Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Almost nuclear Iraq
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, November 02, 2006

Interesting little tidbit from an article by the New York Times blasting the Bush administration for putting up some of the documents recovered in Iraq on a website. Apparently the Times objected to what one "expert" described as a "cookbook" for making an atomic bomb (as if such documentation for a 60 year old technology could only be found on that site) even while thinking its disclosure of national secrets was no big deal.

And then this:
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Huh. Sounds like 2003 was an excellent time to take Saddam out. But hey, nothing really to see here, move along, move along.

More at Stop The ACLU
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I question the timing of this NYT article.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://
This is my favorite part of the story. If any documents contradict liberal memes on the war (e.g. Hussein wasn’t a threat, no WMD’s, no connection with terrorism or al Qaeda) we should disregard them because we are amateurs who aren’t as smart as the geniuses who bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.
Some intelligence officials feared that individual documents, translated and interpreted by amateurs, would be used out of context to second-guess the intelligence agencies’ view that Mr. Hussein did not have unconventional weapons or substantive ties to Al Qaeda.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
mcq: as I read the NYT article, ’at the time’ refers to the time when the weapons programs were shut down, e.g. ’after the Persian Gulf war’, not to 2002. (This fits with the NYT’s earlier statement that the documents are " detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.")

In which case, there’s no more reason to think that 2003 was a good year to "take Saddam out" than there was before.
 
Written By: hilzoy
URL: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/
Well, I see your problem, Hilzoy.

You READ the article. How do expect to be able to go batsh*t insane what with all of those facts in your head?
 
Written By: Andrew
URL: http://
"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

If the "at the time" refers to the pre-1991 period, then the Times was very sloppy with its writing. One shouldn’t mention specific times and then, a sentence later, say "at the time" and expect people to not connect the two.

Oddly enough, the news that Iraq was maybe a year away from building a nuclear weapon, but then hit the pause button for a while, doesn’t make me think that it was no longer a threat. If they had the knowledge, motivation, and who knows what else, couldn’t they have started it all back up again whenever they thought they could get away with it?
 
Written By: Daniel Holway
URL: http://
Daniel,
Oddly enough, the news that Iraq was maybe a year away from building a nuclear weapon, but then hit the pause button for a while, doesn’t make me think that it was no longer a threat. If they had the knowledge, motivation, and who knows what else, couldn’t they have started it all back up again whenever they thought they could get away with it?
Of course they could, unless they destroyed it all, and there’s no evidence of that. So, where is the material for this program? You don’t get a year away from building a nuke on paper. Did it go to Libya? Syria?

Oh mighty NYT, tell us all!

Hilzoy,
In which case, there’s no more reason to think that 2003 was a good year to "take Saddam out" than there was before.
1991 would have been a better year to take him out. There’s no such thing as a bad time for doing that.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
The point remains that the "cookbook" was in his hands meaning the capability was there. All the man needed was for sanctions to be lifted. Not only that, it sort of kills the argument that they were years and years away. So, given the choice of lifting sanctions or taking Saddam out, 2003 was a good year to do the latter.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Excellent work! Your trackbacks are broken, but consider my signature a manual one: "Oh, about those WMDs and close ties to Jihadi terrorists: Iraq had them, according to the Times (an Illustrated Guide)"
 
Written By: Doug
URL: http://directorblue.blogspot.com
Bush lied....about something, I’m sure of it!
 
Written By: Professor PoliScit - Moral and Smart and Rightous
URL: http://
Bush lied....about something, I’m sure of it!

Written By: Professor PoliScit - Moral and Smart and Rightous

Please that is TOO good... may I join your program, do you have a Doctoral Program, I’d like a sub-concentration in "Smugness", please..

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Now let me tie this in with my "gudefax" and "badfax" thesis... Bush lied, there were NO WMD’s=Gudefax, Bush released sensitive documents about Saddam’s Nuclear Weapons Program=Gudefax...

There is NO contradiction between "No WMD" and "An Iraqi Nuclear Program", because BOTH are gudefax, demonstrating the BushCo. Neo-cons as evil and stoopit and the effort in Iraq a failure.

So both statements are true or untrue as the time and context demand... all this is so much easier than the whole Truth or Falsity Game, or Logical Coherence.

Gudefax are true, badfax are lies, on the basis of whether they support the anti-war position, not on anything like evidence or logical narrative progression.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The Times objecting to someone putting govt documents on a website???
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The point remains that the "cookbook" was in his hands meaning the capability was there. All the man needed was for sanctions to be lifted. Not only that, it sort of kills the argument that they were years and years away.
Right. Is there anything out there to suggest Saddam had rolled back or shut down his nuke program? According to the Brits, who are in a position to know, the 16 Words are still true.

Casus belli #1263, for those of you who are keeping score.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Probably the same ’experts’ that warned of Niger Yellow Cake, bwahahahhaaa....

How low will you scrape to play an apologist role for this travesty in Iraq, MQ?
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
Probably the same ’experts’ that warned of Niger Yellow Cake
Yes, that expert would be Joe Wilson, who was told by a former Nigerian official that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from them. Good to know you’re paying attention.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Staggering ignorance.
mcq: as I read the NYT article, ’at the time’ refers to the time when the weapons programs were shut down, e.g. ’after the Persian Gulf war’, not to 2002. (This fits with the NYT’s earlier statement that the documents are " detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.")

In which case, there’s no more reason to think that 2003 was a good year to "take Saddam out" than there was before.
No freaking duh. Saddamn was a year away from nukes in 2002? McQ, where do you get off posting something like this? You know better. It’s inconcievable that you don’t. We didn’t even find any nuclear material in Iraq, much less, oh, you know... ***operative reactors***.
Not only that, it sort of kills the argument that they were years and years away.
Give me a break. The average clandestine third-world nuke program takes more than a decade to develop. Pakistan’s took more than a decade. Iran’s has taken that long already. Israel’s took at least half a decade, and that was Israel and with covert Western Assistance.
The point remains that the "cookbook" was in his hands
Yeah, they had basic knowledge of the designs, like every other country in the world and any interested Western citizen with an engineering background. So what?
Right. Is there anything out there to suggest Saddam had rolled back or shut down his nuke program?
Now, I expect this sort of fuc*ing idiocy from you Pablo - how about the total lack of nuclear material in the country? The closest thing they had to a program were bits of junk buried in the gardens of ex-scientists. Even try and have a non-rolled back nuke program with no nuclear material?

This is a badly worded NYTimes story blown into a hurricane of misrepresentation. I guess the MSM aren’t the only ones who can do it.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Niger Yellow Cake, bwahahahhaaa....
Ricky D, you are a bit out of date. THe 9/11 commission authenticated much of the yellowcake in Africa story.

But, good try anyway.
The Times objecting to someone putting govt documents on a website???
Yes, apparently they are worried that these disclosures may be a danger to national security. Snort!
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Now, I expect this sort of fuc*ing idiocy from you Pablo - how about the total lack of nuclear material in the country?
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence in your world, glasnost? Even when the absent evidence exists. You sir, are a goddamned fool of epic proportion. Saddam Hussein salutes you.


 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
how about the total lack of nuclear material in the country?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Saddam sure won’t be getting nukes now. Problem solved.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
BTW Rick....you have a fetish for the bold, do ya?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yeah, they had basic knowledge of the designs, like every other country in the world and any interested Western citizen with an engineering background. So what?
wait, I thought the main point behind the times piece was that this information was well beyond basic knowledge and was not available to every other country in the world. Did you even bother to read the article?
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
Saddam sure won’t be getting nukes now. Problem solved.
That’s one of them pesky facts, ain’t it? I wonder if the final November Surprise will come in the form of a Saddam Hussein death sentence. Lefties question the timing.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I’d like to thank the Times for verifying on their pages in words even Glasnost can understand that BUSH DIDN’T LIE after all

Time to hang Joe Wilson for treason.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Last nite when I read the NYT piece, I took it the same way Hilzoy does. So I was surprised when I saw this post.

If McQ’s reading were true, surely the Bush Administration would have been, for a long time now, making that case? It would be pretty powerful defense of even a failed war effort, but I’m not aware that any such argument has been made.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
It would be pretty powerful defense of even a failed war effort, but I’m not aware that any such argument has been made.
How? Are you saying that vindicated justification would defend against complaints regarding "failed" execution?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I liked Wretchards take over at the Belmont Club
Posting very sensitive, undoubtedly secret restricted data is treason, isn’t it? And very irresponsible. The NYT should know. I’m rather disappointed in the Times for warning me, this late in the game, of the terrible dangers that lurked in Saddam’s archives. Recipes for unthinkable weapons that could have been given to just anyone, something Saddam surely wouldn’t do unlike the Bush administration which evidently would. They should have warned us sooner, such as during the days when Abu Nidal was in residence in Baghdad, and all those men of good will who are now cutting off the heads of Iraqis by the gross were in charge of those very documents whose shadow menaces the world. But they really didn’t exist then, did they? And even if they did they were in safe hands. Because if they did, then taking down Saddam was a responsible thing to do. But they exist now and releasing those newly existing secrets is a terribly irresponsible thing to do. It was the dream of alchemists to turn lead into gold and they failed. The NYT has succeeded.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
If McQ’s reading were true, surely the Bush Administration would have been, for a long time now, making that case
How would we know above the din of BUSHLIEDJOEWILSON16WORDSYELLOWCAKE?

The NYTimes themselves have busted that position. Be quiet and take your well-deserved pummeling
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Sigh. Congradulations, Pablo, you know how to google.

Your third link returns to the Bush-Adminstration-sponsored Duelfer report...
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) released its conclusions regarding Iraqi weapons on September 30, 2004. In its report, ISG concluded that, contrary to Intelligence Community’s (IC) National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear weapons program since 1991. It found no evidence of enrichment attempts or further weapon designs. The only uranium stores found by ISG were those already declared to the IAEA.
The NYT wrote a story on how unwise it was for the pentagon to put up on a public website, some of the pre-91-war nuclear designs that Saddamn already had. If the clown parade here wants to spin this as if the NYT is putting up secret new information on advanced Iraqi nuclear programs that the Pentagon itself has been, for reasons not even they are stupid enough to speculate on, hiding from us, they are free to fool themselves.

This is a transparently manufactured non-story providing no new information of any kind. And the double standard at evidence is hilarious. People who call for the NYT to be prosecuted for treason for putting up a color coded graph declaring that "Iraq is in trouble" that the Pentagon made first, are absolutely silent when the Pentagon publishes nuclear weapon designs on a public website. Isn’t it time Donald Rumsfeld was executed for treason, due to the damaging release of classified material on the part of his agency? I mean, Al-Quaida could have been taking notes off the Pentagon’s own website, right now!



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Ah yes, the Army of Morons has been vindicated!

Well, assuming one has zero reading comprehension at least.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
People who call for the NYT to be prosecuted for treason for putting up a color coded graph declaring that "Iraq is in trouble" that the Pentagon made first, are absolutely silent when the Pentagon publishes nuclear weapon designs on a public website
BY YOUR OWN FU*KING ADMISSION! Finally - if these Nuke designs are so dangerous that someone else can benefit from them....well hell, I guess Saddam really was a threat. From your own mouth Glasnost old pal....from your own mouth.

A comment at Belmont Club said it best:
The stuff Bush lied about is now too dangerous to post
Glasnost, MK and the rest of you- time to STFU. Apologies are not expected from the likes of scum such as you, but maybe a little circumspection and silence isn’t too much to expect.

Finally.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What never ceases to amuse me is that the same people who presume and scream that President Bush lies all the time in a lying liar sort of way while he distorts what he doesn’t lie about and we can’t believe a word he says... those people are the ones who say "since Bush didn’t say this it must not be true."

Huh?
 
Written By: Christopher Taylor
URL: http://networdblog.blogspot.com
Pablo, I shouldn’t have called you a f*cking idiot, regardless of my private opinions on the subject. Pardon me.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glasnost how LARGE of you, "Pablo you’re a F*cking idiot, but I shouldn’t have CALLED you one." Thanks there John "I’m sorry if you’re so stoopit, that you thought I was insulting the troops" Kerry.

I seldom agree with you or MK but I try to refrain from the name-calling...give it a whirl......You can be glaring WRONG, it doesn’t make you an IDIOT, merely someone blind to the truth.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Are you saying that vindicated justification would defend against complaints regarding "failed" execution?
Pablo, re-read McQ’s post. For the same reasons his misreading of the NYT article made, he thought, a powerful defense of the Iraq war, if it were accurate you can be very sure the Bush Administration would have been heralding the fact. But even Glenn Reynolds knows the time period refers to the era of Bush 41’s Gulf War, and replies to an emailer (email in quotation marks) thus:
"It surely must have been a Rovian plot to somehow get the Times to admit that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program on the verge of an atomic bomb by as early as 2003... and right before an election where the Iraq War is listed as the top election concern among likely voters." (Actually, it was 1991, I believe, but this does underscore why WMD fears were reasonable, especially as Saddam was trying to restart things)....Judging from some of the delighted emails I’m getting, I need to warn people not to get too carried away — this doesn’t say that Saddam would have had a bomb in 2004.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
I seldom agree with you or MK but I try to refrain from the name-calling...give it a whirl
Are you kidding? Our unhinged lefty pals can’t calm down. Not with all of us eeeevil warmongering, imperialist, fascist rethuglicans running around. Even Scott "The Truth Hurts" Erb let the mask slip the other day.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
if these Nuke designs are so dangerous that someone else can benefit from them....well hell, I guess Saddam really was a threat

pick your argument:

1. the designs are dangerous
2. the designs are not dangerous

either way: Saddam had them, Bush published them.

if they are dangerous all by themselves, Bush publishing them on the net is far more dangerous than Saddam selectively handing them out to his allies, since that makes these dangerous designs available to literally everyone in the world with an internet connection.

if they aren’t dangerous, there’s no issue with Saddam (or anyone) having them.

so, which is it: did Bush publish dangerous WMD designs to the world, or is there no story here ?
 
Written By: cleek
URL: http://cleek.lunarpages.com/blogs/
if they are dangerous all by themselves, Bush publishing them on the net is far more dangerous than Saddam selectively handing them out to his allies
Nice try... the fact that "Cleek" has the designs for a W-88 Thermo-nuclear warhead worries me FAR LESS than oh say OBL or Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah being GIVEN or having them SOLD to them. As far as we can tell "Cleek" with the plans for a 100 kiloton device simply makes "Cleek" smarter, whereas OBL or Nasrallah having them makes them more DANGEROUS. Figuring Cleek hasn’t got the wherewithal to actually CONSTRUCT such a device(s) but these other two, might...This is NOT Rocket Science, though it IS Nuclear Physics-HAH (To use my ALF voice)-so let’s keep a grip.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
...Bush published them...
Ah, BUSH published them now. Is there no limit to his nefarious demonic scheming?
He must have a time machine in order to accomplish all this deviltry in a mere 24 hour day.
And obviously far more clever than we thought since no chimp could possibly have the brains to publish these on the web.

No wonder Presidents age so rapidly in office - they’re using the time machine and living 36, perhaps 48 hours in a 24 hour period.
Clinton was using it for, well, modesty forbids mention, Bush uses it to commit his numerous crimes against humanity.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
if they are dangerous all by themselves, Bush publishing them on the net is far more dangerous than Saddam selectively handing them out to his allies, since that makes these dangerous designs available to literally everyone in the world with an internet connection
Again, if they’re dangerous, that means Saddam having them was a threat and Iraq was justified (and Joe Wilson, the 16 words crap and yellowcake bruhaha were shown to be utterly full of sh*t). If they’re not dangerous than the people yelling about this are utterly full of sh*t now.

Either way, these same people are utterly full of sh*t about something. So who gives a f*ck what they (you) say?

So shut the f*ck up and have the good grace to admit you were wrong.

If you DARE to criticize Bush for this, you had damn well better apologize for years of yelling BUSH LIED before you open your mouth.

So which is it Cleek? Can we expect an apology and mea culpa any time soon? Glanost? MK? Cap? Hello?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Actually, The key blunder with regards to giving Iran the bomb was made during the Clinton admin.

The CIA launched Operation Merlin to feed fake A bomb plans to Iran and get them stuck down a technological dead end.

Unfortunately the CIA was too smart for their own good, and the Iranians were tipped off by the same guy that the CIA chose to deliver the plans and they were able to use them to get well ahead.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
the fact that "Cleek" has the designs for a W-88 Thermo-nuclear warhead worries me FAR LESS than oh say OBL

so, the only dangerous people are those you already know are dangerous. that’s a truly fantastic approach to security ! now if we can just get all the dangerous people to tell us all about themselves before they try anything...

...

shark: Again, if they’re dangerous, that means Saddam having them was a threat and Iraq was justified

we knew he had his eyes on nukes, back in 1991. and we knew he was working on them in the early 90s. and, it turns out, as we knew at least as far back as 2002, that he had effectively abandoned those plans. no WMDs. no WMD development. no WMD production. just plans, wishes, dreams.

but, still, if these plans are dangerous materials, then BushCo (via Hoekstra) published dangerous materials on the web. and apparently you’re OK with that - or at least, you’re more angry with people pointing it out than you are with the act itself. you guys have made covering Bush’s ass the first priority - and it’s perfect example of why people are fed up with Republican government.

So shut the f*ck up

i will speak as i choose.
 
Written By: cleek
URL: http://cleek.lunarpages.com/blogs/
Except Cleek you ignore this fundamental fact, both Kosta Tsipsi and I and you for that matter may well have the plans to a thermmo-nuclear weapon, without oh several TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, our plans are USELESS.

You can hate Amerikkka or love it as much as you desire, with plans for nuclear weapons, without the MEANS to produce them, you aren’t much of a threat or enhancement to the US.

The same can not be said of OBL or Sheikh Nasrallah...so yes, WHO gets the plans is as important as the plans themselves.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
One of the very few silver linings to another terrorist attack getting through and causing a 2 comma casualty count will be the opportunity to hunt glasnost, cleek, and many other leftards through the streets with dogs and torches when it’s clear to even the dullest Joe Sixpack how wrong they were.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
OK Cleek, here are the choices as you lay them out:

1)Bush (or whoever was responsible) was wrong to publish the dangerous nuke plans, and since they’re so dangerous it follows that Bush was RIGHT about Iraq, and the whole BUSSHLIEDJOEWILSON16WORDSYELLOWCAKE crowd were a bunch of full of sh*t idiots

2) These plans aren’t that dangerous so the ones yelling about it now are a bunch of full of sh*t idiots.

I choose 1. So go fu*k yourself now. You don’t even dare to say anything about Bush doing this unless you apologize for years of BUSHLIED. You don’t get to yell about it coming and going you hypocrite b*tch.

Where’s your apology you little b*tch?

 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
One of the very few silver linings to another terrorist attack getting through and causing a 2 comma casualty count will be the opportunity to hunt glasnost, cleek, and many other leftards through the streets with dogs and torches when it’s clear to even the dullest Joe Sixpack how wrong they were
Why bother? Better to hope they’re among the victims....

 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
Pablo, re-read McQ’s post.
Mona, McQ’s post has nothing to do with my question, which regards your comment:
It would be pretty powerful defense of even a failed war effort, but I’m not aware that any such argument has been made.


I’d like to know how a vindication of the justification would defend against "failed" execution of the war. In your words.

glasnost, you may take your pardon and your "total lack of nuclear material", fold them up together until they’re nice and pointy and them cram them. You know where.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
Why bother? Better to hope they’re among the victims....

I’m looking forward to the day when you go too far, and I can persuade the administrations to ban your a**, shark. Maybe the day has already come.

I don’t think the admin would miss you much. You offer this site very little other than verbal abuse, and at the end of the day, that’s not what Q and O is about.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I’m going to have to call "false-dichotomy" on pretty much every stupid *ss right-wing post in this forum.

All your arguments go like this:

"Either the documents were not dangerous, in which case the NYT has no basis for their accusations, or the documents were dangerous and therefore justify the Iraq war."

This is complete nonsense; both "choices" are false.

These documents prove that Saddam had some advanced nuclear knowledge, which should not have been proliferated. This is not new information and obviously did not, alone, put Saddam very close to building an actual nuclear weapon. It CERTAINLY did not make him a threat that justifies the killing of a few hundred thousand people to depose him.

That said, the documents still contain nuclear know-how that should not have been made publicly available. The NYT rightfully pointed this out.

Is that simple enough for you Bush-worshipping numbskulls?
 
Written By: p
URL: http://
I’m looking forward to the day when you go too far, and I can persuade the administrations to ban your a**, shark. Maybe the day has already come.
Always better to stifle your opponents, eh comrade?
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
No Glasnost it’s about making fun of losers like you....Just Kidding....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Pablo, I shouldn’t have called you a f*cking idiot....
I’m looking forward to the day when you go too far, and I can persuade the administrations to ban your a**, Glasnsost. Maybe the day has already come.

I don’t think the admin would miss you much. You offer this site very little other than verbal abuse, and at the end of the day, that’s not what Q and O is about
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
You guys make me dizzy. Chasing each others tails with circular logic proves nothing. All involved should just pledge allegiance to whatever party they love and leave it at that. The rest is just personal vendetta, not discussion.
 
Written By: Conundrum
URL: http://
Does anybody have a recipe for spiderbags. i have just arrived in yor ountry and am amazed by the vast array of twinkys, wonderbras, and cherries pies. By the way, I have an enormous d*ng.
 
Written By: wagner
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider