WMD in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey Moriarity,

What do you think about the articles/report cited and the subsequent discussion?

I’d like your input.

JeffR[/quote]

Seems like I’m late to this party. I haven’t read any of the Duefler report so I felt a little too uninformed to comment seriously.

I believed that report to state that no WMD had been found in Iraq, but I continue to hear that that is a mischaracterization of the full report. I would hate to reguritate a mischaracterization without reading the text for myself.

62

[quote]Dustinw wrote:
My old roommate is a biotechnology student and has better WMD capabilities then this–she doesn’t even get good grades. There are only a hand full of techniques for reproducing bio-agents–be them bio-weapons or bio-herbicides.
But there is no evidence of successful creation of WMDs–sanctions and inspections were working and successfully stopping his regime from creating them.

T.[/quote]
This is true. A man who is a scientist keeping projects at home or in a personal lab is not unheard of, especially when none of those projects are formed into weapons but this article stated they could somehow be used to eventually create a weapon. This article fails to explain what the material was or how it could be used as such. Like I stated before, you could say the same of nearly any biomedical waste. You would be surprised what is the homes of some research scientists. For most, it is not simply a job but what they base their entire lives around. I would hope that this is not what anyone is basing a theory on. The current administration has acknowledged that there are no WMD’s. Why is JeffR trying so hard to make connections that aren’t there?

63

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, “There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.”

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry’s comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller’s statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman’s contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

64

Moriarty wrote:

"Seems like I’m late to this party. I haven’t read any of the Duefler report so I felt a little too uninformed to comment seriously.

I believed that report to state that no WMD had been found in Iraq, but I continue to hear that that is a mischaracterization of the full report. I would hate to reguritate a mischaracterization without reading the text for myself."

This is why I value your opinion.

JeffR

65

redwingsline,

All I can say to your post is “Oh, my GOD!!!”

Excellent research.

The hypocrisy of the Democrats is STUNNING!!!

I honestly have no idea on what basis they are no acting as though we “rushed to war” led by the “boogeymen.”

“It was W. and the neo-cons who had it in for poor little Saddam.”

EVERYONE READ REDWINGSLINE’S POST!!!

JeffR

66

THANK YOU redswingline (nice name btw)!!

I guess it is more than just Bush who are liars.

It’s amazing how bi-partisan this conspiracy theory is. It even includes Albright - who really isn’t all that bright.

I’ll wait silently in the corner to the the spin that the Bush-haters put on this one.

67

Soco,

“Hmmmm…while I have heard of numerous coping mechanisms to bullying before, reading CNN headlines isn’t one of them.”

I thought I was clear. Sorry. Let me rephrase.

If you weren’t expending so much energy hiding from larger humans, you would have more energy to devote to thinking through issues. Currently, you just regurgitate CNN headlines.

Oh, by the way, that isn’t meant to be taken literally!!! I was pushing your buttons to see how you would respond!!!

Unfortunately, you couldn’t respond with a riposte that was either clever or humourous. Too bad!!!

“You aren’t really one to criticize over having too much time on their hands. You are the one reading through every report on the web relating to WMD’s.”

Soco,

Let me discuss an issue with you that you may not have considered.

As you know, I’m not a “I’m the greatest guy in the world because I can regurgitate left wing talking points (aka…Just the Facts.)” I don’t necessarily distrust everything ever said by a government (Little Al).

However, when I hear you, RSU (ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1), and others repeatedly insist that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, I become suspicious and curious.

For me, I am not being a responsible citizen if I take the word of some guy who got C’s in advertising at Middle Missouri State University at face value. I think we should do some research on our own. This is especially true when discussing an issue as serious as WMD’s in Iraq.

Another recent example of someone else doing their research and uncovering very interesting information would be Cream when he illustrated Barak Obama’s voting record.

Or Redwing quoting the Democratic leadership essentially saying everything they now castigate W. for saying.

In summary, you must remember the filter by which we often receive our news. I think they count on laziness and sloth in the populace.

I challenge you to both lift weights AND pick some issues to research. Educate us. That is the beauty of this forum.

JeffR

68

redswingline

Excellent post!

While it certainly doesn’t support -then-current WMD capabilities, it shows the concern by many politicians and powers over its potential.

Nice, informative–a good read.

There is a clear, visible time line there of observations and remarks that brings us to our current situation.

69

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
redswingline

Excellent post!

While it certainly doesn’t support -then-current WMD capabilities, it shows the concern by many politicians and powers over its potential.

Nice, informative–a good read.

There is a clear, visible time line there of observations and remarks that brings us to our current situation.[/quote]

Who are you kidding, Sasquatch?

Everyone knows that Bush lied and people died. How dare you bring the past into this. It’s all Bush’s fault because he wanted to settle a score with Sadaam.

Time line? How dare you impune the reputation of Clinton and his cabinet of circus freaks?

70

You can be suspicious and curious all you like but the evidence points away from the conclusion you want to reach. If there was a clear piece of evidence that showed Saddam did posses these weapons, then I am sure the White House would bring it forward.

The most interesting point that I find about this entire debate is that those in favor of the war keep bringing up the fact that Saddam was an evil dictator. These very arguments show that we invaded Iraq because we didn’t like Saddam and not because of WMDs.

“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.” George W. Bush

I hated Saddam too but if you are going to start forcefully removing all evil dictators in the world then we are going to have are hands busy for the next errr…I don’t want to even guess. While the neo-cons might have been at least partially right in their assumptions that Iraq would create a domino effect of democracy in the middle east, I feel that the White House should be a little bit more honest in the justifications for going to war.

71

Soco

It has all but been decided that there are no WMD in Iraq.

Their “justification” came from the best intel available at the time. Remember GW didn’t do this on his own. Virtually every senator and congressman at the time agreed it was time to go.

As RSU brought up, maybe they were duped by some in the administration, I still need to look into that, but it was not Bush alone.

There was also intel that suggested the alliance between Suddam and Al Q. With the available information and prevailing thoughts leaning towards such a tie in, it was prudent at the time to go into Iraq for as much a preemptive move as any.

Again, in retrospect, WMD turned out to be erroneous. But, what do you do then?

Also let me add that I am not in favor of the war. I support the troops and the decision at the time seemed appropriate. I would much rather we spent our time and moneybetween our own borders.

72

[quote]vroom wrote:
Instructions for Jerffy:

  1. Close eyes real tight.

  2. Say LA-LA-LA-LA.

  3. Click heals together three times.

  4. Wish for WMD’s in Iraq.[/quote]

Honestly, Jeff, Stop.
You are an embaressment to conservatives, republicans, and just plain normal Americans in general. I don’t want to participate in the political forums dare you take a conservative value or view point of mine and twist it into one of your ‘W being elected was a mandate from god’ rant of yours, right before you cheer on any post with a hint of pro-W anti-liberal overtone.
We have great conservative minds on this forum (as well as great liberal ones!) But if you really want to drive home a point, if you really want to take it to those ‘blasphemous liberals’ then do all of us a favor and shut your trap. I absolutely hate it when you take an extremely valid and almost unarguable point by BB or RJ and turn it into your chilidish bullshit. What you sputter out is so stupid and nearly illegitimate it gives others a chance to not argue the points but your constant cheerleading. Even when you do say something somewhat valid no one can take you seriously because it’s so strongly clouded with a stubborn i haven’t seen in the worst of a two year old.

Please.

Stop.

73

[quote]vroom wrote:
Instructions for Jerffy:

  1. Close eyes real tight.

  2. Say LA-LA-LA-LA.

  3. Click heals together three times.

  4. Wish for WMD’s in Iraq.
    [/quote]

I almost fell off my executive chair reading this. Classic vroom!

Peace be with you.

74

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

"Honestly, Jeff, Stop.
You are an embaressment to conservatives, republicans, and just plain normal Americans in general. I don’t want to participate in the political forums dare you take a conservative value or view point of mine and twist it into one of your ‘W being elected was a mandate from god’ rant of yours, right before you cheer on any post with a hint of pro-W anti-liberal overtone.

We have great conservative minds on this forum (as well as great liberal ones!) But if you really want to drive home a point, if you really want to take it to those ‘blasphemous liberals’ then do all of us a favor and shut your trap.

I absolutely hate it when you take an extremely valid and almost unarguable point by BB or RJ and turn it into your chilidish bullshit. What you sputter out is so stupid and nearly illegitimate it gives others a chance to not argue the points but your constant cheerleading.

Even when you do say something somewhat valid no one can take you seriously because it’s so strongly clouded with a stubborn i haven’t seen in the worst of a two year old.

Please.

Stop."

Well, that was nasty.

Did you have anything to add to the discussion?

May I make something crystal clear to you? I don’t belong to any organized church.

Surprised?

If you bother to read my posts you will find that I am angered by religious nutballs (stellar) trying to foist their views on others.

Surprised?

Oh, no one buys your “I’m a Republican” bit.

It’s a cheap gambit of yours to try to sound open-minded.

I called you on it and you’ve hated me ever since.

Oh, before you call anyone “stupid,” please learn how to spell.

You are an “embaressment.”

Look that one up, Einstein.

Have a wonderful second term!!!

JeffR

75

stellar wrote:

"I almost fell off my executive chair reading this. Classic vroom!

Peace be with you."

Don’t you have some sort of religious chanting to do? Jesus frowns on your vindictive nature. Following me around has to be some sort of “sin.”

I hear Big Kane!!! He’s pulling up the corner of the sky. It’s time for MY chant, Malla!!! Malla!!!

JeffR

76

[quote]JeffR wrote:
“I’ll bet you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus too!”

I do.

JeffR

[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHA. RTLW

rangertab75

77

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Dustinw wrote:
“A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist’s residence.”

Consistent with the cover story? woa there’s some spin.

“My old roommate is a biotechnology student and has better WMD capabilities then this–she doesn’t even get good grades.”

I doubt it. Reasonable people will conclude that a former Biological Warfare scientist with Biological agents at his home is suspicious. Especially, when you consider what Saddam told such scientists.

See my previous posts.

“There are only a hand full of techniques for reproducing bio-agents–be them bio-weapons or bio-herbicides.”

The point being?

[/quote]

Off the top of my head I seem to remember those vials were useful for creating vaccines against biological weapons which Husseins neighbour Israel posses.

[quote]“I think even the most die-hard liberals amongst us (i.e. me) will agree, Sadam was a bad man who would have loved to terrorize his neighbors (and the world) with WMDs. But there is no evidence of successful creation of WMDs–sanctions and inspections were working and successfully stopping his regime from creating them.”

They were. Until 1995-1996. Please read Duefler. If you won’t, then I have recently posted sections for you to peruse. [/quote]

Yeah that was also around the time the US put spies in the weapons inspectors absolutely compromising the teams. D’oh. Surely if the US really wanted the weapons inspections to work they’d have not done that?

[quote]Along with breaking UN sanctions, murdering his own people, repeatedly firing on our planes, arming and harboring terrorists, attempting to assassinate George H.W. Bush (by the way, anyone else think it’s not an act of overt war when they try to assassinate our leaders?) and on and on and freakin’ on.

Please see 2002 speeches by W.
[/quote]

Yes, because ‘W’ wont portrey a partisan picture will he? I seem to remember he kept saying ‘hes got em’ in his speeches too. Of course Hussein did murder his own people, but why JeffR do you keep ignoring the fact that the US supported him when he was gassing Kurds? Just go on any news archive and look it up! (it happened in 1988. You’ll see shortly after, if you check the British press, than the UK sent the minister for trade an industry shortly after for a friendly visit, much to the disgust of many MPs).
Hussein did repeatedly fire on US planes, but then they repeatedly bombed Iraq. The thing about harbouring terrorists trying to kill Bush is so ludacris it doesn’t even require an answer

Tell us why he should save his breath. Refute the economic argument for war. Seriously, I’ll be interested

You’ll find it splashed accross the British press over the last couple of years, like when the second Iraq dossier was plagairised from an 11 year old doctoral dissertation off the internet. Thats a huge reason why Blair is being forced to resign

Most intelligence agencies concluded Hussein was no threat, thats why the world didn’t support the war.

[quote]“I find that creepier then them just plain lying about the reason (assuming it was oil, or wanting a base of power in the middle east, or to distract from their inability to locate Osam Bin Ladden).”

I would too if it wasn’t hogwash.[/quote]

Cos theyve done a great job of finding him.

[quote]“The worst part of the war in Iraq is that the reason for it–WMDs–is so flimsy,”

Wrong. Oh, you’d fit right in with the ABB crowd here in the U.S.

Are you unable to absorb the multiple reasons to invade?

Or is one all that you can comprehend?[/quote]

Yes but the original reason was WMDs or do like to forget the UN wrangling and resolution 1441?

[quote]“while just a few years ago an invasion into Iraq to try and stop the Kurdish genocides could have been justified in Humanitarian terms:
Dustin.”

Sorry to break it to you, but that wasn’t under W’s watch.

Oh, it would be hard to say that mass murder wasn’t occuring in 2002 and 2003. [/quote]

Genocide wasn’t occuring in 2002, it would have been reported by the Red Cross which actually stated mal-nutrition and poor health were the leading killer pre-war. Now violence is the leading killer. The 100,000 civilians killed as ‘colateral damage’ constitutes genocide does it not? so yeah, it did occur in a way, but not from Hussein.

Or you could watch something like Farenheit 9/11. Its got some footage of Iraq after the coalition went in. Waiting for the right wing to make a movie refuting it too.

They are a good reason, its a pity the US did nothing about them.

[quote]In summary, multiple reasons to invade Iraq. To people who don’t have their “I hate W” blinders on, these reasons are obvious.

Said invasion has borne out said reasons (minus K-mart size storehouses of clearly marked stockpiles of WMD).

Thanks!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

So you admit he doesn’t have them. Thank God!

78

John,

Thanks for taking the time to read the information.

I appreciate it.

Sadly, I don’t agree with your assertions and I’m not sure that anything will change your viewpoint. Oh, the last comment you made is a complete mischaracterization of my statement.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

79

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hoosier Daddy wrote:

"Honestly, Jeff, Stop.
You are an embaressment to conservatives, republicans, and just plain normal Americans in general. I don’t want to participate in the political forums dare you take a conservative value or view point of mine and twist it into one of your ‘W being elected was a mandate from god’ rant of yours, right before you cheer on any post with a hint of pro-W anti-liberal overtone.

We have great conservative minds on this forum (as well as great liberal ones!) But if you really want to drive home a point, if you really want to take it to those ‘blasphemous liberals’ then do all of us a favor and shut your trap.

I absolutely hate it when you take an extremely valid and almost unarguable point by BB or RJ and turn it into your chilidish bullshit. What you sputter out is so stupid and nearly illegitimate it gives others a chance to not argue the points but your constant cheerleading.

Even when you do say something somewhat valid no one can take you seriously because it’s so strongly clouded with a stubborn i haven’t seen in the worst of a two year old.

Please.

Stop."

Well, that was nasty.

Did you have anything to add to the discussion?

May I make something crystal clear to you? I don’t belong to any organized church.

Surprised?

If you bother to read my posts you will find that I am angered by religious nutballs (stellar) trying to foist their views on others.

Surprised?

Oh, no one buys your “I’m a Republican” bit.

It’s a cheap gambit of yours to try to sound open-minded.

I called you on it and you’ve hated me ever since.

Oh, before you call anyone “stupid,” please learn how to spell.

You are an “embaressment.”

Look that one up, Einstein.

Have a wonderful second term!!!

JeffR[/quote]

  1. I’ve stopped reading your posts, which is why I did not know that you were angered by religious nutballs, but I didn’t imply that you were a religious nutball, just that your posts are read as if Bush has a mandate of god, and heaven forbid any of us question him.

  2. Cheap gambit? Nice, no Jeff, suffice to say I am a conservative in many principles, and with the future exception of Mark Warner I almost always vote republican (granted I’ve had only one election to exercise my right!). The only time you’ve ever called me out was when I stated that the main reason we went to Iraq was becuase we beleived it had weapons of WMD. You on the other hand, insisted
    that I don’t do anything to educate myself, and that I should instead read more on that subject and prove you wrong. Well Jeff I still beleive that we went to Iraq because we beleive it had weapons or the process to easily make weapons of mass destruction, as did every senator and congressman at the time as well. As far as this discussion, I beleive that Iraq either possesed and quickly discarded of their WMD’s or had the process to make them on a moments notice, either way still making them an immediate threat to our national security, and I beleive that even the Clinton administration had many of the same intelligence that we did (as redwingsline so beautifully stated).

  3. For a man who can’t even put a decent paragraph together,

And writes like this!!

Don’t give me shit about spelling. I bet I spelled something wrong in my paragraph above, in fact I know I did, go ahead an entertain yourself and find it. I bet Twain or Shakespeare, or even yourself for that matter, never ever spelled anything wrong.

  1. I’m having an amazing second term! I’ve recently won a position on the chairboard of the IU college republicans, which I proudly will display on my resume :). Also, with the market back on the rise, I’m making a killer in biotech stocks. But then again I’m just a tree humping open minded liberal, so what would I know?
80

hoosierdaddy,

You comment about “not reading your posts anymore” sums you up to a tee.

Do you think it’s possible that you might have misjudged me?

Is it possible that you could learn something from my posting style?

You will find that I spend most of my time arguing with liberals who admit (like you do) that they don’t read my posts.

Therefore, if I have any chance of refutating their silliness, I have to keep my posts brief and in bullet-point.

Finally, it seems inconceivable to me that a Republican would call someone “stupid” and a “two year old” without checking his/her spelling. That bespeaks a level of intellectual laziness that is not welcome in the party.

Oh, read your original post to me. It’s laden with sarcastic religious undertones. A real Republican would not try to “air brush” the entire party in this way. A real Republican would know (regardless of what the liberals whine about) that the party is far more diverse than a bunch of religious nutcases.

In summary, it’s a nice little game you are trying to play. However, I call bullshit.

JeffR

P.S. It’s sad that you decided to spew your venemous bile on this particular thread. It sounds like you agree with much of what I have been discussing.