Well it didn’t take long for this!
Newly-installed Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar on Sunday reiterated Hamas’s desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.
“I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it,” Zahar said in the interview. “I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize).”
This dream, he added, “will become real one day. I’m certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land.”
He also called on the US to abandon its long-time partial policy that favors Israel and to refrain from exerting political and economic pressure on the Hamas cabinet.
“There are so many countries which support the Hamas cabinet and its stance,” he said, without elaborating. “We will establish diplomatic relations with these countries.”
I think I liked Dr. King’s dream better!
RE: #43.
San Fran Liberal:.how can you even say everyone was wrong on Saddams WMD? He used them for gosh sakes. You need to see the movie called Iraqi Truth Project. They interview some of the people who survived these chemical attacks and others who lost someone and still others who survived the tortures.
I can say everyone was wrong on Iraq’s W’sMD because it’s the truth. The US government, under GW Bush, has released reports that say as much. This isn’t a NYT, CNN, liberal line; this is the official United States government line.
I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. not some “liberal” truth, but it’ll be in the history books/taught in school kind of truth.
It’s never been a matter of NO WMD but WHERE DID THEY GO? We recently learned that a lot of them were shipped out.
Your government, under GW Bush released a few reports that deal with that theory. The US military has disproved the idea that Iraq sent all their W’sMD to Syria. If it was true, do you think Bush would let that happen? Don’t you think we’d be occupying Syria as well as Iraq if they had Saddams W’sMD?
It’s ok to be wrong, BonBon. I’m not rubbing your face in it. But it is important to be honest with yourself and others. Look up the info on your own, and don’t just go to RightWing news sites like NewsMax. Go to government sites. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
RE: #49
Robert, what are you talking about???? Did you just hit Mike Kilo????????
“For the RightVoices community? You lower them all when you talk like the way you do. Don’t you get that?”
Ah, so now you’re speaking for the RightVoices “community” (another Liberal term). I am sure that the “RightVoices community” desires and needs your approval, your validation.
Debating you is an utter waste of time. Points go right over your head. You can’t even recognize satire, sarcasm, or a joke when you see it (like the listening to Michael Savage deal). You have little or no originality of thought, simply regurgitating the dogma of the Liberal virtual religion (as in the illegal immigration discussion and the death penalty issue). You keep reiterating the same nonsense, even when whacked over the head with the 2×4 of reality (WMD in Iraq discussion).
You won’t acknowledge even the obvious. You are truly a case that proves that Liberalism is a form of mental illness.
These discussion threads are about information, opinion, and some entertainment. Many posters try to inject some entertainment value in the form of satire, or jokes. Your posts are not even entertaining, they’re just stuck on stoopid.
Here comes the 2×4: whack, whack, whack!
SF Liberal: “What 2×4?”
RE: #47.
I’m no Weiner fan (hold the jokes, please), however, you have to admit..talk radio has gone a long way toward breaking the idiotic liberal monopoly in the MSM that gave us, what I call the most frightening poll ever taken in american history.
I understand your point, Mike. I do.
I just think there is a BIOG difference between the professional, peer-reviewed journalistic artform that the “MSM” comprises, and the unregulated, non-peer reviewed world of news “entertainment”.
on one hand, the MSM at least tries to show balance, if not for anything else than credibility. But Someone like Savage can call liberals terrorists and no one calls him on it.
Walter Kronkit would never call an American liberal OR a conservative a “terrorist” when it’s OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE.
THAT’S why people would trust MSM over talk radio…
No, not Mike. In my post #47, I referenced post 45 (SF Liberal). Unless something’s gone haywire in the system, it should display correctly. it does on my PC.
Anyway, you guys should know that I was talking about SF Liberal!
“on one hand, the MSM at least tries to show balance”
SF..you must be joking. Are you in that kind of denial…balance?
Any moron knows the (intended) difference between radio commentators and “news” anchors.
However, the way the liberal media reports…..IS THERE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE???
Hello? Dan, “Full Power, Tall Tower” Rather?
RE: #52.
even when whacked over the head with the 2×4 of reality (WMD in Iraq discussion).
I presented you with government links and sources on the Bush Administration Dalfour Report and info on the US military Iraq Survey Project proving my point on Iraqs WMDs.
The only 2×4 that you tried to hit me with was a bunch of second-rate childish insults.
Robert, where are your official US government links that counter what I’m saying? NewsMax.com doesn’t count.
Rather took obviously phoney documents, and used his bully pulpit to call the president a deserter!!!!! Jesus, is that your idea of “balance”?
what about how every time Rick Santorum is introduced it’s “Ultra-Conservative Senator, Rick Santorom”
But Ted “Killer” Kennedy…oh no, it’s “Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts”
why do we need to be warned of Santorum’s idealogical slant, but not Kennedy’s? Can you answer that question?
Robert…your cracks are showing. You’re straining to hit me.
It’s not working, and you’re kind of making a fool of yourself.
Calm down and stick to discussing politics, not personal attacks.
Isn’t there a moderator here that can step in a calm this guy down?
I’ll answer it for you..because, to liberals in the msm…Kennedy is mainstream!!!! Hell, he believes in dismembering a million babies a year, hates the president, wishes the French dictated US foreign policy, etc…. he’s NORMAL!
But Santorum…he’s like a purple headed space monster to them.
so what does it tell you that the majority of Americans hold beliefs closer to Santorum’s than to Kennedy/San Fran Sam’s?
Mike Kilo, of course it can’t be 100% balanced ALL THE TIME.
But you should work to change that from within, not give up on the whole process and start anew. Especially if that new start is entertainment talk radio. There is no peer review with talk radio.
The host like Weiner can say whatever he wants and can get away with it, unlike Dan Rather who says something dumb and gets NAILED (as he should have been) to the cross for it.
does that make sense?
MSM is peer reviewed, and hate-talk radio isn’t.
see how they do not equal each other?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that you shouldn’t invest too much emotionally and intellectually into the other NON-MSM sources…
”
Robert:your cracks are showing. You’re straining to hit me.
It’s not working, and you’re kind of making a fool of yourself.
Calm down and stick to discussing politics, not personal attacks.
Isn’t there a moderator here that can step in a calm this guy down?”
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh (sound of SF Liberal crying and whining).
Here’s a link to a picture of SF Liberal:
http://www.tech-sol.net/humor/funphoto35.htm
He’s also a poster child for the DemoKrat party!
“…Dan Rather who says something dumb and gets NAILED (as he should have been) to the cross for it.”
Yerah, Blather got nailed by (hate-talk) bloggers, then hate-talk radio, while the MSM ran interference for Blather.
If it had been left to the MSM, Blather’s fraud would have stood to influence millions of American voters in the Presidential election.
RE: #60.
so what does it tell you that the majority of Americans hold beliefs closer to Santorum’s than to Kennedy/San Fran Sam’s?
I’m gonna have to call shenanigans on this one, Mike Kilo.
If what you say is true, then how come a majority of Americans;
did not approve of the Bush Social Security reform?
did not approve of the Dubai Port Deal?
did not approve of the Administration on Katrina?
do not approve of progress in Iraq War (60% now think it was mistake)
Mike, the public CERTAINLY has no love for Democrats, but you just can’t say that they support republicans fully anymore, either.
Post-2004 election, Bush and the republican agenda has taken hit after hit. And the public is more on the fence now than ever before.
Democrats even recently beat out Repubs on the Natty Security issue, once the feather in your Party hat.
That’s why everyone is talking about how this November might see HUGE gains for Dems in congressional mid-term elections. Republicans are looking bad with all that corruption (cunningham, abramoff, delay) and Bush looking even worse with bad Iraq news.
San Fran…what good is “peer review” when all of your peers believe exactly as you do?
you don’t think more americans agree with Santorum than Kennedy?
War on Terror? Role Of UN? Gay Marriage?
How much do you care to wager?
RE: #62.
are you really 40 something years old?
RE: #65.
San Fran:what good is “peer review”when all of your peers believe exactly as you do?
Peer Review: The process also forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline and thus achieve journalistic objectivity. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
That’s mighty paranoid to think ALL journalists are lefties. I think the numbers are 60/40…lefties to righties.
you don’t think more americans agree with Santorum than Kennedy?
well, it depends on the issue.
War on Terror? Role Of UN? Gay Marriage?
Well, as I mentioned, the Dems now have the lead on the Iraq issue. Bush has a 35% approval rating on Iraq. ouch!
How much do you care to wager?
a gentlemans bet.
San Fran, there is no document that says that the WMD’s were not moved to Syria and Lebanon.
As for the security issue: if you are referring to the Dubai Portsa deal..try again! This was the base of the Republican party that fought that one..that is no win for the dems…No take a look at Cynthia McKinney and tell me that the dems are serious about security!
San Fran Lib cites old reports, that dealt with particular issues at particular times, as the basis for his assertions that there were never any WMD.
He chooses to ignore, or is genuinely ignorant of, recent developments, all of which have already been deatiled in this thread.
If it doesn’t come from the MSM 89% Democrite, 11% Republican and Independent), to him it doesn’t exist. He probably thinks that Air Jizzeera (Air America) is a swell source of news and information.
San Fran Lib cites old reports, that dealt with particular issues at particular times, as the basis for his assertions that there were never any WMD.
LOL…at least I’m actually citing official Bush Admin government docs.
What the hell have YOU presented as evidence that Iraq moved it’s >snickerUntil you provide us with OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT links (like the Duelfer Report, The Iraq Survey Group reports), then you’re full of sh*t.
No, you can’t use blogs, rightwing rags (NewsMax, etc) as sources…I want OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT links.
I’m really interested to see what you can find from the Bush Admin on WsMD sent to Syria. And if they were, why the hell hasn’t Bush bombed the F out of them yet?
I’m waiting…:!:
Hey, Peejz, nice moderating job there earlier!
It’s nice to know you’ll kick off / censor LIBERALS who use insult and degrade this site, but when CONSERVATIVES (if that’s what you call him) get crazy, you’re nowhere to be seen.
nice.
RE:#68.
“…referring to the Dubai Portsa deal..try again! This was the base of the Republican party that fought that one..that is no win for the dems”
Oh, but, see, that’s where you are wrong.
ANY problem your base has with the brass, the Dems can use. In this case, the Dems went after Bush, the leader of your party, as weak on security for suggesting an Arab company have control over some of our nations ports.
The Dems POUNCED on the opportunity to look good for once on Security. And it worked. Look at how Bush tanked on the deal, and look at the Dems polling numbers. Thanks to Bush on Iraq, Katrina, and now the Ports, the Dems have a fighting chance to retake the House. Probably won’t, but it’s the GAINS that will matter most.
But, yes, the Ports SNAFU was for sure used to the advantage of the Democrats, if for nothing else, then to make Bush look bad. And Bush is the symbol of the Republican Party…
Dear San Fran- I don’t sit on my computer and watch you all day. If you can’t handle it, then maybe it is time to leave.
BTW- You cited a 2004 WaPo article as proof of no WMD’s? Please..:roll:
Who are you appealing to with this supposed boost from the port deal? Your base?
Is there something wrong with having an arab company operate our ports? It couldn’t be any worse than the job that the unions and mafia are doing now..What country is an acceptable operator? Cause it won’t be american!
I don’t sit on my computer and watch you all day. If you can’t handle it, then maybe it is time to leave.
Not upset, can handle just fine. Just thinking there is a bit of a double standard here, that’s all.
BTW- You cited a 2004 WaPo article as proof of no WMD’s?
How EASY it is to be a conservative these days!! If you read or hear something that doesn’t comply with your particular ideology or if it comes from traditional, established, hundred year old publications then it’s instantly discounted and not given a second thought.
Wow! I wish I could do that to all the information that didn’t sit well with me!! Instead I have to critically analyze everything I read and I have to constantly challenge my beliefs to stay on top of my game. Man, that sure makes my brain tired.
That “WaPo” article talked about the Iraq Survey Group (the Bush Admin and the US military WMD hunters) finding no evidence of Iraq moving W’sMD to Syria.
Now, Peejz…you don’t have to take MY word for it, but who would you believe first? The official Bush Administration end report, or some little right wing bloggers with an axe to grind against liberals?
For once, and only once, I would stand with the Bush Admin and their official report on the matter. Why don’t you?
RE: #72.
Is there something wrong with having an Arab company operate our ports?
Nope. In fact, I personally couldn’t care less what country runs them. I just think that in ANY political match-up, if a situation presents itself that can be exploited to the oppositions advantage, then by all means they should take it.
…Which is what the Dems did. The Repub base balked at the deal, and the Dem’s seized the moment (and won) by saying; “Hey, WE think it’s a bad idea too!”.
Thus Bush, the leader of the Republican party looked bad on Port Security and the Democratic Party looked good on it.
It’s OK to get kicked in the proverbial n*ts once in awhile in politics. The Dem’s are used to it, and you guys have only forgotten what it feels like.
72-Not upset, can handle just fine. Just thinking there is a bit of a double standard here, that’s all. Did I edit you? Who is it you are referring to because I only edit people that annoy the piss out of me with their whining or Fred who is a racist ass that has done one too many drugs!
As for the WMD’s
here, here, here, and here
Why haven’t we invaded Syria then?
So really all the proof you have for the theory that Syria took W’sMD from Iraq is the word of ONE Iraqi General?
None of the other links in #76 said anything about Syria receiving Iraq’s W’sMD right before the American Invasion…
so…
Official Bush Admin Iraq Survey Team saying No W’sMD VS. Iraqi Generals word
San Francisco Liberal:
From where I sit, you look like an annoying, whining little ass. First of all, you come to a website called “RightVoices”, and use the name “San Francisco Liberal”. Pretty obvious you intend to be provocative, that you’re looking for a fight. Then when you get a bloody nose, you start whining for the moderators to come to your aid. You are a wimp.
I look through topic after topic here, and you post absurdities; nonsense. You are just trying to provoke people; you claim to take the intellectual high road, but you get down in the mud when it suits you.
Now suddenly you’re a Bush Administration truth zealot, standing on Gov’t reports and willing to fight for them because you have based your entire argument on old information. You are so transparent it is laughable.
When (if) you grow up someday, sonny, perhaps you will understand what older, far wiser people are trying to tell you here. But meanwhile, this isn’t your sandbox. Don’t expect to come here, play, and throw your tantrums without somebody calling you on it.
77-All the links tie materials being moved to Syria.
The Dulfer Report said they could not rule out the fact that the materials were moved as they have not been into Syria to look. It is right there in the report, all you need to do is read it.
81. Come one Peejz.. SAn Fran Sam will never let a pesky little thing like FACTS get in the way of some good Bush-bashing.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if some of these lefty a-holes actually clammed up for once and got behind our troops?
don’t hold your breath.
Peejz…thanks for finding those links. I was kind of taken back when I read SanFrans response. Almost like the holocaust deniers. Just wanted to say thanks again. YOu are the BEST!:cool:
Peejz….what are you talking about with those links? I looked all over them, and I couldn’t find ONE item that said Iraq moved W’sMD to Syria!!
What are you talking about, “it’s in the links” ???
Where?
I even did a word find using “Syria” and none of the finds came up in a context of W’sMD and Syria / Iraq.
Seriously. What are you looking at that I’m missing?
I provide actual government documents saying there were no WMDS, and what do you send? Empty links?
Even the CIA time line doesn’t have anything showing Iraq moved…
You lose this one.
There is NO proof that Iraq moved WsMD to Syria.
If they did we would be ALL OVER SYRIA.
PLEASE take off your Blinders!!!!
This is absolutely hilarious! I have proof, and you have NOTHING to prove it with.
LOL…
waiting for REAL evidence…
According to new information coming out of Iraq our military is indeed finding weapons and evidence of weapons programs.
The Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, has found hundreds of activities which were prohibited under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Evidence of chemical, biological and ballistic weapons have indeed all been found yet the mention of these finds seems to fly far under the media’s radar. Why?
According to Charles Duefler, a former State Department official as well as deputy chief of the United Nations-led arms inspection teams the types of weapons found are not the specific weapons mentioned by President Bush. ” There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for.”
Both Duefler and David Kay, found Iraq had “a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing it’s chemical-and biological-weapons programs” a senior administration official told Insight Magazine. According to this official inspectors have also found a prison laboratory where intelligence officials suspect biological weapons were tested on human subjects.
There is more that has been found though. Among these were uranium-enrichment centrifuges which have one plausible use to build nuclear weapons. Remember that President Bush was convinced Saddam was pursuing nuclear capabilities. Apparently he was right.
In addition Iraqi scientists have consistently told our inspectors they were under orders from Saddam Hussein to hide their activities from U.N. inspectors. Further, the missiles listed as threats to America have indeed been found yet the media has remained silent.
Not to say the media has an agenda but the evidence of WMD’s has indeed been largely ignored by the mainstream press. Everyone heard about it when David Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found no stockpiles of prohibited weapons. That was front-page news. Yet, when Kay testified about the discoveries of the ISG the silence fro the media was deafening.
In his testimony Kay also laid bare some other nasty secrets Saddam had been hiding from U.N. inspectors.
So-called reference stains from a wide variety of biological weapons were found in the home of a prominent Iraqi scientist. This was written off by the press as a sort of starter kit and deemed unimportant.
New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit.
Further, evidence from testimony of Iraqi scientists and documents show that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq was negotiating with North Korea for technology for various missiles. These missiles, of course, could have been armed with chemical or biological agents.
There is much more evidence laid out by Insight Magazine that our press seems not to deem worthy. This information is also available on World Net Daily. Every American should check out this evidence and re-think the criticisms of our decision to eliminate Saddam and the very real threat he posed to our nation.
And thank you too Mike. I wondered for a few days why the MSM didn’t report alot of this. Saddam is on trial and alot of these things are coming out whether they like it or not.
Question for San Fran….if we hadn’t taken out Saddam and he let loose with his weapons on us. How many American deaths are acceptable to you before we take action?
San Fran- I’ll go really slow for you….
in # 79, I said “All the links tie materials being moved to Syria.” and each of the links does show a pattern of materials being shipped to Syria or via Syria..clearly a pattern has been established to show that Syria has been working with or for Iraq for years…
Dulfer does not rule out the possibility that WMDs were moved to Syria because there have been no inspections in Syria, but there is a clear pattern of Syria doing this…therefore Dulfer did not rule out the possibility..
Add to that, an Iraqi that worked for Saddam, and it really isn’t such a stretch.
Do I think that we had intelligence failures and made mistakes? You bet..but not to this degree..The evidence of the destroyed weapons program hasn’t even been found..the weapons that were there in 91′ and 98′…
And as my last source I would like to introduce this into evidence:
“Letterman asked, “Are we going into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I’d like to go in. I’d like to get the guy. I don’t like the way the guy looks.”
“He is a threat. He’s a murderer and a thug,”said Mr. Clinton. “There’s no doubt we can do this. We’re stronger; he’s weaker. You’re looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I’d be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished.”
Even if the U.S. wins a war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Mr. Clinton said, a threat remains. He noted, “If he’s got these stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and if he knows he’s toast, don’t you think he’ll use what he can and give away what he can’t to people who’ll be using them on us for years to come so he can have the last laugh….”
I wonder who Bubba was thinking of?
Okay if he had them and he was so eager to use them; why didn’t he use them when America invaded?
Zelda, because he never expected us to actually send an overwhelming force and blow through there.
Once that was obvious, using WMDs would have turned the entire world against him…
Peejz, those links you provided earlier, showed nothing about WsMD being transfered FROM Iraq to Syria.
I swear to god…do a word find “Syria” on the links you gave, and look around each word that pops up. NOWHERE does it show Syria receiving W’sMD from Iraq.
The CIA time lines you gave ALSO did not show any transfer of WMD to Syria.
And the latest link you gave from CBS is from 2002, and ALSO does not show any evidence that Syria took WsMD from Iraq. The conversation was PRE-WAR when everyone Repub and Dem alike thought Iraq had WsMD.
So…again….you offer NO proof or evidence that Syria took WsMD from Iraq.
The Duelfer Report leaves open the possibility, but does not present evidence otherwise.
So really, the only “proof” you have is the word of one Iraqi general and all the proof I have is the word of the United States government and the US military.
I say my sources trump yours.:wink:
Seriously guys, to hang onto the idea that Syria took WsMD from Iraq is equal to holding onto the belief that the holocaust never happened. It’s just crazy.
answer this:
If Syria is KNOWN by the US government to have taken Saddam’s WsMD, and Syria is a terrorist supporting nation…WHY HAVE WE NOT ATTACKED SYRIA YET???
We haven’t, because there is nothing to prove they took Iraq’s weapons.
PLEASE. accept this! You are on the fringe with this one. Not even your party supports the idea that Iraq gave Syria it’s weapons.
It’s a WEAK excuse and an attempt to avoid responsibility for supporting a MISTAKE of a war. How sad…
Then address MY post, wiseass.
San Fran is like an OJ jurer…you could put Nicole’s head, a bloody knife, glove, ski mask, ticket to pango pango, 100,000 cash, and a home movie of him singing, “I killed the bitch” in front of his face, and he still wouldn’t believe it.
RE: #85.
Question for San Fran:.if we hadn’t taken out Saddam and he let loose with his weapons on us. How many American deaths are acceptable to you before we take action?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD….THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT – George Bush HIMSELF – HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT SADDAM DID NOT POSSESS WsMD!!!
HOW COULD SADDAM ATTACK US WITH HIS NON-EXISTANT WEAPONS????
This is not new info; it’s been known Saddam didn’t have WsMD since nearly two years ago…
This isn’t JUST liberals saying this; the Republican Party accepts this as well. Just a handful of extremists on the fringe think Syria took all the WsMD from Iraq before the invasion.
You don’t want to associate yourself with wackos, do you?
LOL…
You clearly can’t read……
and what kind of internet 3 year old uses “LOL” anyway.
Jesus harold christ.
Let’s sum up everything the San Fran thinks / believes / espouses.
“Bush bad…ugh.”
Even respected Republican politicians are saying that Saddam didn’t have any biological or chemical weapons when America invaded.
I think you guys just want it to be true so badly that you aren’t looking at the facts.
If he had them he would have used them when we invaded.
You know what guys, you don’t have to take MY word for it…
“And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet.”
George W. Bush, April 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html
“We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet.”
George Bush 2 August 2004
“Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.â€George W. Bush
March 25th, 2004
“I just feel that the reasons for going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that’s all been proven that it was never there.â€
Congressman Walter Jones, Conservative Republican hawk
Member of the Armed Services Committee
June 13th, 2005
Zelda, is that sort of like when liberals chant over and over and over again “Bush Lied” “Bush Lied”
because they WANT it to be true so badly?
I think so.
What I am saying is that….clearly mass graves filled with gassed Kurds are ample evidence of WMD (if not sheer evil savagery). As far as I’m concerned, Saddam himself was a WMD. We have reports coming out now of Russian efforts to assist Saddam’s regime in moving weapons out.
Add all this up and what do you get? You get that it was a damn good thing we went and removed this butcher.
that’s all I’m saying.