Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD

[Vette73]

Thompson: Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD


HaHaHa... breath... HaHaHa...


I guess ole fred only watchs Fox. Yea lets put him in the WH, I am sure he will do much better then ole George.
Fox news viewers at the bottom of the list. Guess this IS fred only sourse of "news"

 

[blackangst1]

Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

 

[umbrella39]

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," Thompson said. "He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program, and in my estimation his intent never did change."

FT is clearly an idiot and has no business being anywhere near the WH.

 

[sandorski]

Time to re-invade Germany and Japan!

 

[ProfJohn]

What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?

No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.

The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

He didn't send them anywhere. He *did* have them, but they were destroyed or monitored throughout the 90s.

There were very few unaccounted for. Additionally, he had *no* infrastructure to mass produce anything, nor did he really have any research programs in place. You'd think that if he did, then they would have trumpeted it everywhere. I guarantee you that we would have found something.

Sure, he was being an uncooperative ass, but that's because he felt violated and didn't want to cooperate fully. You can't prove you don't have something if you don't have it. The situation was akin to police harassing you, saying you have drugs in your house. You let them rip your house apart, but after a while you get tired of it and refuse to comply with their full searches. They even go through your wife's underwear drawer. Eventually you get tired of them snooping in her lingerie, so you kick them out. However, instead of being constitutionally protected, like we are, you just get accused of more wrong-doings.

Eventually, your house is repossessed, your children killed (no matter how good or evil they were), your house is then razed, and you are hung. You might have been the most evil person on the face of the planet, but that doesn't mean that the unreasonable search and seizure was correct.

A perfect example of chickenhawk alarmism was the yellowcake thing. Saddam had tons of the crap sitting in a warehouse monitored by the UN. He could have easily kicked the UN out and used it. Yet, he didn't and we falsely accused him (knowing it was false) of trying to get more.

This is nothing more than Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics used over and over again by politicians.

 

[palehorse]

The headline of that article is very misleading...

I interpreted Thompson's statements to mean that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time (which is true), and that Saddam was vigorously working toward having more of them in the future - with his whole point being that Saddam would have them by now if we had not gone in and deposed him.

That is a lot different than claiming that he had them at the time of our invasion, which is what the lame headline leads you to believe.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

If our intelligence was that poor, why did we invade them?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The headline of that article is very misleading...

I interpreted Thompson's statements to mean that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time (which is true), and that Saddam was vigorously working toward having more of them in the future - with his whole point being that Saddam would have them by now if we had not gone in and deposed him.

That is a lot different than claiming that he had them at the time of our invasion, which is what the lame headline leads you to believe.

Yeah, but if we hadn't gone in the Iraqi people would have overthrown Saddam and there'd be democracy in Iraq by now today.



Hey, one lunatic assumption is as good as another, right?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

QFT. What this shows is that the liberals are getting very scared of Fred Thompson. And for good reason. His numbers are rising.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

I saw Fred in CF last night and he was fantastic.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

yeah, he had them back in the 80s and 90s. he sent them to be dismantled. case cracked... mystery solved.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD," Thompson said. "He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program, and in my estimation his intent never did change."

FT is clearly an idiot and has no business being anywhere near the WH.

clearly.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The headline of that article is very misleading...

I interpreted Thompson's statements to mean that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time (which is true), and that Saddam was vigorously working toward having more of them in the future - with his whole point being that Saddam would have them by now if we had not gone in and deposed him.

That is a lot different than claiming that he had them at the time of our invasion, which is what the lame headline leads you to believe.

Yeah, but if we hadn't gone in the Iraqi people would have overthrown Saddam and there'd be democracy in Iraq by now today.

Hey, one lunatic assumption is as good as another, right?

fair enough, but there is nothing wrong with theorizing or playing devil's advocate... I'm sure we each have a different theory as to what could/would/should have happened in Iraq if things had been handled differently.

Thompson's predictions that Saddam would have continued to seek out WMD's are hardly unique...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

QFT. What this shows is that the liberals are getting very scared of Fred Thompson. And for good reason. His numbers are rising.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

I saw Fred in CF last night and he was fantastic.

It's going to be a little hard to run a presidential campaign on $7m. I don't think fear of FT is a concern of anyone on the left that realizes that he is a RP wannabe (someone that so desires to be relevant but can't find a way to do it).

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The headline of that article is very misleading...

I interpreted Thompson's statements to mean that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time (which is true), and that Saddam was vigorously working toward having more of them in the future - with his whole point being that Saddam would have them by now if we had not gone in and deposed him.

That is a lot different than claiming that he had them at the time of our invasion, which is what the lame headline leads you to believe.

We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any urine in Fred Thompson's underwear, he clearly has wet himself. In my estimation, he will wet himself again.

There is absolutely nothing false in the above paragraph. I firmly believe that Fred Thompson, as a baby, urinated in his diaper at least once. I also believe that Fred Thompson will live to a point where he will experience incontinence. Do I think Fred Thompson currently pisses himself? No. But if I phrase it in this way, it looks like I am accusing him of just that.

Fred Thompson tells us that Saddam clearly had WMD, but he doesn't place a timeline on it. He could be talking about the gas we sold him in the 1980s so he could ethnically cleanse the kurdish population of Iraq. But his phrasing is done in such a way as to suggest Saddam actively had WMDs when we invaded. His statement about Saddam pursuing weapons of mass destruction / a nuclear program is pure conjecture on Fred Thompson's part, and quite frankly I don't want someone in command who is going to use his own guess as a basis for war.

So no, Fred Thompson is an idiot. He probably pisses himself too.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

QFT. What this shows is that the liberals are getting very scared of Fred Thompson. And for good reason. His numbers are rising.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

I saw Fred in CF last night and he was fantastic.

qfd(umb)

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The headline of that article is very misleading...

I interpreted Thompson's statements to mean that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time (which is true), and that Saddam was vigorously working toward having more of them in the future - with his whole point being that Saddam would have them by now if we had not gone in and deposed him.

That is a lot different than claiming that he had them at the time of our invasion, which is what the lame headline leads you to believe.

We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any urine in Fred Thompson's underwear, he clearly has wet himself. In my estimation, he will wet himself again.

There is absolutely nothing false in the above paragraph. I firmly believe that Fred Thompson, as a baby, urinated in his diaper at least once. I also believe that Fred Thompson will live to a point where he will experience incontinence. Do I think Fred Thompson currently pisses himself? No. But if I phrase it in this way, it looks like I am accusing him of just that.

Fred Thompson tells us that Saddam clearly had WMD, but he doesn't place a timeline on it. He could be talking about the gas we sold him in the 1980s so he could ethnically cleanse the kurdish population of Iraq. But his phrasing is done in such a way as to suggest Saddam actively had WMDs when we invaded. His statement about Saddam pursuing weapons of mass destruction / a nuclear program is pure conjecture on Fred Thompson's part, and quite frankly I don't want someone in command who is going to use his own guess as a basis for war.

So no, Fred Thompson is an idiot. He probably pisses himself too.

hahaha

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The headline of that article is very misleading...

I interpreted Thompson's statements to mean that Saddam had WMD's at one point in time (which is true), and that Saddam was vigorously working toward having more of them in the future - with his whole point being that Saddam would have them by now if we had not gone in and deposed him.

That is a lot different than claiming that he had them at the time of our invasion, which is what the lame headline leads you to believe.

We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any urine in Fred Thompson's underwear, he clearly has wet himself. In my estimation, he will wet himself again.

There is absolutely nothing false in the above paragraph. I firmly believe that Fred Thompson, as a baby, urinated in his diaper at least once. I also believe that Fred Thompson will live to a point where he will experience incontinence. Do I think Fred Thompson currently pisses himself? No. But if I phrase it in this way, it looks like I am accusing him of just that.

Fred Thompson tells us that Saddam clearly had WMD, but he doesn't place a timeline on it. He could be talking about the gas we sold him in the 1980s so he could ethnically cleanse the kurdish population of Iraq. But his phrasing is done in such a way as to suggest Saddam actively had WMDs when we invaded. His statement about Saddam pursuing weapons of mass destruction / a nuclear program is pure conjecture on Fred Thompson's part, and quite frankly I don't want someone in command who is going to use his own guess as a basis for war.

So no, Fred Thompson is an idiot. He probably pisses himself too.

wtf?

We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any urine in Fred Thompson's underwear, he clearly has wet himself. In my estimation, he will wet himself again.

Oh and thanks reminding us that Fred is in that MINORITY of those who use vague-speak :roll:

Partisan much?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.

PJ -- You and Thompson are both raving looney tunes neocons who will say ANYTHING to perpetuate the LIES created by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal, and you both need to put down the crack pipe. :roll:

 

[techs]

HaHa! Fred Thompson is just another neo-con moron.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

Do you know how easy it is to find traces of such an activity (it's impossible to hide, not virtually impossible, not almost impossible, IMPOSSIBLE)? He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.

I'd consider anyone who thinks anything different (that it wouldn't have been known and touted like hell from the propaganda machines of politics) to be as insane as the people who think the US intentionally brought down WTC.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Thompson: Saddam Hussein 'clearly' had WMD


HaHaHa... breath... HaHaHa...


I guess ole fred only watchs Fox. Yea lets put him in the WH, I am sure he will do much better then ole George.
Fox news viewers at the bottom of the list. Guess this IS fred only sourse of "news"

For those 30% of you who still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, remember his WMD stash was a lot closer to 1985 then 2003. BTW - he got them from your hero Ronald Regan

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

He didn't send them anywhere. He *did* have them, but they were destroyed or monitored throughout the 90s.
There were very few unaccounted for. Additionally, he had *no* infrastructure to mass produce anything, nor did he really have any research programs in place. You'd think that if he did, then they would have trumpeted it everywhere. I guarantee you that we would have found something.

Sure, he was being an uncooperative ass, but that's because he felt violated and didn't want to cooperate fully. You can't prove you don't have something if you don't have it. The situation was akin to police harassing you, saying you have drugs in your house. You let them rip your house apart, but after a while you get tired of it and refuse to comply with their full searches. They even go through your wife's underwear drawer. Eventually you get tired of them snooping in her lingerie, so you kick them out. However, instead of being constitutionally protected, like we are, you just get accused of more wrong-doings.

Eventually, your house is repossessed, your children killed (no matter how good or evil they were), your house is then razed, and you are hung. You might have been the most evil person on the face of the planet, but that doesn't mean that the unreasonable search and seizure was correct.

A perfect example of chickenhawk alarmism was the yellowcake thing. Saddam had tons of the crap sitting in a warehouse monitored by the UN. He could have easily kicked the UN out and used it. Yet, he didn't and we falsely accused him (knowing it was false) of trying to get more.

This is nothing more than Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics used over and over again by politicians.

Sorry LK youre off path here. I fully understand your explaination of plausable deniability. It's the core of ANY security. However, there is sufficient evidence in the way of testimony and satellite footage to support what you call "Missile Gap/Red Scare/Domino Theory/Terrorist scare tactics".

In your example above, it would be akin to surveillance footage of trasportation of drugs into the home as well as eyewitness testimony. Just because the house toss doesnt produce evidence doesnt mean it didnt happen.

And why would Sadaam trumpet it everywhere? With all the scrutinizing of his regime that would be the last thing he would do.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

Do you know how easy it is to find traces of such an activity (it's impossible to hide, not virtually impossible, not almost impossible, IMPOSSIBLE)? He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.

I'd consider anyone who thinks anything different (that it wouldn't have been known and touted like hell from the propaganda machines of politics) to be as insane as the people who think the US intentionally brought down WTC.

And I consider anyone who ignore facts to the contrary to be a sympathizer. *shrug*

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.

QFT. What this shows is that the liberals are getting very scared of Fred Thompson. And for good reason. His numbers are rising.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

I saw Fred in CF last night and he was fantastic.

It's going to be a little hard to run a presidential campaign on $7m. I don't think fear of FT is a concern of anyone on the left that realizes that he is a RP wannabe (someone that so desires to be relevant but can't find a way to do it).

His funding and poll numbers are a joke as is his candidacy. No one fears him, he's the one who doesn't have the polls to take a stand on any issue or participate in any debates.

Why?

Because he's a lightweight who is only vaguely interested in running anyways, he has no platform and no ideas.