-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500] That's because Clinton was president before 9/11. A president who was more concerned about his poll ratings than the safety of his country. [/QUOTE]
Plus he did get a blowjob. I see your point.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]
I have posted info before about Iraq's ties to terrorism. And now you're back to the "blind patriotism" garbage again? After you admitted I am not one of those? [/QUOTE]
You have a problem with objectivity/subjectivity. Just because I can accept one comment you may make does not demonstrate blind patriotism it does not follow that I don’t believe some of your other comments do.
Your Iraq links to terrorists have been dealt with. You and a few hard core neocon sycophants are the only ones who believe these (after the initial links to Alqeda/Bin Laden and WMD excuse fell flat) were substantial enough to justify an invasion of a country and the ensuing carnage that is has now created.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]The U.S. did not fund terrorism.[/QUOTE]
They funded Saddam a few times, and according to you he gives money to terrorists. The U.S has funded terrorism.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500]Sure...
[url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/saddam_and_alqaeda.html[/url]
[url]http://www.i-served.com/v-v-a-r.org/032206_Saddam_AlQaeda.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
A tenuous link. Hardly justification to invade a country and if it is why not go after Egypt and Sudan?