General Clark is one of them that is running for president. He's questioning the plan How TERRIBLE that anyone would question <B>the plan</B>!
I think the fact that DeLay and other prominent Republicans were taking serious shots at Clark very early on is an indication fo how seriosuly they take him as a potential oppnent. These were not your usual medai refutations.
Holy crap...I still haven't had time to read up on Clark's non-foreign policy positions, but I'm tempted to support him based strictly on his smackdown of Delay posted by rimrocker. Preach on brother Clark!!! Major, HOW DARE YOU question Delay's questioning of Clark's questioning of the plan. Consider yourself warned.
I neglected to post the lead-in to Clark's response: "Well, first of all, I'd be happy to compare my hair with Tom DeLay's. We'll see who's got the blow-dried hair."
No, I'm not kidding at all. BJ was clearly inebriated when he wrote that gem. In fact, he even admitted to being hungover all day today, so I'm certain he was hammered when he wrote that post. Here's what BJ said over in the Hangout a minute ago: "Spent all day beating last night's hangover just so I could go drink with internet buddies while it's still light out. It's a hard knock life."
Exposed again, I guess. Duh. I was drunk. It happens once a day. Come by for a quick one before the game if you can, texxx.
Well, I can't speak to Batman, but I've seen much worse. Glad you're back, johnheath. What's your take on Republican Senator and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and his shocking break with the Bush Administration over the war on Iraq?
In the next couple of months, concrete and conclusive evidence of Saddam's WMD programs will come to light. There are rumblings that we (the US and UK) have already uncovered several "smoking guns", but are waiting to build an airtight case since so many of Bush and Blair's political opponents will do anything to see them fail in their endeavor to succeed in Iraq. Lugar will pay a political price, and many Democrats will see their potential to star on the national political stage completely destroyed. Dean will be history, while Hillary and Lieberman will be big winners. Batman Jones will look like a drunken child, which is his specialty. If you guys really care about Batman, you will get him to quit killing himself slowly with alcohol (just my opinion).
john...you weren't around when I predicted that this shift would be the way things go...note the word 'programs'... edit: John...if things over in Iraq settled down to the point where you would be safe, I have this idea that we could all chip in 20 bucks or so to fund a johnheath exscursion...we could pay for you to go over and dig up the damned riverbed...would you be game?
I can't wait for this to be EXPOSED. Hopefully the administration will time it properly with the election cycle. This could really put Bush ahead by double digits, in a hurry. Then we all live happily ever after. Muahahahahaha.
No, I am not talking about your notion that "programs" will be invented to cover people's rear ends. I am talking about evidence that will stand up in an American court of law. Some Democrats will never recover from what is about to occur in my opinion, and that is too bad. They could have taken a principled stand, and waited for our President to produce evidence in a reasonable amount of time JUST LIKE THEY DEMANDED that war supporters wait for UN inspectors to fulfill some imaginary mission. The downfall of men like Dean will occur because of their hypocrisy and vengeful attitudes.
Scoff away you coed schtuppin' pot smokin' beer swillin' ice fishin' maple leaf wearin' party boy- my opinions about this war to free Iraq and eliminate an imminent threat from Iraq will be proven correct.
There are rumblings that I (samfisher of the Clutch BBS) have already uncovered "Santa Claus" but am hiding him in my closet until late December so that my enemies will look extra stupid when Santa comes out of the closet. Prepare yourself Juan.
There are rumblings that he's T_J himself. That's what you gotta love about rumblings...mostly they never turn out to be true, but unless they are the person can always ask that you wait for the rumblings to be realized.
John, I admire you. I really do. Your ability to remain unshakingly convinced in the rightness of your position, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the fact that you have to constantly shift the argument as parts of it become actually impossible, none of it ever effects the tone of your posts. You were this dead bang sure when you told me what a liar I was for saying that Germany declared war on the US, not vice versa, or that most Americans were dead against getting involved prior to Pearl Harbor. For many of us having been so sure and so wrong in the past would shake our convictions that we will always be right , if only a little, but with you it's like water off a duck's back. I am not being entirely sarcastic when I say that I find this ability of yours to be remarkable and rare. All that said, I have a few points, as they say. 1) The WMD as imminent threat to us ( "At any moment "in the US, " within 45 minutes" if you drive on the left side of the road has already been proven false. 2) The " reconstituted nuclear weapons" has already been proven false. 3) The uranium link has already been proven and admitted false. If you still cling to your Czecks you should note that many, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz don't, and have admitted it was wrong. As has the tubing...oh, and the planes....same goes for the vans...seeing a trend? 4) The time the US has had...while having unfettered access...has already far superceded the time the Un asked for that the administration said was too much...due to the imminent nature of the threat...ahem... There is more, but that's enough for now. I want to keep you around this time.
John, why the self-righteous personal attacks? Facts can be argued, and predictions made without the personal attacks.
Please mind your own business. MacBeth is intelligent enough to know the difference between a personal attack and a tongue in cheek Canuck bashing.
