Oh No, That's Not How It Happened: Saddam Sought Al Qaeda Support Attacking Americans

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Iraq Archive Document Describes Bin Laden Meeting

March 22, 2006 — Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of five documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which have been released by the U.S. government.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm.

Note: Document titles were added by ABC News.

"Osama Bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, (e.g. the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to note that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisors. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

"Osama bin Laden and the Taliban"
Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.

That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.

That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.

That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

ABC News

Replies on vs. Board to this? Priceless.

Flail away!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Flail away![/QUOTE]

Nah, believe whatever you would like.

Continue to smear shit on the walls.
 
So 12 years ago Iraqi radio played a show for them. Let the bombs fly!

Then the Taliban visited. I wonder if this was before or after they visited Texas?

And Iranian told an Afghani who was over heard talking about it by another afghani and then told to an Iraqi intelligence agent. Now that's a reason to kill 40,000 men, women and children if I ever heard one!

Oh and Paddy...

If it's found that President Bush broke the law, should he be penalized?
 
Thank you, PAD, for providing further evidence of the level of desperation being reached by those foolish enough to have been bamboozled by the Bush Administration, who now seek to hide their shame rather than admit their mistake.

I repeat: If there were any hard evidence linking Saddam to al Queda, you can rest assured the Bush Adminstration would have trumpeted it loud and long, if only to preserve its own credibility. There isn't, and they haven't.

This sort of stuff reminds me of two words coined relatively recently: "truthiness" and "doublethink".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Truthiness is the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Doublethink is a concept integral to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and fervently believing both.

According to the novel, doublethink is:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 35, 176-177)
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Thank you, PAD, for providing further evidence of the level of desperation being reached by those foolish enough to have been bamboozled by the Bush Administration, who now seek to hide their shame rather than admit their mistake.

I repeat: If there were any hard evidence linking Saddam to al Queda, you can rest assured the Bush Adminstration would have trumpeted it loud and long, if only to preserve its own credibility. There isn't, and they haven't.

This sort of stuff reminds me of two words coined relatively recently: "truthiness" and "doublethink".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Truthiness is the quality by which a person purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Doublethink is a concept integral to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and fervently believing both.

According to the novel, doublethink is:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 35, 176-177)[/QUOTE]

dennis_t has proven he's only interested in debating and participating in this forum if it appears his side can win and his opinion will be vindicated by political results. I think someone referred to it as "jumping on the winning bandwagon".

So I believe actually taking his posts seriously, like this one, should be a great reminder that liberal thought and ideals lead to electoral defeat. Typical of this outcome dennis_t runs away for 9 months to lick his wounds, hide in shame and avoid general embarrassment of being made an ass of again.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']dennis_t has proven he's only interested in debating and participating in this forum if it appears his side can win and his opinion will be vindicated by political results. I think someone referred to it as "jumping on the winning bandwagon".

So I believe actually taking his posts seriously, like this one, should be a great reminder that liberal thought and ideals lead to electoral defeat. Typical of this outcome dennis_t runs away for 9 months to lick his wounds, hide in shame and avoid general embarrassment of being made an ass of again.[/QUOTE]

And again PAD responds to a point of mine by criticizing that.....well.....I'm making a valid point that's hard to contradict.

I'm rewarding you with the attention you've craved since childhood, PAD. The least you could do is stop being a troll and respond to the points made. I know you've admitted you're only here to annoy and agitate, but I hope to actually draw you into the conversation someday.

Regarding electoral defeat, I would echo those disclaimers that run with stock market ads...."Past performance does not indicate future results."
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Replies on vs. Board to this? Priceless.

Flail away![/QUOTE]

*ahem*

*ruffling of papers, Rushbo style*

"The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value."

Thank you, and good night.
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Even the President was fooled![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Original Transcript[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 31, 2003
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair
Remarks by the President and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
The Cross Hall
[/FONT]

20030131-23_blair-vert-011303-p-250h.jpg


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
4:12 P.M. EST
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome Tony Blair back to the White House. We just had a wide-ranging discussion on a lot of issues. I appreciate my friend's commitment to peace and security. I appreciate his vision. I appreciate his willingness to lead. Most importantly, I appreciate his understanding that after September the 11th, 2001, the world changed; that we face a common enemy -- terrorists willing to kill innocent lives; that we now recognize that threats which gather in remote regions of the world must be dealt with before others lose their lives. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tony Blair is a friend. He's a friend of the American people, he's a friend of mine. I trust his judgment and I appreciate his wisdom. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Welcome. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRIME MINISTER: First of all, can I say how delighted I am to be back in the White House and to see President Bush. And as he's just described to you, we had an excellent discussion, covering all the key issues of the day. And I would like to praise his leadership in the world since September the 11th, particularly, on what I think are the two key issues that face our world today -- which are issues of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And I think both of those issues come together because they threaten the peace and the order and the stability of the world.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]And what is essential is that in every respect, in every way that we can we mobilize international support and the international community, in order to make sure that these twin threats that the world faces are dealt with. And I have no doubt at all that we can deal with them. But we should realize those two threats -- terrorism, weapons of mass destruction -- are not different, they're linked. And dealing with both of them is essential for the future peace and security and prosperity of the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Thank you. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: Fournier. Here's what we're going to do. I will call upon a reporter. The Prime Minister will call upon a reporter. And we'll do this three different times. Start with you.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q Thank you, sir. First, quickly to the Prime Minister, did you ask President Bush to secure a second U.N. resolution and to give the inspectors more time? And, President Bush, the U.N. says -- the U.N. inspectors say Saddam is not complying, you say Saddam is not complying, why wait a matter of weeks? What's -- why hold up on the decision? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: First of all, you violated the two-question rule -- as usual. He's had a bad habit of this. I'll start. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said and the Prime Minister has constantly said this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRIME MINISTER: The whole point about the present situation is that when President Bush made his speech to the United Nations, when we went down the United Nations route, we passed Resolution 1441. And I think it really repays reading that, because we said very clearly that Saddam had what we said was a final opportunity to disarm, and that he had to cooperate fully in every respect with the U.N. weapons inspectors. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As Dr. Blix said in his report to the Security Council earlier this week, he's not doing that. And therefore, what is important is that the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable. And the reason why I believe that it will do that is precisely because in the original Resolution 1441, we made it clear that failure to disarm would lead to serious consequences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So this is a test for the international community. It's not just a test for the United States or for Britain. It's a test for the international community, too. And the judgment has to be, at the present time, that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors, and therefore is in breach of the U.N. resolution. And that's why time is running out. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Andy. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q A question for the President, if I may. What is the status, in your view, of any second resolution? Is it something that you think it's worth spending time and energy trying to assemble and, if so, why? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: First, let me reiterate what I just said. This is a matter of weeks, not months. Any attempt to drag the process on for months will be resisted by the United States. And as I understand the Prime Minister -- I'm loath to put words in his mouth -- but he's also said weeks, not months. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Secondly, I want to remind you, I was the guy that went to the United Nations in the first place. I said, why don't we come together as a world to resolve this issue, once and for all. Why doesn't the United Nations stand up as a body and show the world that it has got the capacity to keep the peace. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So, first of all, in answer to one part of your question, this just needs to be resolved quickly. Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution. And Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Steve. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, is Secretary Powell going to provide the undeniable proof of Iraq's guilt that so many critics are calling for? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: Well, all due in modesty, I thought I did a pretty good job myself of making it clear that he's not disarming and why he should disarm. Secretary Powell will make a strong case about the danger of an armed Saddam Hussein. He will make it clear that Saddam Hussein is fooling the world, or trying to fool the world. He will make it clear that Saddam is a menace to peace in his own neighborhood. He will also talk about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody else who loves freedom. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As the Prime Minister says, the war on terror is not confined to just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror includes people who are willing to train and to equip organizations such as al Qaeda. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]See, the strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind. Colin Powell will continue making that case to the American people and the world at the United Nations. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q Mr. President and Prime Minister, if I could, sir, the arms inspectors made their report on Monday this week. You've both made clear that it's a question of weeks, not months. And here we are at the end of the week and the Iraqis are suddenly inviting the arms inspectors back to Baghdad for further consultations. Could I ask both of you what you make of that? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: Let's see if I can be polite. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to learn how to deceive, and I would view this as more deception on his part. He expects to be able to convince 108 inspectors that he is open-minded. The only way that he can show that he is truly a peaceful man is to not negotiate with inspectors, is not to string the inspectors along, but to disarm in front of inspectors. We know what a disarmed regime looks like. We know what it means to disarm. There's no negotiations. The idea of calling inspectors in to negotiate is a charade. If he is going to disarm, he must start disarming. That's the only thing he needs to talk to the inspectors about, is, here, I'm disarming. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRIME MINISTER: That's absolutely right. If you look back at the history of this, for 12 years, he's played these games. And that's why it's so important to realize what the U.N. inspectors were put back in to do. The U.N. inspectors -- and this is the crucial point, because it's on this basis that the whole issue of the U.N. authority rests -- the U.N. inspectors did not go back into Iraq to play a game of hide-and-seek with Saddam. They didn't go back in as a detective agency. They went back in under an authority that said that they had to cooperate fully, in every respect: the interview of witnesses, not just access to sites; honest, transparent declarations in the material they had. They're not doing that. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Now, why are they calling back the inspectors? I think it's fairly obvious. It's because as the pressure grows, they want to play the same games as they've been playing all the way through. That's why it's important we hold to the path that we've set out. They have to disarm. They have to cooperate with the inspectors. They're not doing it. If they don't do it through the U.N. route, then they will have to be disarmed by force. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nate. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Q Mr. President, an account of the White House after 9/11 says that you ordered invasion plans for Iraq six days after September the 11th -- Bob Woodward's account. Isn't it the case that you have always intended war on Iraq, and that international diplomacy is a charade in this case? [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]THE PRESIDENT: Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I've told you the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we're vulnerable to attack. And the worst form of attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people, or the worst attack could come when somebody uses weapons of mass destruction on our friends in Great Britain. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Recently, Tony Blair's government routed out a poison plot. It should say to the people of Great Britain, there is a present danger, that weapons of mass destruction are a danger to people who love freedom. I want to congratulate you on your fabulous job of using your intelligence and your law enforcement to protect the people of Great Britain. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Today, Italy rounded up yet another cell of people who are willing to use weapons of mass destruction on those of us who love freedom. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]And so, no, quite the contrary. My vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now realize the stakes. I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm. And I will do that. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Thank you all very much. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]END 4:25 P.M. EST[/FONT]
 
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.



yup, he was spreading misinformation since day one.
 
[quote name='AFStealth']Not sure if that's sarcasm there, but Bush never ever said that there was a link between September 11th and Iraq.[/QUOTE]

He just brought up (and still does) 9/11 almost every single time he is asked about Iraq.
 
PAD is doing nothing more than any member of a party that was currently drowning in bullshit would do. He posts nothing more than theories and speculations...

"Wow, they were connected!!! Geez, you've totally changed my mind!!"

Nevermind that Reps have been saying this, at multiple occassions, in completely different ways everytime. Google it, and you'll find at least 20 different ways.... so this is no different. Its just bullshit news to divert the people... if this was right, then the other 20 times Reps said this was wrong?

I grew up in a Republican household, and voted Republican for many years... but I think for myself and can clearly see what Bush is doing... so it'll be a while before I vote Republican again... People like Bush and PAD here changed all that.

Our society is turning into a Brave new world utopia, we stopped caring because the Reps have some new shit to divert attention in the media everyday. Bush, is the first president I can remember seeing on TV every single day... its a tactic and a trick... over saturating the news, leads to apathy towards it. Bush plays the ignorant country bumpkin, meanwhile he's changing our country for the worst and it'll take 20 years to fix.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']PAD is doing nothing more than any member of a party that was currently drowning in bullshit would do. He posts nothing more than theories and speculations...

"Wow, they were connected!!! Geez, you've totally changed my mind!!"

Nevermind that Reps have been saying this, at multiple occassions, in completely different ways everytime. Google it, and you'll find at least 20 different ways.... so this is no different. Its just bullshit news to divert the people... if this was right, then the other 20 times Reps said this was wrong?

I grew up in a Republican household, and voted Republican for many years... but I think for myself and can clearly see what Bush is doing... so it'll be a while before I vote Republican again... People like Bush and PAD here changed all that.

Our society is turning into a Brave new world utopia, we stopped caring because the Reps have some new shit to divert attention in the media everyday. Bush, is the first president I can remember seeing on TV every single day... its a tactic and a trick... over saturating the news, leads to apathy towards it. Bush plays the ignorant country bumpkin, meanwhile he's changing our country for the worst and it'll take 20 years to fix.[/QUOTE]

You've just given me hope for the future, in one little post. Thank you!
 
I wouldn't worry too much about George, with his new War on the Media, he's doomed. Be prepared to see much more of him on TV, none of it in a charitable light. What I really hope is they stop correcting his grammar in the press, as it's been reported they do often, let his own mangled words speak for him. He thought the media was tough on him before? Ha! The media is just finding it's legs after 5 years of sleeping. How's that old saying go? "Never get into a fight with a guy who own a printing press."
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Everytime he speaks someone has to correct him, most of the time its his press secretary.[/QUOTE]

Too bad you don't have a press secretary. you could use one too.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Too bad you don't have a press secretary. you could use one too.[/quote]

At least he's not the leader of the free world.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']At least he's not the leader of the free world.[/QUOTE]

I think I speak for most/all of us when I say thank God for that! :lol:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think I speak for most/all of us when I say thank God for that! :lol:[/quote]

Nice too see the presidents standards are so easily compared to that of an anonymous message board user. Yeah I would love to have my own press secretary to wax my nuts and correct all of my mistakes, and While it would be nice to be able to blow the national budget like Bush does so wastefully, don't worry I'm not shooting for president anytime soon, much too your sad deprived appeasement . I guess you guys just learn from your idol and directly imitate his simian-esque behaviour naturally?


Please, continue to act like you know me, I feel so belittled being compared to Bush...
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Nice too see the presidents standards are so easily compared to that of an anonymous message board user. Yeah I would love to have my own press secretary to wax my nuts and correct all of my mistakes, and While it would be nice to be able to blow the national budget like Bush does so wastefully, don't worry I'm not shooting for president anytime soon, much too your sad deprived appeasement . I guess you guys just learn from your idol and directly imitate his simian-esque behaviour naturally?


Please, continue to act like you know me, I feel so belittled being compared to Bush...[/QUOTE]


You should hone your communication skills and write letters to your senator and representative in congress. Your anger would be much better served there instead of as an annonymous poster on a random message board.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You should hone your communication skills and write letters to your senator and representative in congress. Your anger would be much better served there instead of as an annonymous poster on a random message board.[/QUOTE]

So annonymous is a word now?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You should hone your communication skills and write letters to your senator and representative in congress. Your anger would be much better served there instead of as an annonymous poster on a random message board.[/quote]

What is wrong with my communication? I guess you're going to give me a nitpicked conclusion of your wrought tired opinion, but quite honestly I think you're full of shit, and you proved it in that post alone.

I will be happy to write congress my opinions, good suggestion.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So annonymous is a word now?[/QUOTE]

You aren't good for anything else, but you do have a knack for spellchecking. Bravo.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']What is wrong with my communication? I guess you're going to give me a nitpicked conclusion of your wrought tired opinion, but quite honestly I think you're full of shit, and you proved it in that post alone.
[/QUOTE]

Let me correct that sentence for you:

I guess you're going to give me a nitpicked conclusion of your wrought,(comma) tired opinion (no comma) but,(comma) quite honestly, (comma) I think you're full of shit (no comma) and you proved it in that post alone.

What the hell is "wrought tired" anyway ? Are you brittish? Or, do you just make up idioms in your spare time?

That's actually one of the most coherent sentences you've ever managed to compose. And it didn't have any insults like shithead, fartsmeller, or anything derrogatory. I offer you congratulations.
 
I guess your amazing punctuation leaves room for multiple spelling errors eh ace? Let me express my most humble of congratulations back to you, your predictable and hypocritical comments will always kick you in the ass, wherever you go.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You aren't good for anything else, but you do have a knack for spellchecking. Bravo.[/QUOTE]

You are a sad pathetic little man.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Nice too see the presidents standards are so easily compared to that of an anonymous message board user. Yeah I would love to have my own press secretary to wax my nuts and correct all of my mistakes, and While it would be nice to be able to blow the national budget like Bush does so wastefully, don't worry I'm not shooting for president anytime soon, much too your sad deprived appeasement . I guess you guys just learn from your idol and directly imitate his simian-esque behaviour naturally?


Please, continue to act like you know me, I feel so belittled being compared to Bush...[/QUOTE]

You're hilarious. I think if we were all honest we would admit that we'd not want most/all people on this board to be president.
 
bread's done
Back
Top