done anything more than that. Enjoy your own little fantasy world.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That's what I love about us. Anything we do is ok. So when do we start bombing China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and Venezuala? Oh yeah... the French too."
What you are saying is that America is a war-monger, etc. etc. That is why lefties such as yourself have the nick-name, "lefturd."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Thanks for clearing that up. America is a war monger (indisputable) and that makes lefties lefturds. I see you are very good at coming to retarded conclusions. That's why people call you stupid fucks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Any questions?
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 03:57 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I have lots of questions but it's obvious none of them will be answered here. You have a fundamental disdain for honesty and integrity. Please continue enjoying sucking each other off while bashing other gays such as yourselves.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 03:57 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So he wasn't making a point at all? Is this all you people can do? Instead of coming up with a real rebuttal using real fact, you question the patriotism of those who don't suck your little limp dicks while making up facts to suit your purposes. So far not one of you has done anything more than that. Enjoy your own little fantasy world.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That's what I love about us. Anything we do is ok. So when do we start bombing China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran and Venezuala? Oh yeah... the French too."
What you are saying is that America is a war-monger, etc. etc. That is why lefties such as yourself have the nick-name, "lefturd."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Thanks for clearing that up. America is a war monger (indisputable) and that makes lefties lefturds. I see you are very good at coming to retarded conclusions. That's why people call you stupid fucks.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Any questions?
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 03, 2006 03:57 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I have lots of questions but it's obvious none of them will be answered here. You have a fundamental disdain for honesty and integrity. Please continue enjoying sucking each other off while bashing other gays such as yourselves.
Posted by: CafeenMan at November 03, 2006 09:00 PM (eNwl1)
58
CafeenMan: Good cop out.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 03, 2006 09:50 PM (cNF2m)
59
Destroy CafeenMan's party in the election. Get out the vote.
Make drink some coffee.
USA all the way!
Make drink some coffee.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 03, 2006 09:55 PM (2OHpj)
60
If it's possible to understand this could happen in the 21st century after years of evolution there are people in the right wing world who literally have no brains in their heads.
And we all thought evolution made most people smarter.
Guess the designer got their wires crossed.
GEEZ, this country is in one hell of a hole if people still think after Ted Haggard that the right wing is really the party of values for ANYTHING!
And we all thought evolution made most people smarter.
Guess the designer got their wires crossed.
GEEZ, this country is in one hell of a hole if people still think after Ted Haggard that the right wing is really the party of values for ANYTHING!
Posted by: civilbehavior at November 03, 2006 10:40 PM (qZRbT)
61
Oh, brother, now the shitheads(civilbehavior) on the Left want to claim intellectual superiority and morality.
Halp me, Jon Cary , i is undr atak fr smrt ppl who r yr supprtrs.
Halp me, Jon Cary , i is undr atak fr smrt ppl who r yr supprtrs.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 03, 2006 11:32 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 04, 2006 09:06 AM (8e/V4)
63
Last Gulp Larry:
China is a joke. Bildo Clinton bombed their embassy in Yugoslavia and China did nothing about it but cry piteously. That's because unlike leftist fools like you, the thugs who sit on top in China know that their military is a joke, and that the American nuclear arsenal could vaporize their entire prison of a country.
China is a joke. Bildo Clinton bombed their embassy in Yugoslavia and China did nothing about it but cry piteously. That's because unlike leftist fools like you, the thugs who sit on top in China know that their military is a joke, and that the American nuclear arsenal could vaporize their entire prison of a country.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 04, 2006 10:49 AM (bLPT+)
64
For the most excellent gay sex, email me at cruz795@yahoo.com.
Posted by: Cruz at November 04, 2006 01:57 PM (suD38)
65
Sorry Davec for the lack of flow. it was as hard to write as it is to read!
I don't believe China is shaking in their commie boots. I think they are smarter and practice more restraint. Something we could learn to do better. But no, we are ego driven and we needed a quick win of a war to get us back on an upswing. Well, that didn't pan out. Perhaps we should try Guam or Iceland?
I don't believe China is shaking in their commie boots. I think they are smarter and practice more restraint. Something we could learn to do better. But no, we are ego driven and we needed a quick win of a war to get us back on an upswing. Well, that didn't pan out. Perhaps we should try Guam or Iceland?
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at November 04, 2006 02:48 PM (Dd86v)
66
Last Gulp Larry:
If the Chinese are so smart, why cant they purify their drinking water?
China is a regional bully that tries to intimidate, dominate, and destabilize its neighbors. It is busy annexing all the territory it can and it swindles every country foolish enough to do business with it. It created the menace in North korea. It would be interesting to see what kind of acts it commits if it ever stops showing so much "restraint."
If you're going to paste the same comments over and over, try to come up with something intelligent. Your "ego driven" drivel was fatuous the first time you wrote it.
If the Chinese are so smart, why cant they purify their drinking water?
China is a regional bully that tries to intimidate, dominate, and destabilize its neighbors. It is busy annexing all the territory it can and it swindles every country foolish enough to do business with it. It created the menace in North korea. It would be interesting to see what kind of acts it commits if it ever stops showing so much "restraint."
If you're going to paste the same comments over and over, try to come up with something intelligent. Your "ego driven" drivel was fatuous the first time you wrote it.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 04, 2006 04:34 PM (bLPT+)
67
What happened to the 38 C hooters?
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 05, 2006 12:51 AM (cNF2m)
68
Thank you, Lion. We'll all be sure to surf those links you were too stupid to imbed. When I say thank you, I mean thank you for failing to imbed them. I'd hate to accidentally click on a live one.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 05, 2006 09:21 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Gleep! at November 05, 2006 10:24 AM (a7sMc)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 05, 2006 01:50 PM (bLPT+)
71
Seriously folks, just shoot yourself in the head before you have to utter even a word to Bungholz. Strange as it seems, you'll be glad you did. And make sure you know where your kids are when he's near.
Posted by: Gleep! at November 05, 2006 02:44 PM (a7sMc)
72
Creep:
For someone who claims she doesn't want to deal with me, you just cant stop doing it. I've always had that affect on women, but you're not my type.
For someone who claims she doesn't want to deal with me, you just cant stop doing it. I've always had that affect on women, but you're not my type.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 06, 2006 02:04 AM (bLPT+)
73
retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life's been completely dull , not that it matters. I've just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.
Posted by: TramadoL53144 at December 25, 2006 01:21 PM (VCi2K)
74
I just don't have anything to say right now. I haven't been up to anything recently, but it's not important. I've just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
Posted by: TramadoL23773 at December 25, 2006 10:47 PM (AjqUX)
75
I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning. My life's been pretty unremarkable these days. Eh.
Posted by: Sten57106 at December 26, 2006 02:16 PM (qzde3)
76
I haven't been up to much lately. I've basically been doing nothing , but it's not important. I can't be bothered with anything recently. I've just been letting everything happen without me lately.
Posted by: TramadoL37605 at December 26, 2006 10:15 PM (w89DO)
77
I just don't have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can't be bothered with anything recently.
Posted by: Sten9770 at December 27, 2006 07:05 PM (ZKik+)
78
I haven't gotten anything done recently. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven't been up to anything these days, but it's not important. Today was a total loss.
Posted by: TramadoL81837 at December 27, 2006 11:23 PM (Z0/EN)
79
I just don't have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I've just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don't care. That's how it is.
Posted by: TramadoL57750 at December 28, 2006 03:46 AM (zY4ho)
80
My life's been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I've more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.
Posted by: TramadoL12958 at December 28, 2006 11:30 PM (WSqbW)
81
Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It's not important. I just don't have much to say lately. I've just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.
Posted by: TramadoL11355 at December 29, 2006 07:07 AM (9OC2O)
82
I haven't been up to anything today. I can't be bothered with anything recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about. I haven't gotten anything done recently, but oh well. Not much noteworthy going on worth mentioning.
Posted by: Sten41987 at December 29, 2006 08:44 PM (D4wHQ)
83
I feel like a complete blank, but I don't care. Pfft. I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
Posted by: TramadoL18781 at December 30, 2006 11:47 AM (3e1XV)
84
dagc qfultie mftndjpi gmrv exbuv pqcvxongr qsvrxwoy
Posted by: nchuj petslod at December 30, 2006 09:40 PM (JExWi)
85
I've more or less been doing nothing worth mentioning, but eh. My life's been really bland today. I don't care. I've just been letting everything happen without me these days. That's how it is.
Posted by: TramadoL62059 at December 31, 2006 08:24 PM (5+qqp)
86
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn't bother me. I haven't been up to anything recently. I've pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
Posted by: Sten44130 at December 31, 2006 11:31 PM (d6X7e)
87
I just don't have much to say recently. Such is life. I've basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.
Posted by: Sten56214 at January 02, 2007 01:14 AM (L/+vq)
88
Not much on my mind. I don't care. I've just been letting everything happen without me , but shrug. Whatever. I feel like a void.
Posted by: TramadoL18636 at January 03, 2007 12:53 PM (brsLG)
89
My life's been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven't gotten anything done lately. I can't be bothered with anything recently.
Posted by: Sten98538 at January 04, 2007 09:57 AM (q3XPt)
90
I haven't been up to anything today. I don't care. I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn't bother me.
Posted by: TramadoL51422 at January 04, 2007 05:45 PM (IAV88)
91
I haven't been up to anything these days. So it goes. I can't be bothered with anything these days.
Posted by: Sten22493 at January 05, 2007 04:25 PM (XxYzO)
92
I've just been staying at home not getting anything done. I guess it doesn't bother me. Shrug. I haven't been up to anything. I haven't gotten much done today.
Posted by: Sten77892 at January 06, 2007 08:08 AM (aYWSE)
93
I haven't been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I've just been letting everything happen without me these days.
Posted by: Sten25983 at January 06, 2007 10:48 PM (Xg690)
94
I've just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn't bother me.
Posted by: Sten52195 at January 07, 2007 04:10 AM (O12Vy)
95
Basically nothing noteworthy happening right now, but eh. Today was a complete loss. I haven't been up to much recently. I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
Posted by: Sten70297 at January 10, 2007 07:07 AM (T69T4)
96
Not much on my mind lately. My life's been completely boring these days. I've just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.
Posted by: Sten40658 at January 13, 2007 04:36 PM (bAKUo)
Posted by: Adult sex at January 26, 2007 09:17 PM (DfpjH)
98
zlxwrn gxuwp wqvmxj ovejszfmg hebra jkhuaef frwnjba
Posted by: docqhjkf mrpcnkdzi at April 05, 2007 06:47 PM (0lhh+)
89kb generated in CPU 0.0287, elapsed 0.055 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.035 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.035 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
