Viewing Thread:
"Blair must not be happy with Bush"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm

1st Bush says "No link between Sept 11th and Iraq", now a Washington source has indicated the report into WOMD will more than likely say that they never were there in the first place.

Wow, it's almost like the reasons offered for the invasion were lies.
Now, the chances of Blair acting honourably and resigning/commiting Sepuku in front of the assembled media is highly unlikely, but here's to hoping.

Never an Oswald when you need one

Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> If you were hip and down with the kids like me then you would know
> that 'movie' is modern jive talk for 'book'.
>
> *exchanges 'hip and down with the kids' for 'retarded'*

Ouch. I feel that your insults lack both style and originality. I would hit you with a devestating comeback but it would be like playing football with a five year old. I am rubber, you are glue.

Goatboy wrote:
> Trust me, I was (and still am) laughing at you for using Tom Clancy.
> You didn't say anything about a film/book, you just said "sum of
> all fears sums it up nicely"
---

Edit: Actually you did say "Sum of all fear movie", but that is still based on Tom Clancy.
Semantics aside, my original sniggering still stands.

*points and laughs*

Even if it was just the movie version, what kind of political argument uses a Hollywood movie as some kind of reference?
"Well Mr President, we should cease the training and funding of death squads in Colombia and should pull back the level of mafia-assisted drug running using fake airlines because Arnold Schwarzenegger clearly demonstrated how useful one ex-Commando can be under pressure"

Belldandy wrote:
> But Goatboy said I was referencing Tom Clancy, Clancy wrote all the
> book, but the film was someone else's version of it, hence any
> reference to the movie would not be a reference to Tom Clancy but to
> Paul Attansio and Daniel Pyne who were the writers for the movie.
---

Trust me, I was (and still am) laughing at you for using Tom Clancy.
You didn't say anything about a film/book, you just said "sum of all fears sums it up nicely"
Twist and turn it all you want, fact remains I'm laughing at you.
For using Tom Clancy - a portly author of white-house approved literature as some sort of all-encompassing oracle of righteous action.
The dude is an author.

It's like me discussing crime and punishment in England by constantly quoting Enid Blyton.

unknown kernel wrote:
> If you were hip and down with the kids like me then you would know
> that 'movie' is modern jive talk for 'book'.

*exchanges 'hip and down with the kids' for 'retarded'*

Memorandum! wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> The Sum Of All Fears movie hinted at this

But Goatboy said I was referencing Tom Clancy, Clancy wrote all the book, but the film was someone else's version of it, hence any reference to the movie would not be a reference to Tom Clancy but to Paul Attansio and Daniel Pyne who were the writers for the movie.

If you were hip and down with the kids like me then you would know that 'movie' is modern jive talk for 'book'.

See below.

Belldandy wrote:
> The Sum Of All Fears movie hinted at this

Goatboy wrote:
> And Sky with the same story:
> http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12808438,00.html

So a story saying Saddam created and wanted to give the impression he had WMD, and made efforts to give this appearance, and one based on a report no one outside of the US Congress has seen, and an interim one at that, proves what exactly ?

Blank wrote:
> "The Sum of All Fears hinted at it" - it's a film,
> Belldandy, designed to entertain not inform.

Moron, it's the book which goes into detail about it, the film bears little resemblance to it.