The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
This does not look good: by webishop 2003-07-11 08:16:53
Powell is now saying the president's remarks seemed reasonable at the time.

And the president is saying that his state of the union address was cleared by the intelligence department.

Is no one at the top responsible? Are we now going to be asked to believe that Bush really didn't mean it the way he said it?

And now Scott Ritter, lead arms inspector after Gulf War I, is saying that the US is slipping from oligarchy into fascism. At least I can still recall when America was still the home of the free.
[ Reply ]
  Can you say... spiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnn ? by kahuana2003-07-11 08:33:15
    It's an interesting process.... by webishop2003-07-11 09:42:29
  It is quite possible by slayer2003-07-11 08:45:33
    "absolutely no qualifications"? by Naruki2003-07-11 08:53:42
      Really? by slayer2003-07-11 08:59:58
        Saddam apologist by Kickstart2003-07-11 09:17:00
          Take your own advice there, by Funky_Monkey2003-07-11 09:23:04
            Ok, explain how what I did was the same. by Kickstart2003-07-11 09:26:01
              Sure by Funky_Monkey2003-07-11 09:48:12
                Not the same by Aeirould2003-07-11 10:00:08
            That makes you an idiot then. by LionsPhil2003-07-11 09:44:15
              Intentional? (n/t) by TheyMustBIdiots2003-07-11 09:45:33
                Yup. by LionsPhil2003-07-11 09:48:22
                  Exactly... by Funky_Monkey2003-07-11 09:49:49
                    You mean you don't read your own posts? by Naruki2003-07-11 09:58:24
                      *snicker* by Funky_Monkey2003-07-11 10:38:49
                        explains a lot by sparkyr2003-07-11 12:17:16
        Well, he *was* a former UN weapons inspector. by kahuana2003-07-11 10:09:56
  I nearly fainted when I heard Bill O'Reilly by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 08:50:35
    Yeah... by Naruki2003-07-11 08:54:16
    Are you kidding??? by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 09:03:34
      *shakes head in disgust* by Funky_Monkey2003-07-11 09:20:08
        O'Reilly DOES go after stories for ratings. by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 09:26:59
          Minor nitpick: ALL media is about business (n/t) by quilting_kitty2003-07-11 09:33:38
            Was just gonna say that :) (n/t) by TheyMustBIdiots2003-07-11 09:34:09
              That's why I call it the Conservative Media. by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:03:16
                So you are making a blanket statement that ALL by quilting_kitty2003-07-11 10:24:56
                  Actually... by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:35:31
                  No, just the ones who sell ads. by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:37:10
                    How are you defining conservative here? (n/t) by TheyMustBIdiots2003-07-11 10:43:00
                      Those who clutch the status quo to their bosoms by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:47:30
                        Aww. Nola.. It's ok. You don't have to hold back. by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:52:35
                        Here I thought you were talking about political by TheyMustBIdiots2003-07-11 10:56:36
                          If you read her posts it was... by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 11:02:38
                    Selling ads is not what makes the media a business by quilting_kitty2003-07-11 13:23:21
                      Clarification: Selling a PRODUCT makes a business. by quilting_kitty2003-07-11 13:26:32
                        Not exactly. by JPaganel2003-07-11 14:45:23
          Right... by Funky_Monkey2003-07-11 09:36:05
            Or maybe he realized that topic was saturated. (n/ (n/t) by Kickstart2003-07-11 09:42:35
        O'Reilly DOES go after ratings.. by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:17:01
  where do you see Bush saying that? by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 09:40:01
    My point was couched in the future-anticipative by webishop2003-07-11 09:45:40
      DISCLAIMER by Naruki2003-07-11 10:00:30
    The original reasons were? by MikeCDN2003-07-11 09:46:01
      Never the less by DesertRat662003-07-11 10:00:54
        Irrelevent by MikeCDN2003-07-11 10:06:53
          It is entirely too early to say there are no WMD's by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:10:53
            Its been how long now? by MikeCDN2003-07-11 10:18:09
            Then YOU stop claiming they exist! by Naruki2003-07-11 10:18:10
              They did exist by BloodyViking2003-07-11 10:55:22
                And we can prove it. The US provided them. (n/t) by LurkerMo2003-07-11 11:36:40
            How much time is sufficient, in your opinion? by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:18:53
              That is quite difficult to specify for a layman by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:26:20
                Oh and it is also too soon to say they do exist by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:27:52
                Then watch your mouth, apologist. by Naruki2003-07-11 10:28:29
                  I hereby retract......... by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:32:39
                  No, he implies that the reasons we went to war are by quilting_kitty2003-07-11 10:33:29
                    Exactly!!!! (someone understands me!!) n/t by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:38:54
                      I'll grant you that there might have been plenty by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:46:08
                        For THAT matter... what kind of Clear and Present by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:48:31
                          That's why people were supportive. by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:53:09
                            I always thought that Bush just wanted to by WebDiva2003-07-11 10:59:19
                              That is what got him public opinion. by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 11:01:08
                              He's got a short attention span and no cojones. by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 11:02:44
                                I disagree somewhat by WebDiva2003-07-11 11:10:36
                            But what most people are missing is that by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:59:49
                        agreed however..... by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:50:23
                          I most vehemently disagree... not with you but by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 10:56:43
                          No it isn't. by BloodyViking2003-07-11 10:59:33
                          How often do you have to be told this: by LurkerMo2003-07-11 11:34:24
            500 years by mirage2003-07-11 11:11:43
              Too much. by BloodyViking2003-07-11 12:21:10
                Buying by mirage2003-07-11 12:32:58
                  With the kind of money Saddam had by BloodyViking2003-07-11 14:04:26
                    Really? So why didn't he? by Naruki2003-07-11 14:54:00
                      Perhaps he wasn't as psycho by BloodyViking2003-07-11 15:05:20
          USA obviously doesn't care about the UN? by TheyMustBIdiots2003-07-11 10:16:06
            The USA has sent troops I belive by MikeCDN2003-07-11 10:20:48
              Feels responsible for it? by TheyMustBIdiots2003-07-11 10:25:14
                Hmm Lets see by MikeCDN2003-07-11 10:33:55
          Bovine Scatology by DesertRat662003-07-11 11:41:50
            Nitpick by BloodyViking2003-07-11 11:50:42
            Bad analogy. by Naruki2003-07-11 12:33:13
              When did the "court" by BloodyViking2003-07-11 13:07:04
            Correction of your analogy: by LurkerMo2003-07-11 15:12:11
              Care to try again? by DesertRat662003-07-11 15:57:03
    I didn't believe it at the time. by Illiad2003-07-11 09:50:10
      Durn straight! So when are we getting by adiplomat2003-07-11 11:33:20
    That's the basis the administration used to by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:07:24
      on what basis do you make such a claim by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:18:54
        Sorry, but your argument is pathetic. by Naruki2003-07-11 10:26:35
          it wasn't a UN requirement it was a US requirement by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:36:00
            So its okay by MikeCDN2003-07-11 10:38:00
              That depends entirely on your subjective opinion by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:41:32
                That dodges my post entirely (n/t) by MikeCDN2003-07-11 10:42:44
                  yep :-) I got no basis for my opinion n/t by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 10:55:45
              Was that an unreasonable demand? by BloodyViking2003-07-11 11:21:41
                The USA can not by MikeCDN2003-07-11 11:38:19
                  Are you claiming by BloodyViking2003-07-11 11:43:51
        My opinions are different from the majority. by NOLAWitch2006-11-19 12:55:59
          And I say thank goodness for that. (n/t) by WebDiva2003-07-11 10:35:30
            Me, too. Wool makes me itch. (n/t) by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:39:29
              Thank you for doing the lookups. I admit to by adiplomat2003-07-11 11:24:51
        BS. Simple and explicit. (n/t) by adiplomat2003-07-11 10:57:49
    Ok, no big deal, he made an oopsie by Sieldan2003-07-11 10:58:01
  time for me to leave the discussion folks by zaphod_bee42003-07-11 11:00:07
    Heh.. me too... :) (n/t) by BuggedEyes2003-07-11 11:03:53

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)