<p><a href=“Web Page Under Construction”>Web Page Under Construction;
<p>Don’t know why it didn’t work the last time.</p>
<p>you convientely left out this bit:</p>
<p>“Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.”</p>
<p>and this bit:</p>
<p>ou’ll note that the footnote at the bottom of page 57 says that in March 2003 Sen. Rockefeller asked the FBI to investigate the source of the forged uranium documents and the motivation of those responsible for them. Because of that investigation, the Committee chose not to examine any questions about the documents themselves, who forged them, where they came from, etc. In fact, the Committee walled its investigation off so that it looked only at what happened with the documents after they appeared in the US Embassy in Rome in October 2002.</p>
<p>The US, in turn, was basing most, though not all, of its suspicions on these reports it got from this unnamed foreign intelligence agency that provided an initial report to the US shortly after 9/11 and then another with more detail in February 2002, as the SSCI report states. That foreign government was Italy. And the information they provided also stemmed from the same documents</p>
<p>if the “bipartison committee” (was there such a thing) wanted to get to the facts, they figured out a way not two</p>
<p>I have been trying to find who was on the panel, and how the votes went, but alas, nada</p>
<p>When you have a president who wants to go to war, and is working on doing just that in Iran, to NOT question the “intelligence” he is sharing is foolhardy</p>
<p>for those that support, you sending your kid to Iran</p>
<p>So SJMOM: There you have it. But I guess there’s no point in letting facts stand in the way…</p>
<p>conyat:You read posters right here accusing our GI’s of being junkies, drunks, criminals, uneducated, etc. etc. and yet you claim I am “smearing” posters when I say that some once agreed that a large element of our troops have low IQ’s? This one claim out of all the above is a stretch to believe of some of our posters? </p>
<p>I’ve tried to use humor to deflect most of your outrageous claims about Christians and “Right-wingers”, but you haven’t been able to take the hint.</p>
<p>No one is stopping you from posting whatever you want, but please stop stalking me. Thank you.</p>
<p>A parable for all the “if you claim you knew this was the wrong direction, then you are gloating” crowd:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19945[/url]”>http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19945</a></p>
<p>yeah, we saw the cliff. Just would rather not’ve driven over it.</p>
<p>Dat’s funny…</p>
<p>And dat’s how I feel when I am told I am gloating or unpatriotic, like the passenger…</p>
<p>Certainly, I don’t agree with calling our soldiers “drunks” or “low IQ.” I’m sure, as I’ve said before, those afflictions are comparably represented in the military as in the general U. S. population. What does concern me, though, is the over-representation in the military of people from modest socioeconomic backgrounds. I live in an extremely conservative, upper middle-class area where the war in Iraq is embraced with loving passion. Almost every driveway has a big, fat ,gas-guzzling SUV parked in it, with yellow magnetic ribbons and W stickers slapped on the back. But for all their steamy ardor for war, not one of these comfortably affluent families has a son or daughter in Iraq. Not one. Yet, several of the lowest income seniors at my daughter’s high school will be heading out come graduation, to lay their lives on the line. Hell, yeah I support them and pray every day that they come back alive and in one piece. Someone please explain to me why some of our poorest citizens are the most patriotic?</p>
<p>And every parent of teens in the country didn’t tell their kids that oral sex is certainly sex? I did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have no proof of this allegation, and you’ve changed your story repeatedly when pressed for facts. First it was other posters on other threads. Then it was one poster who knows who he or she is. Then it was one poster and others who agreed (apparently all in one thread). Now it’s “some” posters who “once agreed”.</p>
<p>But still there’s no evidence, just one conflicting story after another.</p>
<p>As for “stalking”, people who tell the truth don’t find it uncomfortable to be asked to back up their words with proof.</p>
<p>Note to self: Don’t post on this thread unless you want to be crucified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, because I THINK (see, I am not infallible as some here are) that this was a thread that became so heated it was destroyed by the mods.</p>
<p>And if it’s another thread I’m thinking of, I’m sure as heck not going to waste my time digging up the exact quote just you can justify calling me a liar by nitpicking each word I use and their exact sequence, which deliver mysterious meanings to you, and which you, and only you, can see.</p>
<p>I have no clue what your motivation is in stalking me, but as I said please stop. It won’t get me to stop posting anyway, so what’s the use?</p>
<p>Very funny, Bay! I’ve been crucified a couple of times myself. Totally without cause, I assure you.</p>
<p>HH–What do you mean “destroyed by the mods?”</p>
<p>There was another thread months ago that dealt with the subject of our troops (or perhaps the OP turned into a discussion of our troops–I can’t remember) which became so heated the moderators deleted the entire thread.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, this is what you alleged:
</p>
<p>Notice the plural?</p>
<p>Now you say it’s just ONE thread, that may or may not have been destroyed by the mods. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why do I make it a point to confront you when you smear people here untruthfully and unfairly? Because tremendous damage has been done to our country with these tactics. The only difference between that and what you did in this thread is scale. Tell the truth about the people here, and no one will have any reason to call you on it.</p>
<p>How Not To Inflame Iraq</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08zarif.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08zarif.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Hereshoping, I recall several threads which were deleted by the mods around 9/11/06. At least one started out with sypathetic comments about the voice recordings on Flight 93, which (big surprise!) got out of hand with some pretty nasty comments. Another thread, which may or may not have been deleted, had to do with John Kerry’s negative remarks about the educational achievements of our troops.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom – I’ll say this again, and just hope that it gets through. Parents of 18 or 19 years olds don’t SEND their sons or daughters to Iraq, regardless of the parents’ political ideas. These young adults make a decision, with which you may not agree, to serve their country through military service.</p>
<p>As far as the comments about what other people are doing, you have no idea what involvement people may have in serving their country.</p>
<p>I remember as well, sjmom.</p>
<p>I read the same thing.
In one such thread that made the same if not more scurrilous accusation, a long time poster was evicted (though certainly not the one with the dim and nasty view of our soldier’s IQ’s). </p>
<p>And as for the inquisition above: it is foolish, common and therefore predictable.
HeresHoping accused no one specifically…though she could have.</p>
<p>Let’s keep in mind: This is a message board not a legal inquisition.</p>