Amazing who you might see at Sams Club

[JimL]

Pulled into the parking lot at Sam's Club in Franklin, TN this evening and thought it was unusually crowded.  I later find out why...


I managed to be at the right place at the right moment when he walked in



I was not able to get this close again...however it is amazing what women can get away with.  My wife walks up to one of the security folks and plays the "I too short....everybody is bigger than me...I can't get a photo" card;  and manages to get one of them to take a photo for her

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

Who is it ?

[Jeff K]

I'll bite, what the heck are we looking at?

[John Schmidt]

Sean Hannity of Fox News channel.

[Hellcat]

the first is George W Bush. the second is Jay Leno.

Obviously.

[Jeff K]

That was my second guess

[Hellcat]

Sean Whonitty?

[JimL]

Yes, Mr. John Schmidt is correct.  It is Shawn Hannity.  We took the photos with our cell phones, so the quality is horrible.  Evidently a book signing was scheduled for this evening.

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

Sean Hannity of Fox News channel.

Never heard of him ...I don't watch much TV it cuts into my ridin' time however when I do watch TV I'm sure not gonna waste my time on watching one of them long winded waterheads.

[Black Pearl's Captain]

yeah what Joe said, Leno sucks.

[big turkey]

Hannity second most hated man by the Obama admins.

He is in the Photo, somewhat of a water head, Like O'rielly better.

Numero UNO hated by the Obama admins. is Beck.

he makes fun of Obama on a moments notice and is usually pretty weird at what he does.

Glen Beck that is.

Big Al

[Kidd]

It's  amazing  that people watch S Hanity  and believe  his BS  .
Demonizing   everything Obama   does   and people  eat it up , shows how stupid the public is and how powerful TV is .  It's really sad  he allowed  to tear down the president that way  , maybe someone will shot him at one of his book signings .
Hmm , is he coming to Sedona any time soon ? 

[alph]

that beck guy drives me nuts.  i've tried to watch his show, can't stomach more then 2 minutes.

it's really sad that the so called conservitive TV hosts are only in it for the money.  i guess, that's what the politicians are there for also.

[Dino]

Hummm,kinda like how Obama got elected!

  shows how stupid the public is and how powerful TV is .   

[razor]

It's  amazing  that people watch S Hanity  and believe  his BS  .
Demonizing   everything Obama   does   and people  eat it up , shows how stupid the public is and how powerful TV is .  It's really sad  he allowed  to tear down the president that way  , maybe someone will shot him at one of his book signings .
Hmm , is he coming to Sedona any time soon ? 

You must have been one of those people that listened to the rest of the media tear down Bush and ate it up.

BTW it's shoot, not "shot".  If you're going to threaten someone you ought to use the correct english.

[Momz]

I believe it was Shawn Hannity that suggested a Presidental recall and an an impeachment vote for Obama.

But you can't put GW Bush back into the White House because he has served his maximum of eight years, and an impeachment at it's worst would leave VP Joe Biden as Commander in Chief.

Hannity seams to talk out of his ultra-conservitive backside. If you recall, he refered to Sarah Palin as a joke by McCain, and now she is a hero role mode in his estimation.

[fstsix]

Jim L good pic, Here is some soft kind words for the left....      

Mark Levin unloads on liberal moron	powered by Aeva

[Jeff K]

It's  amazing  that people watch S Hanity  and believe  his BS  .
Demonizing   everything Obama   does   and people  eat it up , shows how stupid the public is and how powerful TV is .  It's really sad  he allowed  to tear down the president that way  , maybe someone will shot him at one of his book signings .
Hmm , is he coming to Sedona any time soon ? 

So, he shouldn't be "allowed" to talk about the president like that, and should be shot for doing so?

That's how it works in communist countries, not in America, but we can see what side of the fence you are on comrade. But the way things are going... you may get your wish.

[Willow]

it's really sad that the so called conservitive TV hosts are only in it for the money.  i guess, that's what the politicians are there for also.

You seem to have a lot of insight for someone who listens in less than two minute segments.

It sort of explains why so many folks seem to eat up the poisoned porridge of the liberal media and are unaware of the validity any other view.

If you disregard all who hold viewpoints different from your own as disingenuous, deceptive, and insincere you will in truth solidify your own opinions and you may be a true hero to those in your own camp, but you won't appear very intelligent to those who are sure they know otherwise.

That practice, incidentally, is common to a lot of people of both sides of many debates.  In logic that is what's known as an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[fudgie]

I like Glenn Beck. He's funny to listen to on the radio. I am not a follower. I listen and make my own judgements. I wont do something cause they say to. I hate politics. I dont vote for parties, I vote for what I feel is better to myself.

[Scanner]

"You seem to have a lot of insight for someone who listens in less than two minute segments."

A lot of folks don't have to eat the whole bowl of crap to know it's crap. Others develop a taste for it....

"it sort of explains why so many folks seem to eat up the poisoned porridge of the liberal media and are unaware of the validity any other view."

Ah, the last refuge for conservatives - "liberal media".   You know, that media owned by those left wing corporations GE, Time Warner, and Disney.  Thank god we have an Australian smut merchant owned network ran by a Republican adviser to provide balance ......

"If you disregard all who hold viewpoints different from your own as disingenuous, deceptive, and insincere you will in truth solidify your own opinions and you may be a true hero to those in your own camp, but you won't appear very intelligent to those who are sure they know otherwise."

hmmmm.....could you provide an example...oh, I see, you just did!

[JimL]

"You seem to have a lot of insight for someone who listens in less than two minute segments."

A lot of folks don't have to eat the whole bowl of crap to know it's crap. Others develop a taste for it....

"it sort of explains why so many folks seem to eat up the poisoned porridge of the liberal media and are unaware of the validity any other view."

Ah, the last refuge for conservatives - "liberal media".   You know, that media owned by those left wing corporations GE, Time Warner, and Disney.  Thank god we have an Australian smut merchant owned network ran by a Republican adviser to provide balance ......

"If you disregard all who hold viewpoints different from your own as disingenuous, deceptive, and insincere you will in truth solidify your own opinions and you may be a true hero to those in your own camp, but you won't appear very intelligent to those who are sure they know otherwise."

hmmmm.....could you provide an example...oh, I see, you just did!

It is not my intention to respond for Willow....he is more than capable of responding for himself.  First let me say, I do not always agree with Willows opinions, and he does not necessarily agree with mine.  I do not hold it against a person to disagree with my point of view, I actually enjoy it providing that they are capable of articulating their disagreement clearly and without vitriolic, personal attacks.  I think Willow made some excellent points in his response, especially the "ad hominem" argument (which I have not thought about in many years).

Most people who have read my posts already know I am a bit right of center in my beliefs, however I constantly debate these beliefs.  There is plenty of philosophical opinion out there just like politics, but the ancient Chinese warrior, Sun Tzu said to his men "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."  The only effective way to "know your enemy" and carry on this debate is to understand what the other point of view is and the underlying premise for their conclusions.  

I watch Fox News and CNN.  Even though there are plenty of liberal/progressive contributors who are allowed to voice their opinion on Fox ( Alan Colmes, Wesley Clark, Bob Beckel, Ellis Henican, Dr. Lamont Hill, Rev. Al Sharpton and Juan Williams just to name a few...there are others), in order to fully understand what others are hearing I do watch CNN even though I don't hear much of a conservative viewpoint on that network now that Robert Novak and Lou Dobbs are not longer with the network, the only conservative viewpoint I am aware of is that of Erick Erickson.  

I am guessing that Willow was pointing out that in order to draw conclusions...you have to fully understand the argument and that entails listening to more than one source.

As far as the "Australian smut merchant" comment is concerned, it hardly deserves serious response.  I will agree that Murdock is Australian....if you can substantiate the "smut merchant" claim I would certainly welcome it.

[sugerbear]

politics

but............i do love yelling at my radio/tv

[PharmBoy]

And for those in this civil conversation who may not realize it, there is more important things in life than staying astride of a Valkyrie every possible minute.  You will become well aware of that fact when your taxes are increased shortly to pay for all the bail-outs and stimulus bills that have so foolishly wasted our national treasure by this administration for the sole purpose of gaining "CONTROL".  The "CHANGE" that was talked about during the campaign, unbeknown to the majority of the people, was all about changing the power from the people to the federal government who should have complete control of every aspect of our lives according to this administration.  "Let us not let a single crisis go to waste."  And they haven't!  Every problem, real or manufactured, has been "fixed" by a federal government take over which was funded by our tax dollars (mostly borrowed from China which our grandchildren will be expected to pay off).  I dare anyone to show me one champaign promise which has not been broken in the first 15 months of this man's presidency.  I would assume that the vast majority of us here are members of the working middle class of America.  Looking at the quadrupling of "George Bush's Debt" in only 15 months, why would you not expect that your taxes would necessarily increase significantly in the near future and your standard of living plummet?  If you do not become politically involved, and damn quick, you will never again enjoy the freedoms that we have grown up with and taken for granted that the Constitution would protect.  These people have already trampled the Constitution.  In the words of Rep. Hastings, "To Hell With The Constitution, We Are In Control And We Make Up The Rules As We Go Along".  And they have...JTL    (Be sure to read the last line below, there is more truth there than your realize.)

[Ratdog]

  It's really sad  he allowed  to tear down the president that way  , maybe someone will shot him at one of his book signings .
Hmm , is he coming to Sedona any time soon ? 

WTH is wrong with you?  It's completely IGNORANT mindsets like what you've just displayed that makes it difficult for people with both feet on the ground and their head sitting squarely on their shoulders (where the sun DOES shine) !!!  If you want to shoot someone for speaking their mind... then nobody in their right mind (Hmmm... I get it) would let your grubby mitts anywhere near their gun.  Do you also think it's your right to break into a home to steal one ?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself for typing such stupidity... it's bad enough that you even THINK it.  Ignorant/pissant attitudes are a dangerous thing.  You should think on that for a spell !!   

[Hellcat]

it's really sad that the so called conservitive TV hosts are only in it for the money.  i guess, that's what the politicians are there for also.

It sort of explains why so many folks seem to eat up the poisoned porridge of the liberal media and are unaware of the validity any other view.

If you disregard all who hold viewpoints different from your own as disingenuous, deceptive, and insincere you will in truth solidify your own opinions and you may be a true hero to those in your own camp, but you won't appear very intelligent to those who are sure they know otherwise.

I don't disregard their viewpoints as disingenuous, deceptive, and insincere. I regard their tactics as disingenuous, deceptive, and insincere.

There is a remarkable level of hypocrisy among the Limbaugh-esque conservative commentators. And I'm not talking about now with Obama in office, I mean ever since they appeared on the scene.

They will say "guilty until proven innocent" until they are under fire, then they'll say "innocent until proven guilty!"

They will shout "where is the morality!!" until they prove to be immoral, and then they will say it doesn't matter or can be corrected.

They will attack "ad hominem" and then cry foul if they can find any excuse to say they were attacked "ad hominem".

They will say "fair and balanced" when they want to be newsmen, they will say "entertainers" when they want to spew rumor and opinion.

They will present as fact rumors that by all reasonable standards are or have been shown unfounded:

"An suppressed Army test showed high levels of WMD materials in the Baghdad river after the invasion" - pure BS, but Limbaugh and others pushed it while they could

"Obama Death Panels" - pure BS if you look at the evidence

"Obama is supporting the banks and destroying the economy" - Hello, Dubya did it first. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right, but both parties did the same thing.

It amazes me that conservatives believe anything these commentators say since they are so often proven wrong.

Again, I emphasize, all the conservative opinions about taxes and debt and government may be 100% correct, but the sickening way that the commentators present their message is disgusting and "poisons" - to use Willow's word - American society.

[Ratdog]

"An suppressed Army test showed high levels of WMD materials in the Baghdad river after the invasion" - pure BS, but Limbaugh and others pushed it while they could
"Obama Death Panels" - pure BS if you look at the evidence

Are you saying that WMDs did not exist in Iraq?  If so... how do you respond to the following link?  Whether or not they ended up in a river isn't what was being ranted about during the Bush Administration... whether or not they even existed is what was in contention.  Of course... everyone forgets to recall that the WMDs were proclaimed by the Clinton Administration first.  It just became popular to point an accusatory finger at Bush because he actually did something.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article696557.ece

[Hellcat]

I would respond by saying that uranium is not a bomb. That is like having a bullet without a way to fire it. Are you a threat with a bullet in your pocket? No.

Would you say that now that Canada has the same uranium that they are an "imminent threat"?

And everybody believed Iraq had WMDs. Myself included. But does that mean there's an "imminent threat"? No.

Damn right I blame George W. Bush for "doing something". Saddam was a caged pussy cat after 1991. We had the no-fly zones bottled up, anytime he did anything threatening we just bombed his military a bit and he backed off.

What did that cost us? Zero American lives and maybe a few million bucks a month.

What did invading get us? Tons of American lives lost, almost a trillion dollars spent so far, and is the threat of WMD's from Iraq any lower? No. There was no "imminent threat" and there still isn't.

Plus now if some other country decides to invade another because of an "imminent threat", does America have any moral standing to object? No.

P.S. I'm ex Army infantry. I'm all for eliminating threats. But they have to be real threats.

There's strategy and then there's strategery.

[Willow]

A lot of folks don't have to eat the whole bowl of crap to know it's crap. Others develop a taste for it....

hmmmm.....could you provide an example...oh, I see, you just did!

Wow!  Hello, Scanner.  Long time no see.

I was actually making what I thought was a rather casual comment on how Alph within three sentences, well three sort of sentences, declared that he couldn't listen to one of the "so called conservative hosts" and then seemed to say that he knew they were ALL in it just for the money.  I really didn't plan on stirring up the hornets' nest.

As for the example, my friend, you've never yet disappointed me.

Be safe.  Live long and prosper.  Well, live long.    

[fstsix]

Damn right I blame George W. Bush for "doing something". Saddam was a caged pussy cat after 1991. We had the no-fly zones bottled up, anytime he did anything threatening we just bombed his military a bit and he backed off.
I would respond by saying that uranium is not a bomb. That is like having a bullet without a way to fire it. Are you a threat with a bullet in your pocket? No.Hahahahaha.... dont forget about blaming the Democrats for WMD's  no wonder we have a president that thinks we need his baby bottle to carry his voters for the rest of our lives... http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp                         

"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

"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

"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e 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

"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

"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, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace 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

"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

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons 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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"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

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

[Hellcat]

Hahahahaha.... dont forget about blaming the Democrats for WMD's  

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Yes, let's blame them for the WMD's that did not exist.

[Hellcat]

I was actually making what I thought was a rather casual comment...I really didn't plan on stirring up the hornets' nest.

 [/i]

"The poisoned porridge of the liberal media" is a rather casual comment?   

I had sworn off political discussion on here because it gets so ugly. What made me want to post was a comment like this from Willow, whom I greatly respect as thoughtful observer. And voila, hornet's nest.

[Kidd]

 You will become well aware of that fact when your taxes are increased shortly to pay for all the bail-outs and stimulus bills that have so foolishly wasted our national treasure by this administration for the sole

The republicans would of done it the very same way , if you   do not agree then you are in denial .

"Criticism "  , it's the easiest  thing to do  , that's why we are sooo  good at it .
The republicans   are  demonizing  Obama    to get  back for the entire country for doing the same thing  to Bush  and Bush  was a 100% loser in every sense of the word .

Fox is abusing  the right to have access to the airwaves , Fox runs the country   now . Nothing balanced  about Fox

[fstsix]

Hahahahaha.... dont forget about blaming the Democrats for WMD's  

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Yes, let's blame them for the WMD's that did not exist.

well how many warnings did the UN give so he could hide his BIO in all those caves, months if i recall, and like he never Gassed his own people?

[Hellcat]

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

Hello? They never actually invaded a country based on assumptions of a threat. And America was a lot richer and had a lot more good young men.

That being said, I DO blame the democrats who were in Congress when the Bushies were pushing for war. They knew it was the wrong thing to do from a strategic perspective, but they were so afraid that Bush would be right and gain political points that they refused to stand up to the invasion.

I absolutely blame the Democrats for that.

[Hellcat]

well how many warnings did the UN give so he could hide his BIO in all those caves, months if i recall, and like he never Gassed his own people?
[/quote]

We had the run of the country and never found any BIO in the caves.

All of the biological weapons that were found buried were buried immediately after Gulf War. There was zero evidence of any recently hidden biological weapons.

That is from the official US government investigator if you'll recall.

He absolutely gassed his own people. Like fifteen years or more before Desert Storm. Did that make him a threat outside his own country? He didn't use them in the Gulf War, if you hadn't noticed.

[Ratdog]

I would respond by saying that uranium is not a bomb. That is like having a bullet without a way to fire it. Are you a threat with a bullet in your pocket? No.

Would you say that now that Canada has the same uranium that they are an "imminent threat"?

And everybody believed Iraq had WMDs. Myself included. But does that mean there's an "imminent threat"? No.

Damn right I blame George W. Bush for "doing something". Saddam was a caged pussy cat after 1991. We had the no-fly zones bottled up, anytime he did anything threatening we just bombed his military a bit and he backed off.

What did that cost us? Zero American lives and maybe a few million bucks a month.

What did invading get us? Tons of American lives lost, almost a trillion dollars spent so far, and is the threat of WMD's from Iraq any lower? No. There was no "imminent threat" and there still isn't.

Plus now if some other country decides to invade another because of an "imminent threat", does America have any moral standing to object? No.

P.S. I'm ex Army infantry. I'm all for eliminating threats. But they have to be real threats.

There's strategy and then there's strategery.

Why don't you go ask the people in Iraq (whom Sadaam gassed) whether he was a threat.  The man was a threat... and trying to enable himself to become a more serious threat (outside of his borders).  

No, I never said that Canada is now a threat.  I don't have reason to believe their intent is malicious in nature.  

I see the current administration to be a much greater threat to us all (than ANY "blame" you choose to direct at the Bush administration).

[Hellcat]

Why don't you go ask the people in Iraq (whom Sadaam gassed) whether he was a threat.  The man was a threat... and trying to enable himself to become a more serious threat (outside of his borders).

I point to my comment above. He didn't use them in the Gulf War. Internal and extenal politics are completely different in terms of threats to the United States.

[fstsix]

 You will become well aware of that fact when your taxes are increased shortly to pay for all the bail-outs and stimulus bills that have so foolishly wasted our national treasure by this administration for the sole

The republicans would of done it the very same way , if you   do not agree then you are in denial .

"Criticism "  , it's the easiest  thing to do  , that's why we are sooo  good at it .
The republicans   are  demonizing  Obama    to get  back for the entire country for doing the same thing  to Bush  and Bush  was a 100% loser in every sense of the word .

Fox is abusing  the right to have access to the airwaves , Fox runs the country   now . Nothing balanced  about Fox

Here is your Media calling our Military Enemy...My son is out of the USAF academy. Talk about abuse LOL!!!!

Chris Matthews calls West Point the "Enemy Camp"	powered by Aeva

[fstsix]

well how many warnings did the UN give so he could hide his BIO in all those caves, months if i recall, and like he never Gassed his own people?

We had the run of the country and never found any BIO in the caves.

All of the biological weapons that were found buried were buried immediately after Gulf War. There was zero evidence of any recently hidden biological weapons.

That is from the official US government investigator if you'll recall.

He absolutely gassed his own people. Like fifteen years or more before Desert Storm. Did that make him a threat outside his own country? He didn't use them in the Gulf War, if you hadn't noticed.
[/quote]just curious how many years did take before we found out the effects of Agent orange had on our Veterans from Nam ? so how will we know our Men and Women from the gulf war have not been infected ? can you give me some Solid links that have been snopes that can back your evidence ? http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1878