The Iraq war started on 20 March 2003

Some 5 months earlier on 15 October 2002 - Rudd seems very certain about the whole ordeal

It takes a few months to plan and mobilise a war - so the 5 months is well within that planning timeframe


Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/a-weapon-of-mass-distraction/2008/06/04/1212258906210.html?page=fullpage In 2002 Rudd had been a great believer in Iraq's WMDs, along with Australia's very own chief UN weapons inspector, Richard "I held some in my own hands" Butler. As the Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, pointed out this week, Rudd told the State Zionist Council annual assembly on October 15, 2002: "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction … That is a matter of empirical fact."

Miranda Devine has NFI and deliberately ignores the truth......

Kevin Rudd believed John Howard, Tony Blair and G W Bush when they claimed Saddam Hussein had WMD's as did many Australian's.....However we now know these leaders had no evidence and deliberately deceived there people to invade Iraq.....The ALP censured John Howard over his bullshit Macca so I fail to see what point Miranda Devine is trying to make.....Kevin Rudd was not leader of the ALP and based his opinions of the bullshit fed to him by Howard..... Miranda Devine fails to hold John Howard to account for his failure to accept he was completely wrong about Iraq and instead attacks Rudd for supporting the war based on bullshit.....People base there opinions of what they believe to be the truth and it is the lies and deceit of Howard that is the issue not the awakening of Kevin Rudd to the fact he and all Australian's had been lied to by the Liberal Party to go to war.....Miranda Devine has only held one person to account over the Iraq war and that was Kevin Rudd for bringing the troops home.....Miranda Devine has NFI!!!

::) ::) ::)



Quote:

Howard censured over push for war with Iraq October 8, 2003 Prime Minister John Howard was yesterday censured by the Senate for misleading the public in his justification for sending Australia to war with Iraq. It was only the fourth time in more than three decades a sitting prime minister has been censured and the second in Mr Howard's seven-and-a-half years in office. The motion attacked Mr Howard for failing to adequately inform Australians that intelligence agency warnings about a war with Iraq would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack. It also noted that no evidence had yet been produced by Mr Howard to justify his claims that in March this year, Iraq possessed stockpiles of completed biological chemical weapons that justified going to war. The Opposition, Greens and Australian Democrats voted together to defeat the Government by 33 votes to 30. Greens senator Bob Brown said Mr Howard was involved in an unprecedented deceit of the nation and deserved censure. He said Mr Howard had argued that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and support of international terrorism threatened Australia. "It has become abundantly clear that the Prime Minister was not just a bit wrong. He was totally wrong," he told parliament. Defence Minister Robert Hill said the Australian and other governments believed Saddam Hussein's weapons programs posed a very real danger. Opposition Senate leader John Faulkner said Mr Howard had been loose with the truth on issues of national security. Mr Howard was censured by the Senate in March 2002 over his failure to stop Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan's attack on High Court Justice Michael Kirby. - AAP http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/08/1065292604414.html

No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future.

Howard knew it was lies. Howard refused to hear anything negative about it from his own intelligence agencies. But Rudd also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future.

Rudd allowed himself to be conned by the American neocons. Let this be a warning to us all, to be on the look-out, for American neocon ideas.

Brendon wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future.

Why....Kevin Rudd was a back bencher at the time he accepted the Prime Minister John Howard on his word.....Why should Kevin Rudd be the one held to account because he changed his opinion based on the revelation Iraq did not posses WMD's and the evidence used to justify the war was based on bullshit.....Kevin Rudd has every right to base his opinions on facts IMO???

:-? :-? :-?

It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust.
Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

Mnemonic wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

Rudd allowed himself to be conned by the American neocons. Let this be a warning to us all, to be on the look-out, for American neocon ideas.

It was John Howard who sent the troops to Iraq NOT Kevin Rudd and the ALP.....Yet the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to condemning there own support for the lies they where fed.....Go figure???

::) ::) ::)

Simon Crean was leader of the ALP when Howard sent our troops to Iraq.....


Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/04/1044318605090.html Labor has always supported the role of the United Nations and the rule of international law. We helped create the UN out of the rubble of the Second World War. That attempt to settle international disputes through peaceful means was the great tribute our nation paid to the men and women who died in World War Two.

Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point????

Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Brendon wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:06am: No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future. Why....Kevin Rudd was a back bencher at the time he accepted the Prime Minister John Howard on his word.....Why should Kevin Rudd be the one held to account because he changed his opinion based on the revelation Iraq did not posses WMD's and the evidence used to justify the war was based on bullshit.....Kevin Rudd has every right to base his opinions on facts IMO??? :-? :-? :-? It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

Because there was contradictory evidence about WMDs. Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector was calling it bs. UN inspectors had found nothing.

Rudd was quoted as saying Iraq WMDs was a "fact". He had no reason to say that.

You accept that, and then you can move onto Howard being an outright liar and a spreader of lies.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq.

He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP?


And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence

He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable

Brendon wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future.

god forbid you actually believe what your prime minister is telling you. I think any citizen is entitled to assume their PM is telling the truth since most of the evidence is classified top secret, you have no way of proving it right or wrong.

Do you even stop to think before commenting?

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Brendon wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:06am: No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future. god forbid you actually believe what your prime minister is telling you. I think any citizen is entitled to assume their PM is telling the truth since most of the evidence is classified top secret, you have no way of proving it right or wrong. Do you even stop to think before commenting?

Abit like

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:41am: Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq. He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP? And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable

so, if we extend that logic further, Abbotts views regarding the carbon tax being the best way to reduce emmissions are the liberal parties views? He is the leader of the libs, surely that outranks a shadow minister?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:39am: Brendon wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:06am: No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future. god forbid you actually believe what your prime minister is telling you. I think any citizen is entitled to assume their PM is telling the truth since most of the evidence is classified top secret, you have no way of proving it right or wrong. Do you even stop to think before commenting? Abit like "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead"

yeah ... she had top secret documents showing their was no carbon tax buried in Iraq ... moron

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:31am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:41am: Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq. He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP? And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable so, if we extend that logic further, Abbotts views regarding the carbon tax being the best way to reduce emmissions are the liberal parties views? He is the leader of the libs, surely that outranks a shadow minister?

he also said this was the least of the two evils compared to the CPRS

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:40am: John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:39am: Brendon wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:06am: No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future. god forbid you actually believe what your prime minister is telling you. I think any citizen is entitled to assume their PM is telling the truth since most of the evidence is classified top secret, you have no way of proving it right or wrong. Do you even stop to think before commenting? Abit like "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" yeah ... she had top secret documents showing their was no carbon tax buried in Iraq ... moron

It was buried up Bob's ar$e and she sucked it up didn't she

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:31am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:41am: Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq. He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP? And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable so, if we extend that logic further, Abbotts views regarding the carbon tax being the best way to reduce emmissions are the liberal parties views? He is the leader of the libs, surely that outranks a shadow minister? he also said this was the least of the two evils compared to the CPRS

why didn't he simply say DA was the way to go if that was what he believed?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:51am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:42am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:40am: John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:39am: Brendon wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:06am: No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future. god forbid you actually believe what your prime minister is telling you. I think any citizen is entitled to assume their PM is telling the truth since most of the evidence is classified top secret, you have no way of proving it right or wrong. Do you even stop to think before commenting? Abit like "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" yeah ... she had top secret documents showing their was no carbon tax buried in Iraq ... moron It was buried up Bob's ar$e and she sucked it up didn't she

sounds like your (or 'you're'  for those anally retentive posters) talking from experience

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:51am: John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:42am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:40am: John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:39am: Brendon wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:06am: No. Rudd needs to be held accountable for what he said back then. Of course he could just unburden himself by saying he was lied to. But he also needs to assure the public he will not be so gullible in future. god forbid you actually believe what your prime minister is telling you. I think any citizen is entitled to assume their PM is telling the truth since most of the evidence is classified top secret, you have no way of proving it right or wrong. Do you even stop to think before commenting? Abit like "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" yeah ... she had top secret documents showing their was no carbon tax buried in Iraq ... moron It was buried up Bob's ar$e and she sucked it up didn't she sounds like your (or 'you're'  for those anally retentive posters) talking from experience

You have experience up people's ar$e  ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:41am: Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq. He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP? And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable

He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Labors position at that time was to only act in Iraq with the support of the UN.

You do understand that Turnbull still supports a price on carbon????? You make the same comparison there?????

The conclusion isn't necessarily the perty line.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:31am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:41am: Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq. He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP? And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS Labors position at that time was to only act in Iraq with the support of the UN. You do understand that Turnbull still supports a price on carbon????? You make the same comparison there????? The conclusion isn't necessarily the perty line.

Labor's position
I am simply highlighting that the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affair viewed the same information and came to the same conclusion - WMD.


Turnbull
I have MANY MANY MANY MANY time highlighted that Turnbull still supports a price on carbon. It is his personal view. He implemented his personal view while he was a leader and was voted out by the party room

This is why he can never be the LIB leader again on this side of the election. If he was - it would give Gillard a double 50 meters free kick.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

The Iraq war started on 20 March 2003 Some 5 months earlier on 15 October 2002 - Rudd seems very certain about the whole ordeal It takes a few months to plan and mobilise a war - so the 5 months is well within that planning timeframe Quote: http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/a-weapon-of-mass-distraction/2008/06/04/1212258906210.html?page=fullpage In 2002 Rudd had been a great believer in Iraq's WMDs, along with Australia's very own chief UN weapons inspector, Richard "I held some in my own hands" Butler. As the Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, pointed out this week, Rudd told the State Zionist Council annual assembly on October 15, 2002: "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction … That is a matter of empirical fact."

Rudd buggered up by believing the lying little rodent, he was sucked in, just like you, boy.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 3:38pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:31am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:41am: Yes Macca Rudd was wrong what is your point???? Rudds view at that time was not the Labor view about Iraq. He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS expressing a view on FOREIGN AFFAIRS and you think this was not the view of the ALP? And remember - Rudd expressed this opinion after reviewing evidence He said the EMPIRICAL FACT was undeniable He was then the Shadow Minister for FOREIGN AFFAIRS Labors position at that time was to only act in Iraq with the support of the UN. You do understand that Turnbull still supports a price on carbon????? You make the same comparison there????? The conclusion isn't necessarily the perty line. Labor's position I am simply highlighting that the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affair viewed the same information and came to the same conclusion - WMD. Turnbull I have MANY MANY MANY MANY time highlighted that Turnbull still supports a price on carbon. It is his personal view. He implemented his personal view while he was a leader and was voted out by the party room This is why he can never be the LIB leader again on this side of the election. If he was - it would give Gillard a double 50 meters free kick.

I am simply highlighting that the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affair viewed the same information

The opposition never had access to all the same information.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 6:02pm:

The opposition never had access to all the same information.

Are you sure?

Then what basis did he make this comment?

Are you suggesting Rudd is lying?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:02pm: The opposition never had access to all the same information. Are you sure? Then what basis did he make this comment? Are you suggesting Rudd is lying?

He made his comment based on the information that WAS available to him .......

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:02pm: The opposition never had access to all the same information. Are you sure? Then what basis did he make this comment? Are you suggesting Rudd is lying? He made his comment based on the information that WAS available to him .......

And it was the same facts available to the government

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:02pm: The opposition never had access to all the same information. Are you sure? Then what basis did he make this comment? Are you suggesting Rudd is lying? He made his comment based on the information that WAS available to him ....... And it was the lies spun by the government

There  fixed.

Most of Maqqa's threads are pointless.

This one is just a bit more pointless than usual.

Australiar's white trash royalty, Howard & Downer have both stated that they would do it all over again if the same circumstances applied (invade Iraq & slaughter muslims) on the now known lies of WMD.

Its not about WMD.  This is a war on Islam.

AaLF wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

Australiar's white trash royalty, Howard & Downer have both stated that they would do it all over again if the same circumstances applied (invade Iraq & slaughter muslims) on the now known lies of WMD. Its not about WMD.  This is a war on Islam.

A war on terrorists.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

AaLF wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Australiar's white trash royalty, Howard & Downer have both stated that they would do it all over again if the same circumstances applied (invade Iraq & slaughter muslims) on the now known lies of WMD. Its not about WMD.  This is a war on Islam. A war on terrorists.

The only thing that Iraq did was to give terrorism another base and access to another market.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was a benefit to terrorism which made Australia a target of terrorists.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

AaLF wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Australiar's white trash royalty, Howard & Downer have both stated that they would do it all over again if the same circumstances applied (invade Iraq & slaughter muslims) on the now known lies of WMD. Its not about WMD.  This is a war on Islam. A war on terrorists.

A war against Islamofascists.....

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:02pm: The opposition never had access to all the same information. Are you sure? Then what basis did he make this comment? Are you suggesting Rudd is lying? He made his comment based on the information that WAS available to him ....... And it was the same facts available to the government

you're dreaming right? you think shadow ministers are privy to all the top secret stuff the govt. is privy too? especially that coming from foreign intelligence services ....???? MORON

John Smith wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:39pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:17pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:14pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 6:02pm: The opposition never had access to all the same information. Are you sure? Then what basis did he make this comment? Are you suggesting Rudd is lying? He made his comment based on the information that WAS available to him ....... And it was the same facts available to the government you're dreaming right? you think shadow ministers are privy to all the top secret stuff the govt. is privy too? especially that coming from foreign intelligence services ....???? MORON

I was going to respond to dnarever, but parts of yours seemed a more logical fit.

I have wondered how much Howard would be told by the big 2. Our mofo ancestors who would sell us down the river than have to bow down, cowtail to the likes of you convicts. America. We would like to be your friend. All you have to do is give me your lunch money and I want beat you up.

Do people seriously think the likes of UK or USA are going to bring the little piss ant Australia into our strategies, be they economic or is it because we care about people.

I think it is the former and I think we have no hope in hell of knowing the truth about the WMD's. I am just not convinced that little johnny got told the secrets.

What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002


Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

AaLF wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:30pm: Australiar's white trash royalty, Howard & Downer have both stated that they would do it all over again if the same circumstances applied (invade Iraq & slaughter muslims) on the now known lies of WMD. Its not about WMD.  This is a war on Islam. A war on terrorists.

U.S.U.K. & australia were the terrorists in the Iraq War.  haven't you read the posts above that U.S.U.K. fabricated the excuse for war & australia knowing they lied have declared they'd follow U.S.U.K. again if they lied again (IRAQ WMD).

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:20am:

What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today.

Because he wasn't a former PM then

Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then

You need to change your bib.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:34am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then You need to change your bib.

I'll let the guard know they need to increase the electricity to your electrodes

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:34am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then You need to change your bib. I'll let the guard know they need to increase the electricity to your electrodes

If they put me onto your voltage I would probably dribble as much as you do.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:45am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:40am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:34am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then You need to change your bib. I'll let the guard know they need to increase the electricity to your electrodes If they put me onto your voltage I would probably dribble as much as you do.

If I was on your voltage - all the dribble would be dried up

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:45am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:40am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:34am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then You need to change your bib. I'll let the guard know they need to increase the electricity to your electrodes If they put me onto your voltage I would probably dribble as much as you do. If I was on your voltage - all the dribble would be dried up

And that is a bad thing???  or your mother wears army boots???

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:57am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:48am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:45am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:40am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:34am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then You need to change your bib. I'll let the guard know they need to increase the electricity to your electrodes If they put me onto your voltage I would probably dribble as much as you do. If I was on your voltage - all the dribble would be dried up And that is a bad thing???  or your mother wears army boots???

We are going into the the yo-mama now are we?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:57am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:48am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:45am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:40am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:36am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:34am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:20am: What Rudd said about Iraq in Oct 2002 Rudds mistake was not even a big deal in 2002 let alone today. Because he wasn't a former PM then Because he was not backstabbed by Gillard then You need to change your bib. I'll let the guard know they need to increase the electricity to your electrodes If they put me onto your voltage I would probably dribble as much as you do. If I was on your voltage - all the dribble would be dried up And that is a bad thing???  or your mother wears army boots??? We are going into the the yo-mama now are we?

I thought the double title like in Rocky and Bullwinkle.