Author Topic: They went to Syria (Read 1572 times)

T0J0 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:05:16 PM »

I too exercise my hidden liberal needs to play fast and loose with the facts once in awhile, at least its only once in awhile.
I mean you guys bend the facts like Ted Kennedy after a night out drinking or a college exam... If it were up to John the War Hero Kerry-Saddam would still be in power, his sons would still be practicing rapists and the whole Oil for Saddams vegas style digs would continue forever.... It took a guy with Balls to remove a looser from power, and along the way the great women of the left cried and kicked and screamed because we didn't leave it to the all powerful cheese handing out UN peacekeeping titans, those humanitarian forces of goodness, the same agency that took a week to send an envoy to the tsunami region to discuss a possible humanitarian effert that might come in several weeks but delayed because all the 4 star hotels were booked, but that didn't stop the greatest military in the world from showing up within the second day with ships, helicopters and supplies to relieve the tsunami victims, meanwhile the french sent 47 tents and a dog....
If its easier to believe that BUSH Lied then it is to believe that WMD's were moved at some point of time your a liberal, its not your fault..Men who know how to use guns and ride a horse are scary, thats why the left voted to elect a president whom never worked a real job his entire life, married into wealth, spoke french fluently, when he did hold a job he missed more days of work then he showed up, and then stated if he was president he would seek yourappean approval for all US international affairs, then to make matters worse had a running mate with a Moe Howard haircut who chased ambulances for a livng...

TJ

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #46 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:09:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
He is going to address the senate next week. What he has to say at least needs to be investigated.

Definitely. If it's true, they are still a threat.
-SW

xrtoronto · « **Reply #47 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:21:11 PM »

who was lying?

no one answered my question: why in 2001 did this admin say there is definately no WMD and then 12 months later say just the opposite (and use fraudulent documents to try to support their claim?)

are the WMD that were moved to syria going to put the world at peril in only 45 minutes still?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #48 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:31:24 PM »

Quote

why in 2001 did this admin say there is definately no WMD

From your link:

Quote

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.

It does not appear that powel is saying or ever said "there is deinately no WMD"

EDIT:

And what fraudulent documents are you reffering to.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:37:49 PM »

We Must Invade Syria

Gunslinger · « **Reply #50 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:41:32 PM »

Raider you forgot these guys:

Unfortuatly it's the grunts that take most of the losses

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:46:42 PM »

First to Fight:aok

xrtoronto · « **Reply #52 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:49:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
From your link:

It does not appear that powel is saying or ever said "there is deinately no WMD"

last paragraph on the last link:
"There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power."

that's a very long way from being capable of delivering wmd's in 45 minutes around the world

Gunslinger · « **Reply #53 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:53:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
last paragraph on the last link:
"There you have it. Four to seven months before 9/11--and just 15 to 18 months before the drive to attack Iraq seriously revved up--the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor trumpeted that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power."

that's a very long way from being capable of delivering wmd's in 45 minutes around the world

But that's not what you said, and again what forged documents?

xrtoronto · « **Reply #54 on:** January 28, 2006, 04:58:22 PM »

the Niger doc on uranium which was used to support the invasion was later proven to be fraudulent (i posted the link in support of that statement within the last hour)

ps: I gotta break for dinner...it's 6pm in the east..back later buddy!:)

Silat · « **Reply #55 on:** January 28, 2006, 05:27:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Me neither. The anti-war crowed wants to hear the "Bush Lied" lies over and over again because it re-affirms their stuart smally beleifs that the new "king george" secretly goosetepps in his genuine imitation imported gestapo boots every night before his scheduled bed time.

What's really sad is.....to me, this sounds more plausible then a conspiracy theory about a "president snowing his entire administration and telling lies to his nation (not to mention brainwashing both republicans and democrats to say the very same lie for the last 10 or so years and getting the previous administration to write into US law in 1998 the very thing that he set out to d) to go to war to help his oil buddies and Cheny's Haliburton stock all the while finishing the job that his daddy started."

Bush himself said that there are/were no weapons of M D. Why are you still saying this stuff?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #56 on:** January 28, 2006, 05:33:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
the Niger doc on uranium which was used to support the invasion was later proven to be fraudulent (i posted the link in support of that statement within the last hour)

ps: I gotta break for dinner...it's 6pm in the east..back later buddy!:)

There's probably alot of false/bad intell out there. But,

Quote

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #57 on:** January 28, 2006, 05:35:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Bush himself said that there are/were no weapons of M D. Why are you still saying this stuff?

Considering Bush's track record I think I would beleive a formor Iraqi Air Force General over him on this matter, wouldn't you agree?

Either way it's worth looking into.

culero · « **Reply #58 on:** January 28, 2006, 05:39:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by T0J0
snip
meanwhile the french sent 47 tents and a dog....

R_O_T_F_L_M_A_O_!!!

Great line

culero

Stringer · « **Reply #59 on:** January 28, 2006, 06:18:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Considering Bush's track record I think I would beleive a formor Iraqi Air Force General over him on this matter, wouldn't you agree?

Either way it's worth looking into.

Well, we've had feet on the ground in Iraq for sometime now.

I'd say we've looked plenty. There'd be evidence of their existence if the program was as big of a threat as it was told to us.