WMD's have been found

[Hawkeye]

And for Quan........
SADDAM LINK TO AL-QAEDA: CONFIRMED

One of the "facts' used to attack the Bush Administration by the left and the mainstream media is that we invaded Iraq without a single shred of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with terrorism. Specifically, people point out that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Well, now we have evidence that not only was Saddam Hussein interested in terrorism, but he was actually working deals with Al-Qaeda.

According to recently declassified documents, Saddam established contact with not only the Taliban in Afghanistan (where Osama Bin Laden was based when 9/11 went down, remember?) but also other jihadists based in the Middle East. And here's the kicker: Saddam also held discussions with an Al-Qaeda operative about establishing jihadi training centers, maybe even in Baghdad. So there it is...proof that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda.

Add this to the disclosure last week that Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction were found...and where does that leave liberals who say Bush invaded Iraq based on a lie? What lie? Some WMD's were found...the link to Al-Qaeda has been established...what more do they want? The answer is they want America to fail in Iraq, so they can pin it on George W. Bush and the Republicans.

The actual story here:
Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known Al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad.

Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), supervised a group of linguists to analyze, archive and exploit the hundreds of captured documents and materials of Saddam's regime.

This is the final installment in a three-part series concerning a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent called Khaled Abd El Majid, and covers events taking place in 1999. The translation is provided by Robison's associate, known here as “Sammi.”

The first two translations from this notebook detailed an agreement between members of the Saddam regime and the Taliban to establish diplomatic and intelligence based cooperation. This final translation further advances the link between the Saddam regime and world-wide Islamic Jihad terrori
The relationship between the Taliban and Saddam appears to have been mediated by a Pakistani named Maulana Fazlur Rahman. Another document captured in Afghanistan and written by an Al Qaeda operative confirms the relationship between the Maulana and Saddam. The translation provided here includes an early 1999 meeting between the director of the IIS and the Maulana.

Another notebook entry records a meeting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghani Islamic Jihadist and leader of the Islamic Party in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar made news recently with the BBC article Afghan Rebel’s pledge to al-Qaeda that reports on a video statement from Hekmatyar in which he states he will fight alongside A Qaeda. In this translation, Hekmatyar makes specific requests for a “center” in Baghdad and/or Tajikistan.

A third meeting involves an Islamist representing Bangladesh that we believe to be Fazlur Rahman Khalil. Another page of the notebook indicates Khalil is coming or came to Iraq. Khalil is a Taliban/Al Qaeda associate who signed the 1998 fatwa from Usama bin Laden declaring war on the United States.

Editor's notes: "Sammi" puts translation clarifications in parenthesis. Robison (RR) uses parenthesis for clarification and bold-face type for emphasis.

Translation:

Translation for ISGP-2003-0001412 follows (PDF):

Page 70, Left Side:

Saturday 3/20 at 11:45

Met with him Mr. MS4 (translator’s note: MS4 is the code name for the high ranking IIS official).

1. Intelligence and security cooperation.

2. Mr. MS4 informed him that the Iraqi president and Iraqi leadership are interested in him.

3. “We are ready to help you in any country and against your enemies”. (translator’s note: most probably this is MS4)

4. Fadlul Haq - The governor of Peshawar that was assassinated.

(translator’s note: points 5 and 6 are direct quotes from the Afghani)

5. “We are facing a vicious international plot against the Islamic Party and cannot find any country to help us at the time being”.

6. “Iran helped us at the beginning and we brought 2,000 fighters but things changed at the time being. Also the Russians called to help but we do not trust them. Moscow and Iran want the war to drag on.” (RR: this is probably the Taliban vs. Northern Alliance conflict). This is why he is coming to Baghdad for help. Asked Baghdad to help open a center in Tajikistan or in Baghdad and they will bring them (translator’s note: not clear what them refers to) in through Iran or Northern Iraq.

He asked for help in printing Afghani money in Baghdad or help in printing it in Moscow.

Page 69, Right Side:

Stinger missiles have a range of 5 kilometers. (translator’s note: there is only this one sentence on this page)

Page 69, Left Side:

Meeting of MS4 with 6951 on 4/10 at 8 p.m. in room 710.

He (6951) inquired about our relation with Usama (bin Laden).

(translator’s note: The Iraqi answer is not reported.).

He (6951) proposed to the Taliban to form a front with Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

He met some of them in Hajj (Translator’s note: Pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, it is one of the five pillars of Islam) and he came to the conclusion that they do not know anything about Foreign Relations.

The Taliban defense minister is Abdul Razzak (unclear) Association of Muslim Clerics.

They openly claim that they are against America.

He said that he was ready to build relations between the Taliban and Iraq.

(translator’s note: meeting continues on both sides of page 68/76, with questions about Pakistani politics and the other Islamic parties.) The Iraqi official says, “I suggest that the parties come closer together because that means power to Islam against the American and Zionist policies”.

Page 39, Left Side:

Meeting with an Islamist leader from Bangladesh. He promises support to Iraq. He says: “Let them know that I made Bangladesh a second country to Mr. President and we have 125 million (people).” (RR: Although no name is given for this meeting, it is important to note Fazlur Rahman Khalil, noted for meeting with Iraqi officials in the previous article, signed the 1998 fatwa as “Fazlur Rahman, Amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh”. This is a strong indication that this meeting is with Khalil or his representative.).


Links:
http://www.foxnews.com/column_archiv...76,146,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_96/asia.html

 

[lovejam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbeabitch *rolls eyes* Why do all these points remind me of something? Oh yeah, thats because it's the same leftest rhetoric thats been going on for ages!

Way to behave respectfully towards someone you don't necessarily agree with. :roll:

Also, please don't try to fire back at me by attacking my personal politics, because you have absolutely no idea what they are.

 

[Hawkeye]

*pssss* that wasn't to you. That was to Quan

And at the risk of sounding rude-I don't recall you in this thread for me to throw that out to you so there could be any confusion. I've looked back and I don't see you there in anyway to be confused with Quan. Am I missing something here?

I think I would be more understanding to your above post if I saw that you really thought that I was referring to you personally but I don't see how you could think I was referring to you or your post since your post does not exist at anytime throughout this thread.

And nobody is attacking anybody on here. All we're (I more than anything) am asking for is give us valid points, resources, places to look that isn't "so and so said this".

 

[Hawkeye]

Heres something for you ladies-NY Times maybe indicted for espeanoge
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT:
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
At all times material to this indictment:
1. Defendant The New York Times Company was the publisher of the general circulation newspaper The New York Times.
2. Defendants Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau were agents and/or employees of The New York Times.
3. Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 included among them agents and/or employees of the United States.
4. Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 had a legal duty to act in accordance with law regarding all officially classified information and documents and information relating to the national defense in their possession and/or under their control.
5. Defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, or Lichtblau were not entitled legally to have under their control and/or possess, disclose, and/or communicate officially classified information and documents and information relating to the national defense.
6. At a time or times subsequent to September 11, 2001, the exact time or times being unknown to the grand jurors, defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20, knowingly and willfully disclosed and communicated to defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau, officially classified information and documents and information concerning a National Security Agency communication intelligence surveillance program vital to the United States’ national defense.
7. Defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichblau, within the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully caused to be published, and published, said classified information and documents and information in The New York Times.
8. None of the defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 were legally authorized to disclose or communicate said classified information and documents and information to defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, or Lichtblau.
9. None of the defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, or Lichtblau were legally authorized to possess or publish said classified information and documents and information.
10. None of the defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, or Lichtblau were legally authorized to publish said classified information and documents and information.
COUNT ONE
Treason
(All defendants)
11. The communicating, furnishing, transmitting, and otherwise making available the said classified information and documents and information by defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 knowingly and willfully to defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau constituted adhering to the enemies of the United States and giving them aid and comfort.
12. The publication of the said classified information and documents and information by The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau constituted adhering to the enemies of the United States and giving them aid and comfort.
(In violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2381.)
COUNT TWO
Disclosure of classified information
(Defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20)
13. At a time or times subsequent to September 11, 2001, the exact time or times being unknown to the grand jurors, defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20, or some of them, knowingly and willfully communicated, furnished, transmitted, and otherwise made available classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States to a person or persons not entitled to receive it, to wit, defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 798.)
COUNT THREE
Communication of national defense information
(Defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau)
14. At a time or times subsequent to September 11, 2001, the exact time or times being unknown to the grand jurors, defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau, having unauthorized possession of the aforesaid documents or information relating to the national defense, which documents or information defendants had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States, willfully communicated the same to persons not entitled to receive it by publishing said information in The New York Times.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793(d).)
COUNT FOUR
Disclosure of classified information
(Defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau)
15. At a time or times subsequent to September 11, 2001, the exact time or times being unknown to the grand jurors, defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau published and used in a manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States to its detriment, classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States.
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 798.)
COUNT FIVE
Conspiracy to commit treason
(All defendants)
16. Beginning after September 11, 2001 and continuing until December 16, 2006, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, all defendants did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully conspire, confederate and agree together and with others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offense against the United States, to wit: to adhere to its enemies and give them aid and comfort.
17. The defendants’ overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy consisted of defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20, knowingly and willfully communicating, furnishing, transmitting, and otherwise making available to defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau, classified information and documents and information concerning a National Security Agency communication intelligence surveillance program vital to the United States’ national defense, and further consisted of defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichblau, causing to be published, and publishing, said classified information in The New York Times and elsewhere.
(In violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371.)
COUNT SIX
Conspiracy to communicate national defense information
(All defendants)
18. Beginning after September 11, 2001 and continuing until December 16, 2006, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, all defendants did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully conspire, confederate and agree together and with others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offense against the United States, to wit: to knowingly and willfully communicate, furnish, transmit, and otherwise made available, or use in a manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States to its detriment, national defense information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States to a person or persons not entitled to receive it.
19. The defendants’ overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy consisted of defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 willfully communicating to defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau, documents and information concerning a National Security Agency communication intelligence surveillance program vital to the United States’ national defense, and further consisted of defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichblau, causing to be published, and publishing, said documents and information in The New York Times and elsewhere.
(In violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 371.)
COUNT SEVEN
Conspiracy to disclose classified information
(All defendants)
20. Beginning after September 11, 2001 and continuing until December 16, 2006, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, all defendants did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully conspire, confederate and agree together and with others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit the following offense against the United States, to wit: to knowingly and willfully communicate, furnish, transmit, and otherwise made available, or use in a manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States to its detriment, classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States to a person or persons not entitled to receive it.
21. The defendants’ overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy consisted of defendants John and Jane Does 1 through 20 unlawfully disclosing and communicating to defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichtblau, classified information concerning a National Security Agency communication intelligence surveillance program vital to the United States’ national defense, and further consisted of defendants The New York Times Company, Keller, Risen, and Lichblau, causing to be published, and publishing, said classified information in The New York Times and elsewhere.
(In violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 371)
* * *
Schoenfeld concluded his Commentary article by noting that:
The Justice Department has already initiated a criminal investigation into the leak of the NSA program, focusing on which government employees may have broken the law. But the government is contending with hundreds of national-security leaks, and progress is uncertain at best. The real question that an intrepid prosecutor in the Justice Department should be asking is whether, in the aftermath of September 11, we as a nation can afford to permit the reporters and editors of a great newspaper to become the unelected authority that determines for all of us what is a legitimate secret and what is not. Like the Constitution itself, the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of the press are not a suicide pact. The laws governing what the Times have done are perfectly clear; will they be enforced?

 

[Hawkeye]

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../06/26/1349226
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15631.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...p_world _news
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item...king_ny_times/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200893,00.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5610
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5616
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features...artslife-today


Links for the above post.

However, I have to say if they get this this for espeanage-even if we are at a time of war, then this totally kills their credibility but also-it may also begin the wheel to start taking away our freedoms of speech.
This is something we may all need to watch very closely!

 

[dmolinet]

Saddam being in touch with the Taliban proves he was in cahoots with Al-Queda just like my being in touch with Spectra proves I'm in cahoots with VivaDiva(whoever that is).

I'm afraid the real WMD's in this mess have been Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Anybody ever seen "Wag the Dog"?

46 years of living has taught me that everybody lies--and spinning works both ways.


We are destroying the world--after the Holocaust we said "Never Again"--after Rwanda we said "Never Again"-------now just look at Darfur. And, while you're looking at that, look at what is happening to the women of the Congo.


I love makeup!!! But, sometimes I feel like a piece of crap on the bottom of someone's shoe thinking about eyeshadow when women, young girls and boys, are being raped with machetes.

I could preach all night, but I'm way too cynical to think it would help.
I can only hope one person thinks about what I've written longer than 30 seconds. One person can start to change the world.

 

[quandolak]

........

 

[Shimmer]

Do you not understand that no it wouldn't be found? A huuuuuuuuge amount of money has been spent discrediting this government and this president, and unless a cache of weapons capable of world destruction three times over was found, it wouldn't be reported.
And, amazingly enough, when you read anything discrediting the situation you leap all over it, but when you read something supporting the situation you immediately dismiss it.

 

[quandolak]

..........

 

[quandolak]

.........

 

[Shimmer]

Sure thing kid.
I can't be arsed to read through your posts, mainly because they're usually nonsensical. So, I'm going to treat you like my neighbor's six year old, pat you on the head and so "Uh huh" hand you a cookie and send you on your way.
IF you ever raise a valid point, I'll find it by way of Cliff's Notes. Time and again, people try to point you to a different path, not in hopes that you'll take it as gospel but that you'll at least consider and explore it.
In your young, very young, time on earth, you've decided you know all, you see all, you hear all, and you know the right way and the only way.
The narrowmindedness of youth often sheds as time passes, unfortunately I don't have ten years to wait for you to grow up.

 

[quandolak]

.........

 

[Shimmer]

No, kid I have plenty of reasons to defend the war, and plenty of reasons to deride the war. And, I have plenty of reasons to defend those fighting it.
But, fact of the matter is, you're too young and immature to listen to any of it but what you want to hear.
Now, if you were as astute as I was giving you credit for, you would have correctly inferred it from my first post.
As for aimless, let me assure you, target was taken, and hit, and there was nothing aimless about my last post, nor this one.

 

[leppy]

This thread is full of the most ridiculous, chest thumping, immature crap I have seen. You guys are just spewing the same old thing, towing the party line, justifying things that are unjustifiable.

You know what country has the most WMDs? The U.S. Somehow thats okay because the U.S. is "good" whereas anyone who is a threat to them is "evil".

Truth is, its all perspective, and from the perspective of the rest of the world, even American allies, the U.S. is a bully, it represents corporate interests and not even the will of its own people anymore.

I'm not going to type a big long thing because I realize it will fall on deaf ears but, the U.S. has been at war, officially or unofficially SOMEWHERE since at least the 1950's. Is this because its always called upon to defend some poor innocents somwhere in the world? Clearly not, as whatever is motivating the picking and choosing of conflicts is not the level of need or desperation of those involved.

Iraq may have had WMDs, I don't really know nor do I really care, fact is.. it was an excuse just the supposed al queda ties. Sad thing is, if the American people are not willing to admit to themselves that their government is out of their hands, it will never change.

 

[Shimmer]

America is a bully?
Hm. I'll have to mull that.

I'd looooove America to be an isolationist country.
Let the rest of the world solve its own problems. Problems in Darfur? Somalia? Bosnia? Russia? People are hungry elsewhere? Meh. Not our problem.
Maybe just maybe then the rest of the world could appreciate what we DO, instead of complaining and villifying us when we take matters into our own hands to stop something before it becomes a calamity.
Of course, I recognize that we can't be isolationists, because if we were, then another Holocaust would happen. Then we'd be villified for 'allowing the atrocities'...what's the right answer then??

 

[Hawkeye]

That's just it shimmer-they have no concept. They say we're spewing the same things they are doing the exact same thing but we can't tell them that! Because then we will be "right wing nut jobs". *rolls eyes*

And I bet these same people applauded Bill Clinton when he signed that these are to be disarmed. Last time I checked no WMD have been pointed at any other country-but thats just me.

America can do nothing right except kill itself and become communist and conform to the rest of the world. But someone once said you can't really judge the success of a country by war or by money but you can judge it by how many people are trying to get in. Well we must be doing something right.

Shimmer, you can't rationalize with them. They can't even give us sources! Instead they say it's stupid propaganda, well I got sources, where are yours? they make snide remarks-is that the best they can do? Obviously so, no sources to back up their thoughts and opinions!

Again, I will say, I will listen to any opposing view, but have the sources to back it up and make sure they are credible.

But yet, as with the past hundred times I've made this challenge it wont be done because that would require thinking for yourself and the way our government is and the way our society is that just wont happen. They would rather anyone else think for them but God forbid if you say something opposing John Kerry, or George W Bush or even Tom Cruise, you are George Clooney, even Cindy Sheehan (and she even has a valid reason to be upset) then YOU are wrong.

I think also the problem is people are looking at hte parties and not the greater good-but then again thats pretty hard also.

I know I started this thread but I also know I'm not even coming back to this one because it's the same argument without any documentation to even say listen I don't support this war, heres why-and heres my proof to back it up.

It's the same thing I've asked for in every single thread and nobody has been able to do it.

So have fun guys!

Also-shimmer-yet again i must agree with you. We should become an isolationist country, next time a country needs are help they are on their own, like that tsunami, yeah we probably should've never even given them a dime-its not like they would've missed it! They only care about America and the money what can america do for US not what we can do for America. Lets take and take and take and then bitch and bitch and bitch about how we hate america but yet they are the ones providing us food, and helping us! Quite frankly, if America said F*** this you're in a tought spot tough shit, i gotta admit, I would be the first one to agree with it.

I know you were being sarcastic above shimmer, but the sad part is, maybe it's the only way.

 

[leppy]

You'll listen to the opposing view yet anyone who is disagreeing with you is just unreasonable and not worth talking to. Nice.

Claiming you are open to discussion on these matters does not make it reality.

 

[leppy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shimmer America is a bully? Hm. I'll have to mull that. I'd looooove America to be an isolationist country. Let the rest of the world solve its own problems. Problems in Darfur? Somalia? Bosnia? Russia? People are hungry elsewhere? Meh. Not our problem. Maybe just maybe then the rest of the world could appreciate what we DO, instead of complaining and villifying us when we take matters into our own hands to stop something before it becomes a calamity. Of course, I recognize that we can't be isolationists, because if we were, then another Holocaust would happen. Then we'd be villified for 'allowing the atrocities'...what's the right answer then??

The right answer is to intervene for honest reasons and without picking and choosing the situations that just happen to be in U.S. interests to get involved in. The right answer is for your government to at least, be honest with its own citizens. The right answer is to be consistent, following strict guidelines on when it appropriate to act, and how that action should be taken. Between isolationism and selective self-interested interference there is a third option, that of moral humanitarian intervention in the interests of victims or potential victims, not the intervening body whether that be the U.N. or an individual country such as the U.S. or any other organization.

This whole "we're the only ones who do anything" thing is crap. Per capita, other countries give as much or more money to aid. Not only that but the U.S. is not the only advanced western country. Its not the only nation that believes in democracy (though how it should work varies of course) and its not the only country that steps in to help those in need. Also its faulty logic to conclude that because the international community objects to select instances of intervention such as what is going on in Iraq, that any action taken by the U.S. is a lose/lose situation. Consider for a moment that there are valid reasons why there have been objections, why such strong allies of the U.S. such as Canada wanted nothing to do with it, why the international community finds the given reasons and motivations of the U.S. government suspect.

Its not because the world is jealous or hateful towards the U.S., intelligent politically minded people no matter which direction they lean are not for the most part that petty. Truth is that is just an excuse to dismiss any criticism, and I would hope for the most part that Americans are not that gullible.

Also I have to add that demeaning people who hold an opposing view to your own only invalidates any point you make and makes you look silly. There is a lot of that going on in this thread on both sides, and its incredibly juvenile. I don't disagree with you guys because I'm a wack job liberal or because I'm just stubborn or can't think for myself or its impossible to reason with me or I'm so immature or any of the other crap thats been spouted along those lines, so if you are going to argue with my points please do exactly that.

Just in general for anyone who reads this: I've taken it upon myself to watch these forums more carefully after seeing some of the insulting tone that people have taken with eachother. Please note the title "Admin" under my name, and expect a large hammer to drop on your head if you cannot be civil and argue issues instead of getting personal.

 

[Hawkeye]

Then you know you may as well just go ahead and ban me because it seems to me, from my perspective that you only got involved because we're saying things you don't like. The problem was just as bad in about 3 or 4 other threads but you chose this one.

I know good and well when I'm standing up for myself and when I'm "mouthing off" and right now I'm standing up for myself. It's ok for others to post anti bush things but it's not OK for us to post pro bush things? I don't know about shimmer but all I'm asking is for people to give me some documentation.

You know your "administration" thing as much as much power as it has makes me wonder but I'd rather tell you to your face. Go ahead and ban me. It won't bother me one bit. I will tell you though to your face there are mods here that I genuinely respect and whatever they say I have no problem with-but it just baffles me that you would choose this thread. Why not put a post? Why not put a sticky like Janice did? Why this thread?

Why not other threads? I'm not even daring you to ban me, I'm telling you if you have that big of an issue, just go ahead, save time and ban me.

I think I would have a lot less of a problem with this if it were a sticky or something like that because that way its more fair. But it's THIS thread and you have "taken it upon yourself" well why haven't the other mods done that? Why haven't the other mods "taken it upon themselves" with other threads and other areas on here? WHY?

But its OK you're a mod you can do whatever you want to do. You can choose this thread and "take it upon yourself" because it has things you don't like in it whether you are for or against the discussion. Why this thread? Why not others?

It baffles me. But go ahead ban me. It won't stop me from sticking up for what's right in my mind, and if others want to give me their ideas, give me proof I'll give it consideration. The only way I'll stop is if Janice herself says listen this really pisses people off can you stop? Then I will because I have a huge respect for Janice and Juneplum but this whole "I've taken it upon myself" is ridiculous

 

[leppy]

Wow, quite a freak out there. You are totally missing the point of what I said.

Nowhere did I say you should not post pro-Bush or anti-Bush or pro-anti-whatever. What I object to, and is against forum rules, is insulting and demeaning someone for expressing an opposing view. I even made a point to say that it was happening on both sides. I don't care if you are pro-bush, I may disagree with you but I would defend your right to give your opinion and would not allow someone to personally attack you for it.

If you feel personally threatened by what I said, and clearly you do from the whole "go ahead and ban me" thing, then maybe you need to examine the way you approach an argument.